Mixing
A coend in the category of vector spaces
$begingroup$
Let $Vect_k$ denote the category of (not necessarily finite-dimensional) $k$-vector spaces. Clearly, this category is closed symmetric monoidal with internal hom $[X,Y]=Hom_k(X,Y)$.
Is it true that the coend $int^{Xin Vect_k}, [X,X]$ doesn't exist? I'm pretty sure that it doesn't, since in general there is no trace $tr_X:[X,X] to k$, but I want to be sure. What makes me uncertain is that I read that the category of $k$-vector spaces is cocomplete..
linear-algebra abstract-algebra category-theory monoidal-categories
asked Jan 23 at 22:46
Bipolar MindsBipolar Minds
515310
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $Vect_k$ denote the category of (not necessarily finite-dimensional) $k$-vector spaces. Clearly, this category is closed symmetric monoidal with internal hom $[X,Y]=Hom_k(X,Y)$.
Is it true that the coend $int^{Xin Vect_k}, [X,X]$ doesn't exist? I'm pretty sure that it doesn't, since in general there is no trace $tr_X:[X,X] to k$, but I want to be sure. What makes me uncertain is that I read that the category of $k$-vector spaces is cocomplete..
linear-algebra abstract-algebra category-theory monoidal-categories
asked Jan 23 at 22:46
Bipolar MindsBipolar Minds
515310
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Cocompleteness is usually with respect to small diagrams, i.e. diagrams indexed by a small category. $mathsf{Vect}_k$ is not a small category.
$endgroup$
– Derek Elkins
Jan 23 at 22:54
$begingroup$
that's what I thought, thanks! so the coend doesn't exist?
$endgroup$
– Bipolar Minds
Jan 23 at 23:02
1
$begingroup$
Actually proving that it doesn't exist would probably be pretty tricky (and necessarily involves some analysis of size issues--the coend "morally" exists as a certain class vector space, and the question is essentially whether that class actually is a set).
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
Jan 23 at 23:11
$begingroup$
@BipolarMinds As demonstrated by Eric Wofsey, my comment only implies that we can't say it exists just because $mathsf{Vect}_k$ is cocomplete. It does not imply that it does not exist. That is, cocompleteness states that colimits of small diagrams exist, but says nothing one way or the other about large diagrams. It's just important to be careful about this or about (co)limits over large diagrams in general.
$endgroup$
– Derek Elkins
Jan 24 at 0:06
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $Vect_k$ denote the category of (not necessarily finite-dimensional) $k$-vector spaces. Clearly, this category is closed symmetric monoidal with internal hom $[X,Y]=Hom_k(X,Y)$.
Is it true that the coend $int^{Xin Vect_k}, [X,X]$ doesn't exist? I'm pretty sure that it doesn't, since in general there is no trace $tr_X:[X,X] to k$, but I want to be sure. What makes me uncertain is that I read that the category of $k$-vector spaces is cocomplete..
linear-algebra abstract-algebra category-theory monoidal-categories
asked Jan 23 at 22:46
Bipolar MindsBipolar Minds
515310
$endgroup$
Let $Vect_k$ denote the category of (not necessarily finite-dimensional) $k$-vector spaces. Clearly, this category is closed symmetric monoidal with internal hom $[X,Y]=Hom_k(X,Y)$.
Is it true that the coend $int^{Xin Vect_k}, [X,X]$ doesn't exist? I'm pretty sure that it doesn't, since in general there is no trace $tr_X:[X,X] to k$, but I want to be sure. What makes me uncertain is that I read that the category of $k$-vector spaces is cocomplete..
linear-algebra abstract-algebra category-theory monoidal-categories
linear-algebra abstract-algebra category-theory monoidal-categories
asked Jan 23 at 22:46
Bipolar MindsBipolar Minds
515310
asked Jan 23 at 22:46
Bipolar MindsBipolar Minds
515310
asked Jan 23 at 22:46
Bipolar MindsBipolar Minds
515310
asked Jan 23 at 22:46
Bipolar MindsBipolar Minds
515310
asked Jan 23 at 22:46
Bipolar MindsBipolar Minds
515310
515310
1
$begingroup$
Cocompleteness is usually with respect to small diagrams, i.e. diagrams indexed by a small category. $mathsf{Vect}_k$ is not a small category.
$endgroup$
– Derek Elkins
Jan 23 at 22:54
$begingroup$
that's what I thought, thanks! so the coend doesn't exist?
