Let $\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{D}$ be categories.
Let $\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{D}$ be categories.
An equivalence of categories between $\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{D}$ consists of a pair of functors
together with natural isomorphisms
An adjoint equivalence of categories between $\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{D}$ is an equivalence $(F,G,\eta ,\epsilon )$ between $\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{D}$ which is also an adjunction.
Let $F\colon \mathcal{C}\to \mathcal{D}$ be a functor.
Characterisations. If $\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{D}$ are small, then the following conditions are equivalent:1
The functor $F$ is an equivalence of categories.
The functor $F$ is fully faithful and essentially surjective.
The induced functor
is an isomorphism of categories.
For each $X\in \operatorname {\mathrm{Obj}}(\mathsf{Cats})$, the precomposition functor
is an equivalence of categories.
For each $X\in \operatorname {\mathrm{Obj}}(\mathsf{Cats})$, the postcomposition functor
is an equivalence of categories.
Invariance Under Natural Isomorphism. If $F$ is (part of) an equivalence of categories and $F\cong F'$, then so is $F'$.
Inverses. If $(F,G,\eta ,\epsilon )$ is an equivalence, then so is $(G,F,\epsilon ^{-1},\eta ^{-1})$.
Two-Out-of-Three. Let
Stability Under Composition. Let
Equivalences vs. Adjoint Equivalences. Every equivalence of categories can be promoted to an adjoint equivalence.2
Equivalences of Groupoids. Let $F\colon \mathcal{G}\to \mathcal{H}$ be a functor between groupoids. The following conditions are equivalent:
The functor $F\colon \mathcal{G}\to \mathcal{H}$ is an equivalence of groupoids.
The following conditions are satisfied:
The functor $F$ induces a bijection
of sets.
For each $x\in \operatorname {\mathrm{Obj}}(\mathcal{G})$, the action on morphisms
of $F$ at $(x,x)$ is an isomorphism of groups.
Let $F\colon \mathcal{C}\to \mathcal{D}$ be an equivalence with inverse $G\colon \mathcal{D}\to \mathcal{E}$, and write $GF\mathrel {\smash {\overset {\mathclap {\scriptscriptstyle \text{def}}}=}}G\circ F$. We claim that $F$ is full, faithful, and essentially surjective:
Faithfulness: Let $f,g\in \operatorname {\mathrm{Hom}}_{\mathcal{C}}(A,B)$ with $F(f)=F(g)$. Then $GF(f)=GF(g)$ and we have the following diagrams:
Precomposing both sides with $\eta _{A}$ then gives $f=g$, showing $F$ to be faithful.
Fullness: Given $f\in \operatorname {\mathrm{Hom}}_{\mathcal{D}}(F(A),F(B))$, define a morphism $h\colon A\to B$ by
yielding the commutative diagram
From the naturality of $\eta $ applied to $\eta _{A}\colon A\to GF(A)$, we have
By applying $GF$ to the diagram $(\dagger )$ and incorporating the equality, we see that the diagram
Postcomposing with $\eta ^{-1}_{GF(B)}$ then gives $GF(h) = G(f)$. This shows $F$ to be full.
Essential surjectivity: Let $B\in \operatorname {\mathrm{Obj}}(\mathcal{D})$. We need to find some $A\in \operatorname {\mathrm{Obj}}(\mathcal{C})$ with $F(A)\cong B$. Choose $A\mathrel {\smash {\overset {\mathclap {\scriptscriptstyle \text{def}}}=}}G(B)$. Then $\epsilon _{B}\colon FG(B)\to B$ is an isomorphism by assumption. Hence $F$ is essentially surjective.
Since $F$ is essentially surjective and $\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{D}$ are small, we can choose, using the axiom of choice, for each $B\in \operatorname {\mathrm{Obj}}(\mathcal{D})$, an object $j_{B}$ of $\mathcal{C}$ and an isomorphism $i_{B}\colon B\overset {\scriptstyle \mathord {\sim }}{\dashrightarrow }F(j_{B})$ of $\mathcal{D}$.
