19
$\begingroup$

According to Wikipedia,

The collection of all algebraic objects of a given type will usually be a proper class. Examples include the class of all groups, the class of all vector spaces, and many others. In category theory, a category whose collection of objects forms a proper class (or whose collection of morphisms forms a proper class) is called a large category.

I am aware of Russell's Paradox, which explains why not everything is a set, but how can we show the collection of all groups is a proper class?

  • 3
    take the free group on each set2012-11-01
  • 4
    It's too dang big!2012-11-01
  • 3
    When you say "class" you want to say "proper class." Sets are also classes.2012-11-01

1 Answers 1

31

The collection of singletons is not a set. Therefore the collection of all trivial groups is not a set.

If you wish to consider "up to isomorphism", note that for every infinite cardinal $\kappa$ you can consider the free group, or free abelian group with $\kappa$ generators. These are distinct (up to isomorphism, that is), and since the collection of cardinals is not a set the collection of groups cannot be a set either.

  • 12
    In more categorical language, the first paragraph shows that $\text{Grp}$ is not a small category, and the second paragraph shows that $\text{Grp}$ is not even an essentially small category (http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/small+category).2012-11-01
  • 0
    @QiaochuYuan: I suppose that they show that $\mathrm{Ab}$ is also neither small nor essentially small. Right?2012-11-01
  • 2
    Yes, and lots of variations. Much more generally, a theorem of Freyd asserts that if a small category has all small colimits, then it is a poset.2012-11-01
  • 1
    Thanks, I can see how that'd apply to the other types as a well. If anyone else is reading this: [Cantor's paradox](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor's_paradox) proves that the collection of cardinals isn't a set2012-11-01