$endgroup$
– Bipolar Minds
Jan 23 at 23:02
1
$begingroup$
Actually proving that it doesn't exist would probably be pretty tricky (and necessarily involves some analysis of size issues--the coend "morally" exists as a certain class vector space, and the question is essentially whether that class actually is a set).
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
Jan 23 at 23:11
$begingroup$
@BipolarMinds As demonstrated by Eric Wofsey, my comment only implies that we can't say it exists just because $mathsf{Vect}_k$ is cocomplete. It does not imply that it does not exist. That is, cocompleteness states that colimits of small diagrams exist, but says nothing one way or the other about large diagrams. It's just important to be careful about this or about (co)limits over large diagrams in general.
$endgroup$
– Derek Elkins
Jan 24 at 0:06
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Cocompleteness is usually with respect to small diagrams, i.e. diagrams indexed by a small category. $mathsf{Vect}_k$ is not a small category.
$endgroup$
– Derek Elkins
Jan 23 at 22:54
$begingroup$
that's what I thought, thanks! so the coend doesn't exist?
$endgroup$
– Bipolar Minds
Jan 23 at 23:02
1
$begingroup$
Actually proving that it doesn't exist would probably be pretty tricky (and necessarily involves some analysis of size issues--the coend "morally" exists as a certain class vector space, and the question is essentially whether that class actually is a set).
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
Jan 23 at 23:11
$begingroup$
@BipolarMinds As demonstrated by Eric Wofsey, my comment only implies that we can't say it exists just because $mathsf{Vect}_k$ is cocomplete. It does not imply that it does not exist. That is, cocompleteness states that colimits of small diagrams exist, but says nothing one way or the other about large diagrams. It's just important to be careful about this or about (co)limits over large diagrams in general.
$endgroup$
– Derek Elkins
Jan 24 at 0:06
1
1
$begingroup$
Cocompleteness is usually with respect to small diagrams, i.e. diagrams indexed by a small category. $mathsf{Vect}_k$ is not a small category.
$endgroup$
– Derek Elkins
Jan 23 at 22:54
$begingroup$
Cocompleteness is usually with respect to small diagrams, i.e. diagrams indexed by a small category. $mathsf{Vect}_k$ is not a small category.
$endgroup$
– Derek Elkins
Jan 23 at 22:54
$begingroup$
that's what I thought, thanks! so the coend doesn't exist?
$endgroup$
– Bipolar Minds
Jan 23 at 23:02
$begingroup$
that's what I thought, thanks! so the coend doesn't exist?
$endgroup$
– Bipolar Minds
Jan 23 at 23:02
1
1
$begingroup$
Actually proving that it doesn't exist would probably be pretty tricky (and necessarily involves some analysis of size issues--the coend "morally" exists as a certain class vector space, and the question is essentially whether that class actually is a set).
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
Jan 23 at 23:11
$begingroup$
Actually proving that it doesn't exist would probably be pretty tricky (and necessarily involves some analysis of size issues--the coend "morally" exists as a certain class vector space, and the question is essentially whether that class actually is a set).
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
Jan 23 at 23:11
$begingroup$
@BipolarMinds As demonstrated by Eric Wofsey, my comment only implies that we can't say it exists just because $mathsf{Vect}_k$ is cocomplete. It does not imply that it does not exist. That is, cocompleteness states that colimits of small diagrams exist, but says nothing one way or the other about large diagrams. It's just important to be careful about this or about (co)limits over large diagrams in general.
$endgroup$
– Derek Elkins
Jan 24 at 0:06
$begingroup$
@BipolarMinds As demonstrated by Eric Wofsey, my comment only implies that we can't say it exists just because $mathsf{Vect}_k$ is cocomplete. It does not imply that it does not exist. That is, cocompleteness states that colimits of small diagrams exist, but says nothing one way or the other about large diagrams. It's just important to be careful about this or about (co)limits over large diagrams in general.
$endgroup$
– Derek Elkins
Jan 24 at 0:06
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
This coend actually does exist: it is just $0$. Morally, the idea is an Eilenberg swindle. Suppose we had a trace operation $tr$ defined for all vector spaces, and let $A$ be any endomorphism of a vector space.
Then if you take an infinite direct sum $B$ of copies of $A$, $tr(B)$ should be an infinite sum of copies of $tr(A)$. But if you add one more term $tr(A)$ to that infinite sum, it won't change the sum. But that means $tr(B)=tr(B)+tr(A)$ and so $tr(A)$ must be $0$.