Since $F$ is fully faithful, we can extend the assignment $B\mapsto j_{B}$ to a unique functor $j\colon \mathcal{D}\to \mathcal{C}$ such that the isomorphisms $i_{B}\colon B\overset {\scriptstyle \mathord {\sim }}{\dashrightarrow }F(j_{B})$ assemble into a natural isomorphism $\eta \colon \operatorname {\mathrm{id}}_{\mathcal{D}}\mathbin {\overset {\mathord {\sim }}{\Longrightarrow }}F\circ j$, with a similar natural isomorphism $\epsilon \colon \operatorname {\mathrm{id}}_{\mathcal{C}}\mathbin {\overset {\mathord {\sim }}{\Longrightarrow }}j\circ F$. Hence $F$ is an equivalence.
This follows from Item 4 of Proposition 11.1.3.1.3.
This follows from Item 4 of Proposition 11.1.3.1.3 and Item 5 of this proposition.
Omitted.
are natural isomorphisms iff $\epsilon $ and $\eta $ are.
When $F$ and $G$ Are Equivalences: By Item 5, if $F$ and $G$ are equivalences, then so is $G\circ F$.
When $G$ and $G\circ F$ Are Equivalences: If $G\circ F$ and $G$ are equivalences, note that by Item 5 and Item 3, so are $G^{-1}$ and $G^{-1}\circ G\circ F\cong F$. Therefore $F$ will be an equivalence by Item 2.
When $F$ and $G\circ F$ Are Equivalences: If $G\circ F$ and $F$ are equivalences, so are $F^{-1}$ and $G\circ F\circ F^{-1}\cong G$ by Item 5 and Item 3. Therefore $G$ will be an equivalence by Item 2.
This finishes the proof.
as the composition
as the composition
so that the components of $\eta ^{\circ }$ and $\epsilon ^{\circ }$ are of the form
Since $\eta ^{\circ }$ and $\epsilon ^{\circ }$ are compositions of whiskerings of natural isomorphisms, they are natural transformations by Definition 11.9.5.1.2 and natural isomorphisms by Item 5b and Item 5c of Item 5 of Proposition 11.9.5.1.3.
Thus, $(F'\circ F,G\circ G',\eta ^{\circ },\epsilon ^{\circ })$ is an equivalence.
The equivalence between Item 1a and Item 1b of Item 1 of Proposition 11.6.7.1.2 — i.e. that $F$ is an equivalence of categories iff it is fully faithful and essentially surjective — depend on which foundations of mathematics one uses.1
Dependence on the Axiom of Choice. Given a functor $F\colon \mathcal{C}\to \mathcal{D}$ that is fully faithful essentially surjective and an object $B$ of $\mathcal{D}$, the set
will in general have more than one element. To construct the inverse $F^{-1}$ of $F$, we will therefore have to choose one element from this set for each $B\in \operatorname {\mathrm{Obj}}(\mathcal{D})$. This requires the axiom of choice.
Size Issues. In ZFC, Item 1a and Item 1b of Item 1 of Proposition 11.6.7.1.2 will be equivalent if $\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{D}$ are small. If we assume stronger set-theoretical foundations like:
NBG (von Neumann–Bernays–Gödel set theory) with global choice, which introduces a notion of proper class and has the axiom of choice hold for them;
Grothendieck universes/inaccessible cardinals with global choice;
then we can do away with the assumption that $\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{D}$ be small.
Fix #01: Constructively Essentially Surjective Functors. Alternatively, one can introduce a notion of a functor being constructively essentially surjective, i.e.:
Now, if we do away with the axiom of choice, $F$ will be an equivalence of categories iff it is fully faithful and constructively essentially surjective.
Fix #02: Anafunctors. Alternatively, one may use the notion of anafunctors instead of functors to obtain a version of the statement “a functor is an equivalence of categories iff it is fully faithful and essentially surjective” that doesn’t depend on the axiom of choice.