# Talk:Direct limit

WikiProject Mathematics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Mathematics rating:
 Start Class
 Mid Importance
Field:  Foundations, logic, and set theory

I would suggest to rewrite this article. IMHO it should be pointed out that a direct limit is a colimit and, that in the particular case of a direct limit of ab. groups etc. it can be calculated as written. Do you agree? Jakob.scholbach 19:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I prefer the reverse approach which is presented here, mostly because it is more accessible. Chances are someone seeing direct limits for the first time will encounter them in an algebraic setting. They may not even be familiar with category theory let alone colimits. In fact, understanding the algebraic definition of a colimit and then generalizing to categories is a good motivation for the very general definition of a colimit. -- Fropuff 22:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be nice to have it pointed out somewhere that SGA 4 doesn't require the indexing category to be directed in its use of the term inductive limit (c.f. SGA 4 I Definition 2.1). Shanekelly64 (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

## "Any other such pair" (in section "Direct limit over a direct system in a category")

In the section "Direct limit over a direct system in a category", I find the sentence

The pair ${\displaystyle \langle X,\phi _{i}\rangle }$ must be universal in the sense that for any other such pair ${\displaystyle \langle Y,\psi _{i}\rangle }$ there exists a unique morphism ${\displaystyle u:X\rightarrow Y}$ making the diagram...

to be a bit vague, because such a pair ${\displaystyle \langle Y,\psi _{i}\rangle }$ is required to be a direct system (if I understand it correctly) and not just "any" pair of an object with morphism, so I would suggest replacing "any other such pair" with "any other direct system". Do you agree? Nielius (talk) 10:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

No, ${\displaystyle Y}$ is not assumed to be a direct system. The maps ${\displaystyle \psi _{i}}$ goes from ${\displaystyle X_{i}}$ to ${\displaystyle Y}$. Maybe for clarity, the maps ${\displaystyle \psi _{i}}$ needs to be collected into a single set, otherwise "pair" is slightly misleading. Mct mht (talk) 11:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Of course, you're right and I was confused. The problem you address is even more apparent in the definition of a direct system: "Then the pair ${\displaystyle \langle A_{i},f_{ij}\rangle }$ is called a direct system over ${\displaystyle I}$." Nielius (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)