To make this idea precise, let us recall that the coend (if it exists) is the initial vector space $V$ together with a linear map $tr_X:[X,X]to V$ for each vector space $X$ such that for any pair of linear maps $A:Xto Y$ and $B:Yto X$, $tr_X(BA)=tr_Y(AB)$. To prove that $V=0$ has this universal property, it suffices to show that any such collection of linear maps $tr_X:[X,X]to V$ for any $V$ satisfies $tr_X=0$ for all $X$.
So, suppose we have a vector space $V$ and such linear maps $tr_X:[X,X]to V$. Fix a vector space $X$ and $Ain [X,X]$; we will show that $tr_X(A)=0$. To do this, let $Y=X^{oplusmathbb{N}}$ and define $R:Yto Y$ by $$R(x_0,x_1,x_2,dots)=(0,Ax_0,Ax_1,Ax_2,dots)$$ and $L:Yto Y$ by $$L(x_0,x_1,x_2,dots)=(x_1,x_2,x_3,dots).$$ We then have $tr_Y(RL)=tr_Y(LR)$, so $tr_Y(LR-RL)=0$. However, notice that $LR-RL$ is given by the formula $$(LR-RL)(x_0,x_1,x_2,dots)=(Ax_0,0,0,dots).$$ Now let $i:Xto Y$ be the inclusion of the first summand and $p:Yto X$ be the projection onto the first summand. We have $$tr_X(piA)=tr_Y(iAp).$$ But $piA=A$ and $iAp=LR-RL$ by the formula above, so this means $$tr_X(A)=tr_Y(LR-RL)=0,$$ as desired.
answered Jan 23 at 23:43
Eric WofseyEric Wofsey
189k14216347
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
cool, I didn't expect this.. Eilenberg swindle - I have to remember that
$endgroup$
– Bipolar Minds
Jan 23 at 23:53
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3085187%2fa-coend-in-the-category-of-vector-spaces%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
This coend actually does exist: it is just $0$. Morally, the idea is an Eilenberg swindle. Suppose we had a trace operation $tr$ defined for all vector spaces, and let $A$ be any endomorphism of a vector space.
Then if you take an infinite direct sum $B$ of copies of $A$, $tr(B)$ should be an infinite sum of copies of $tr(A)$. But if you add one more term $tr(A)$ to that infinite sum, it won't change the sum. But that means $tr(B)=tr(B)+tr(A)$ and so $tr(A)$ must be $0$.
To make this idea precise, let us recall that the coend (if it exists) is the initial vector space $V$ together with a linear map $tr_X:[X,X]to V$ for each vector space $X$ such that for any pair of linear maps $A:Xto Y$ and $B:Yto X$, $tr_X(BA)=tr_Y(AB)$. To prove that $V=0$ has this universal property, it suffices to show that any such collection of linear maps $tr_X:[X,X]to V$ for any $V$ satisfies $tr_X=0$ for all $X$.
So, suppose we have a vector space $V$ and such linear maps $tr_X:[X,X]to V$. Fix a vector space $X$ and $Ain [X,X]$; we will show that $tr_X(A)=0$. To do this, let $Y=X^{oplusmathbb{N}}$ and define $R:Yto Y$ by $$R(x_0,x_1,x_2,dots)=(0,Ax_0,Ax_1,Ax_2,dots)$$ and $L:Yto Y$ by $$L(x_0,x_1,x_2,dots)=(x_1,x_2,x_3,dots).$$ We then have $tr_Y(RL)=tr_Y(LR)$, so $tr_Y(LR-RL)=0$. However, notice that $LR-RL$ is given by the formula $$(LR-RL)(x_0,x_1,x_2,dots)=(Ax_0,0,0,dots).$$ Now let $i:Xto Y$ be the inclusion of the first summand and $p:Yto X$ be the projection onto the first summand. We have $$tr_X(piA)=tr_Y(iAp).$$ But $piA=A$ and $iAp=LR-RL$ by the formula above, so this means $$tr_X(A)=tr_Y(LR-RL)=0,$$ as desired.
answered Jan 23 at 23:43
Eric WofseyEric Wofsey
189k14216347
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
cool, I didn't expect this.. Eilenberg swindle - I have to remember that
$endgroup$
– Bipolar Minds
Jan 23 at 23:53
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This coend actually does exist: it is just $0$. Morally, the idea is an Eilenberg swindle. Suppose we had a trace operation $tr$ defined for all vector spaces, and let $A$ be any endomorphism of a vector space.
