The Equivalence of categories reference article from the English Wikipedia on 24-Apr-2004
(provided by Fixed Reference: snapshots of Wikipedia from wikipedia.org)

Equivalence of categories

For thoughtful child sponsors
In category theory, an abstract branch of mathematics, an equivalence of categories is a relation between two categories that establishes that these categories are "essentially the same". There are numerous examples of categorical equivalences from many areas of mathematics. Establishing such an equivalence usually means to discover strong similarities between mathematical structures that formerly were considered to be unrelated or where the relation was not understood properly. The gain of this usually is a better understanding of the nature of the considered objects and the possibility to translate theorems between different kinds of mathematical structures. If a category is equivalent to the dual of another category then one speaks of a duality of categories.

An equivalence of categories consists of a functor between the involved categories, which is required to have an "inverse" functor. However, in contrast to the situation common for isomorphisms in an algebraic setting, the composition of the functor and its "inverse" is not necessarily the identity mapping. Instead it is sufficient that each object be naturally isomorphic to its image under this composition. Thus one may describe the functors as being "inverse up to isomorphism". There is indeed a concept of isomorphism of categories where a strict form of inverse functor is required; but this is of much less practical use than the equivalence concept.

Table of contents
1 Definition
2 Equivalent Characterizations
3 Examples
4 Properties

Definition

Formally, given two categories C and D, an equivalence of categories is a functor F : C -> D such that there is a functor G : D -> C with the composition FG naturally isomorphic to ID, and GF naturally isomorphic to IC. Here ID denotes the identity functor D -> D that assigns every object and every morphism to itself.

In this situation, we say that the categories C and D are equivalent. If F and G are contravariant functors, then one speaks instead of a ''duality of categories''.

Equivalent Characterizations

The above definition is probably the easiest one of many equivalent statements, some of which are listed below.

One can show that a functor F : C -> D is an equivalence of categories if and only if it is

This is a quite useful and commonly applied criterion, because one does not have to explicitly construct the "inverse" G and the natural isomorphisms between FG, GF and the identity functors.

There is also a close relation to the concept of adjoint functors. The following statements are equivalent for functors

F : C -> D and G : D -> C:

One may therefore view an adjointness relation between two functors as a "very weak form of equivalence".

Examples

Properties

As a rule of thumb, an equivalence of categories preserves all "categorical" concepts and properties. If F : C -> D is an equivalence, then the following statements are all true:

Dualities "turn all concepts around": they turn initial objects into terminal objects, monomorphisms into epimorphisms, kernels into cokernels, limits into colimits etc.

If F : C -> D is an equivalence of categories, and G1 and G2 are two inverses, then G1 and G2 are naturally isomorphic.

If F : C -> D is an equivalence of categories, and if C is a preadditive category (or additive category, or abelian category), then D may be turned into a preadditive category (or additive category, or abelian category) in such a way that F becomes an additive functor. On the other hand, any equivalence between additive categories is necessarily additive. (Note that the latter statement is not true for equivalences between preadditive categories.)

An auto-equivalence of a category C is an equivalence F : C -> C. The auto-equivalences of C form a group under composition if we consider two auto-equivalences that are naturally isomorphic to be identical. This group captures the essential "symmetries" of C. (One caveat: if C is not a small category, then the auto-equivalences of C may form a proper class rather than a set.)