## 4.6 Fibre products

Definition 4.6.1. Let $x, y, z\in \mathop{\mathrm{Ob}}\nolimits (\mathcal{C})$, $f\in \mathop{\mathrm{Mor}}\nolimits _\mathcal {C}(x, y)$ and $g\in \mathop{\mathrm{Mor}}\nolimits _{\mathcal C}(z, y)$. A fibre product of $f$ and $g$ is an object $x \times _ y z\in \mathop{\mathrm{Ob}}\nolimits (\mathcal{C})$ together with morphisms $p \in \mathop{\mathrm{Mor}}\nolimits _{\mathcal C}(x \times _ y z, x)$ and $q \in \mathop{\mathrm{Mor}}\nolimits _{\mathcal C}(x \times _ y z, z)$ making the diagram

$\xymatrix{ x \times _ y z \ar[r]_ q \ar[d]_ p & z \ar[d]^ g \\ x \ar[r]^ f & y }$

commute, and such that the following universal property holds: for any $w\in \mathop{\mathrm{Ob}}\nolimits (\mathcal{C})$ and morphisms $\alpha \in \mathop{\mathrm{Mor}}\nolimits _{\mathcal C}(w, x)$ and $\beta \in \mathop{\mathrm{Mor}}\nolimits _\mathcal {C}(w, z)$ with $f \circ \alpha = g \circ \beta$ there is a unique $\gamma \in \mathop{\mathrm{Mor}}\nolimits _{\mathcal C}(w, x \times _ y z)$ making the diagram

$\xymatrix{ w \ar[rrrd]^\beta \ar@{-->}[rrd]_\gamma \ar[rrdd]_\alpha & & \\ & & x \times _ y z \ar[d]^ p \ar[r]_ q & z \ar[d]^ g \\ & & x \ar[r]^ f & y }$

commute.

If a fibre product exists it is unique up to unique isomorphism. This follows from the Yoneda lemma as the definition requires $x \times _ y z$ to be an object of $\mathcal{C}$ such that

$h_{x \times _ y z}(w) = h_ x(w) \times _{h_ y(w)} h_ z(w)$

functorially in $w$. In other words the fibre product $x \times _ y z$ is an object representing the functor $w \mapsto h_ x(w) \times _{h_ y(w)} h_ z(w)$.

Definition 4.6.2. We say a commutative diagram

$\xymatrix{ w \ar[r] \ar[d] & z \ar[d] \\ x \ar[r] & y }$

in a category is cartesian if $w$ and the morphisms $w \to x$ and $w \to z$ form a fibre product of the morphisms $x \to y$ and $z \to y$.

Definition 4.6.3. We say the category $\mathcal{C}$ has fibre products if the fibre product exists for any $f\in \mathop{\mathrm{Mor}}\nolimits _{\mathcal C}(x, y)$ and $g\in \mathop{\mathrm{Mor}}\nolimits _{\mathcal C}(z, y)$.

Definition 4.6.4. A morphism $f : x \to y$ of a category $\mathcal{C}$ is said to be representable if for every morphism $z \to y$ in $\mathcal{C}$ the fibre product $x \times _ y z$ exists.

Lemma 4.6.5. Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a category. Let $f : x \to y$, and $g : y \to z$ be representable. Then $g \circ f : x \to z$ is representable.

Proof. Omitted. $\square$

Lemma 4.6.6. Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a category. Let $f : x \to y$ be representable. Let $y' \to y$ be a morphism of $\mathcal{C}$. Then the morphism $x' := x \times _ y y' \to y'$ is representable also.

Proof. Let $z \to y'$ be a morphism. The fibre product $x' \times _{y'} z$ is supposed to represent the functor

\begin{eqnarray*} w & \mapsto & h_{x'}(w)\times _{h_{y'}(w)} h_ z(w) \\ & = & (h_ x(w) \times _{h_ y(w)} h_{y'}(w)) \times _{h_{y'}(w)} h_ z(w) \\ & = & h_ x(w) \times _{h_ y(w)} h_ z(w) \end{eqnarray*}

which is representable by assumption. $\square$

Comment #153 by on

After 001V, one should add the definition of cartesian square, use without definition for the first time in 0024.

Comment #3413 by Herman Rohrbach on

It might be nice to state a "pasting law for pullbacks" (see e.g. https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/pasting+law+for+pullbacks). For example, lemma 001Y is a direct consequence of this.

Comment #3472 by on

Maybe, but actually, Lemma 4.6.5 seems totally trivial to me. I guess what I am saying is that the "pasting law" is akin to $1 + 1 = 2$ once you've been sufficiently indoctrinated. I am not trying to be snarky or annoying (just trying to become more like my hero Linus Torvalds...)

In your comment you can use Markdown and LaTeX style mathematics (enclose it like $\pi$). A preview option is available if you wish to see how it works out (just click on the eye in the toolbar).