Then if you take an infinite direct sum $B$ of copies of $A$, $tr(B)$ should be an infinite sum of copies of $tr(A)$. But if you add one more term $tr(A)$ to that infinite sum, it won't change the sum. But that means $tr(B)=tr(B)+tr(A)$ and so $tr(A)$ must be $0$.
To make this idea precise, let us recall that the coend (if it exists) is the initial vector space $V$ together with a linear map $tr_X:[X,X]to V$ for each vector space $X$ such that for any pair of linear maps $A:Xto Y$ and $B:Yto X$, $tr_X(BA)=tr_Y(AB)$. To prove that $V=0$ has this universal property, it suffices to show that any such collection of linear maps $tr_X:[X,X]to V$ for any $V$ satisfies $tr_X=0$ for all $X$.
So, suppose we have a vector space $V$ and such linear maps $tr_X:[X,X]to V$. Fix a vector space $X$ and $Ain [X,X]$; we will show that $tr_X(A)=0$. To do this, let $Y=X^{oplusmathbb{N}}$ and define $R:Yto Y$ by $$R(x_0,x_1,x_2,dots)=(0,Ax_0,Ax_1,Ax_2,dots)$$ and $L:Yto Y$ by $$L(x_0,x_1,x_2,dots)=(x_1,x_2,x_3,dots).$$ We then have $tr_Y(RL)=tr_Y(LR)$, so $tr_Y(LR-RL)=0$. However, notice that $LR-RL$ is given by the formula $$(LR-RL)(x_0,x_1,x_2,dots)=(Ax_0,0,0,dots).$$ Now let $i:Xto Y$ be the inclusion of the first summand and $p:Yto X$ be the projection onto the first summand. We have $$tr_X(piA)=tr_Y(iAp).$$ But $piA=A$ and $iAp=LR-RL$ by the formula above, so this means $$tr_X(A)=tr_Y(LR-RL)=0,$$ as desired.
answered Jan 23 at 23:43
Eric WofseyEric Wofsey
189k14216347
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
cool, I didn't expect this.. Eilenberg swindle - I have to remember that
$endgroup$
– Bipolar Minds
Jan 23 at 23:53
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This coend actually does exist: it is just $0$. Morally, the idea is an Eilenberg swindle. Suppose we had a trace operation $tr$ defined for all vector spaces, and let $A$ be any endomorphism of a vector space.
Then if you take an infinite direct sum $B$ of copies of $A$, $tr(B)$ should be an infinite sum of copies of $tr(A)$. But if you add one more term $tr(A)$ to that infinite sum, it won't change the sum. But that means $tr(B)=tr(B)+tr(A)$ and so $tr(A)$ must be $0$.
To make this idea precise, let us recall that the coend (if it exists) is the initial vector space $V$ together with a linear map $tr_X:[X,X]to V$ for each vector space $X$ such that for any pair of linear maps $A:Xto Y$ and $B:Yto X$, $tr_X(BA)=tr_Y(AB)$. To prove that $V=0$ has this universal property, it suffices to show that any such collection of linear maps $tr_X:[X,X]to V$ for any $V$ satisfies $tr_X=0$ for all $X$.
So, suppose we have a vector space $V$ and such linear maps $tr_X:[X,X]to V$. Fix a vector space $X$ and $Ain [X,X]$; we will show that $tr_X(A)=0$. To do this, let $Y=X^{oplusmathbb{N}}$ and define $R:Yto Y$ by $$R(x_0,x_1,x_2,dots)=(0,Ax_0,Ax_1,Ax_2,dots)$$ and $L:Yto Y$ by $$L(x_0,x_1,x_2,dots)=(x_1,x_2,x_3,dots).$$ We then have $tr_Y(RL)=tr_Y(LR)$, so $tr_Y(LR-RL)=0$. However, notice that $LR-RL$ is given by the formula $$(LR-RL)(x_0,x_1,x_2,dots)=(Ax_0,0,0,dots).$$ Now let $i:Xto Y$ be the inclusion of the first summand and $p:Yto X$ be the projection onto the first summand. We have $$tr_X(piA)=tr_Y(iAp).$$ But $piA=A$ and $iAp=LR-RL$ by the formula above, so this means $$tr_X(A)=tr_Y(LR-RL)=0,$$ as desired.
answered Jan 23 at 23:43
Eric WofseyEric Wofsey
189k14216347
$endgroup$
This coend actually does exist: it is just $0$. Morally, the idea is an Eilenberg swindle. Suppose we had a trace operation $tr$ defined for all vector spaces, and let $A$ be any endomorphism of a vector space.
