Forgive me if this question turns out to be too elementary-then feel free to move it to stack exchange. I believe that this should be very basic fact from topos theory nevertheless being not familiar with topos theory let me ask it.
One of the highlights of topos theory is the possibility to consider an analogue of the power set in the form of $Sub(A)=\{all \ subobjects \ of \ A \}$ (which are defined as equiavlence classes of monic arrows). In any topos there is a distinguished object $\Omega$ called the subobjects classifier. Moreover in any topos there is an analogue of the operation of taking all functions from $A \to B$-this is called exponentation. Given those facts we have a one to one correspondence $Sub(A) \cong \Omega^{A}$. Am I right in saying that:



> 
> The left hand side of this correspondence is a priori not an object of our topos $\mathcal{T}$ but the right hand side is: therefore this natural correspondence is the way of making $Sub(A)$ again an object in our category $\mathcal{T}$
> 
> 
> 


Please corect me if I'm wrong



Subobjects as an object in a topos
The general notion you're looking for is a **representable functor**. For example:


$${\mathcal E}(X\times{-},Y) \sim {\mathcal E}({-},Y^X)$$


$${\textsf{Sub}}({-}) \sim {\mathcal{E}}({-},\Omega)$$


The thing on the left is a general contravariant functor from the category to $\mathbf{Set}$.


The thing on the right is of the form ${\mathcal E}({-},R)$,
where $R$ is the "representing object" for the functor.


The definition of a **préfaisceau représentable** is given in SGA4 Exposé I, remark 1.4.2. Presumably the idea is then used, maybe extensively, in SGA4 and beyond, but I will leave others to search for it.


This is also one of the many equivalent ways of expressing an adjunction.


Of course, whether or not the (topos or other) category *has* a representing object for a particular functor is very much up for debate in the topic in question.