Then if you take an infinite direct sum $B$ of copies of $A$, $tr(B)$ should be an infinite sum of copies of $tr(A)$. But if you add one more term $tr(A)$ to that infinite sum, it won't change the sum. But that means $tr(B)=tr(B)+tr(A)$ and so $tr(A)$ must be $0$.
To make this idea precise, let us recall that the coend (if it exists) is the initial vector space $V$ together with a linear map $tr_X:[X,X]to V$ for each vector space $X$ such that for any pair of linear maps $A:Xto Y$ and $B:Yto X$, $tr_X(BA)=tr_Y(AB)$. To prove that $V=0$ has this universal property, it suffices to show that any such collection of linear maps $tr_X:[X,X]to V$ for any $V$ satisfies $tr_X=0$ for all $X$.
So, suppose we have a vector space $V$ and such linear maps $tr_X:[X,X]to V$. Fix a vector space $X$ and $Ain [X,X]$; we will show that $tr_X(A)=0$. To do this, let $Y=X^{oplusmathbb{N}}$ and define $R:Yto Y$ by $$R(x_0,x_1,x_2,dots)=(0,Ax_0,Ax_1,Ax_2,dots)$$ and $L:Yto Y$ by $$L(x_0,x_1,x_2,dots)=(x_1,x_2,x_3,dots).$$ We then have $tr_Y(RL)=tr_Y(LR)$, so $tr_Y(LR-RL)=0$. However, notice that $LR-RL$ is given by the formula $$(LR-RL)(x_0,x_1,x_2,dots)=(Ax_0,0,0,dots).$$ Now let $i:Xto Y$ be the inclusion of the first summand and $p:Yto X$ be the projection onto the first summand. We have $$tr_X(piA)=tr_Y(iAp).$$ But $piA=A$ and $iAp=LR-RL$ by the formula above, so this means $$tr_X(A)=tr_Y(LR-RL)=0,$$ as desired.
answered Jan 23 at 23:43
Eric WofseyEric Wofsey
189k14216347
edited Jan 23 at 23:51
answered Jan 23 at 23:43
Eric WofseyEric Wofsey
189k14216347
answered Jan 23 at 23:43
Eric WofseyEric Wofsey
189k14216347
answered Jan 23 at 23:43
Eric WofseyEric Wofsey
189k14216347
189k14216347
$begingroup$
cool, I didn't expect this.. Eilenberg swindle - I have to remember that
$endgroup$
– Bipolar Minds
Jan 23 at 23:53
add a comment |
$begingroup$
cool, I didn't expect this.. Eilenberg swindle - I have to remember that
$endgroup$
– Bipolar Minds
Jan 23 at 23:53
$begingroup$
cool, I didn't expect this.. Eilenberg swindle - I have to remember that
$endgroup$
– Bipolar Minds
Jan 23 at 23:53
$begingroup$
cool, I didn't expect this.. Eilenberg swindle - I have to remember that
$endgroup$
– Bipolar Minds
Jan 23 at 23:53
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3085187%2fa-coend-in-the-category-of-vector-spaces%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
Cocompleteness is usually with respect to small diagrams, i.e. diagrams indexed by a small category. $mathsf{Vect}_k$ is not a small category.
$endgroup$
– Derek Elkins
Jan 23 at 22:54
$begingroup$
that's what I thought, thanks! so the coend doesn't exist?
$endgroup$
– Bipolar Minds
Jan 23 at 23:02
1
$begingroup$
Actually proving that it doesn't exist would probably be pretty tricky (and necessarily involves some analysis of size issues--the coend "morally" exists as a certain class vector space, and the question is essentially whether that class actually is a set).
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
Jan 23 at 23:11
$begingroup$
@BipolarMinds As demonstrated by Eric Wofsey, my comment only implies that we can't say it exists just because $mathsf{Vect}_k$ is cocomplete. It does not imply that it does not exist. That is, cocompleteness states that colimits of small diagrams exist, but says nothing one way or the other about large diagrams. It's just important to be careful about this or about (co)limits over large diagrams in general.
$endgroup$
– Derek Elkins
Jan 24 at 0:06