Mixing
What does it mean for two morphisms with different sources and targets to be isomorphic?
$begingroup$
The standard definition of a subobject relies on the following definition: we call two morphisms $f : X rightarrow A, g : Y rightarrow A$ with the same target isomorphic if there exists an isomorphism $u : X rightarrow Y$ such that $f = g circ u$. In my eyes, in most texts, this definition is asserted almost by fiat, without diving into what this actually means and why this is a reasonable definition. It's not obvious to me that this is a reasonable definition, for several reasons.
One issue with this definition is that it's not obvious to me why you need it at all - why we can't just define subobjects as isomorphism classes of objects that have monomorphisms into the target in question.
But my larger problem is this. It's obvious what the corresponding definition of isomorphism is between morphisms that share the same source, but what about morphisms that share neither a source nor a target? I would expect that the natural definition would be to say that $f : X rightarrow A, g : Y rightarrow B$ are isomoprhic if there exist two isomorphisms $u : X rightarrow Y, v : A rightarrow B$ such that $f = v^{-1} circ g circ u$. The benefit of this definition is that I believe it flows naturally from the preorder on morphisms in which we define $f preceq g$ iff $f$ factors through $g$, as the equivalence. However, this definition of isomorphism of morphisms doesn't actually appear to say the same thing as the above
This definition appears - to me - to the notion of isomorphism in the twisted arrow category, also called the category of factorizations: two morphisms are considered however, when specialized to the case $A = B$, this doesn't actually appear to say the same thing as the previous definition, as we have an extra automorphism tacked on to the end.
So is there a way to generalize isomorphism of morphisms that share the same target to isomorphism of all morphisms? If not, why not?
category-theory topos-theory
asked Jan 20 at 21:11
Billy SmithBilly Smith
927
$endgroup$
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
The standard definition of a subobject relies on the following definition: we call two morphisms $f : X rightarrow A, g : Y rightarrow A$ with the same target isomorphic if there exists an isomorphism $u : X rightarrow Y$ such that $f = g circ u$. In my eyes, in most texts, this definition is asserted almost by fiat, without diving into what this actually means and why this is a reasonable definition. It's not obvious to me that this is a reasonable definition, for several reasons.
One issue with this definition is that it's not obvious to me why you need it at all - why we can't just define subobjects as isomorphism classes of objects that have monomorphisms into the target in question.
But my larger problem is this. It's obvious what the corresponding definition of isomorphism is between morphisms that share the same source, but what about morphisms that share neither a source nor a target? I would expect that the natural definition would be to say that $f : X rightarrow A, g : Y rightarrow B$ are isomoprhic if there exist two isomorphisms $u : X rightarrow Y, v : A rightarrow B$ such that $f = v^{-1} circ g circ u$. The benefit of this definition is that I believe it flows naturally from the preorder on morphisms in which we define $f preceq g$ iff $f$ factors through $g$, as the equivalence. However, this definition of isomorphism of morphisms doesn't actually appear to say the same thing as the above
This definition appears - to me - to the notion of isomorphism in the twisted arrow category, also called the category of factorizations: two morphisms are considered however, when specialized to the case $A = B$, this doesn't actually appear to say the same thing as the previous definition, as we have an extra automorphism tacked on to the end.
So is there a way to generalize isomorphism of morphisms that share the same target to isomorphism of all morphisms? If not, why not?
category-theory topos-theory
asked Jan 20 at 21:11
Billy SmithBilly Smith
927
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I think this may be what you're looking for.
$endgroup$
– Matematleta
Jan 20 at 22:20
$begingroup$
Regarding your second paragraph, how would you distinguish between two subobjects that are the "same size" but are different subobjects? Your proposal here would make no distinction between ${2x:xinmathbb{N}}$ and ${pinmathbb{N}:ptextrm{ is prime}}$; i.e. this would give you only the cardinals of subobjects.
$endgroup$
– Malice Vidrine
Jan 20 at 22:47
$begingroup$
@Matematleta: It might be; I can't honestly tell. Do you think you could flesh out the connections between subobjects and monos in the arrow category, perhaps motivating the standard definition of the subobject?
$endgroup$
– Billy Smith
Jan 20 at 22:48
$begingroup$
Matematleta's link is what you're looking for, as you've written it. The notion of isomorphism for arrows with the same target $A$ is just isomorphism in the category $mathcal{C}/A$; and the notion of isomorphism of arbitrary arrows that you propose is exactly isomorphism in the arrow category of $mathcal{C}$, of which $mathcal{C}/A$ is a subcategory.
$endgroup$
– Malice Vidrine
Jan 20 at 22:59
$begingroup$
@Malice - it’s not obvious to me that that’s true, because of what I said above about there being an extra automorphism involved in the isomorphism in the arrow category. That is, it seems to me like two morphisms f and g are isomorphic in the arrow category if f=vgu, where u and v are iso, which should mean that for two morphisms that share the same target, we have f=vgu where v is an automorphism. This appears to me to be more general than f=gu alone, but perhaps that’s not actually true?
$endgroup$
– Billy Smith
Jan 21 at 9:48
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
The standard definition of a subobject relies on the following definition: we call two morphisms $f : X rightarrow A, g : Y rightarrow A$ with the same target isomorphic if there exists an isomorphism $u : X rightarrow Y$ such that $f = g circ u$. In my eyes, in most texts, this definition is asserted almost by fiat, without diving into what this actually means and why this is a reasonable definition. It's not obvious to me that this is a reasonable definition, for several reasons.
One issue with this definition is that it's not obvious to me why you need it at all - why we can't just define subobjects as isomorphism classes of objects that have monomorphisms into the target in question.
But my larger problem is this. It's obvious what the corresponding definition of isomorphism is between morphisms that share the same source, but what about morphisms that share neither a source nor a target? I would expect that the natural definition would be to say that $f : X rightarrow A, g : Y rightarrow B$ are isomoprhic if there exist two isomorphisms $u : X rightarrow Y, v : A rightarrow B$ such that $f = v^{-1} circ g circ u$. The benefit of this definition is that I believe it flows naturally from the preorder on morphisms in which we define $f preceq g$ iff $f$ factors through $g$, as the equivalence. However, this definition of isomorphism of morphisms doesn't actually appear to say the same thing as the above
This definition appears - to me - to the notion of isomorphism in the twisted arrow category, also called the category of factorizations: two morphisms are considered however, when specialized to the case $A = B$, this doesn't actually appear to say the same thing as the previous definition, as we have an extra automorphism tacked on to the end.
So is there a way to generalize isomorphism of morphisms that share the same target to isomorphism of all morphisms? If not, why not?
category-theory topos-theory
asked Jan 20 at 21:11
Billy SmithBilly Smith
927
$endgroup$
The standard definition of a subobject relies on the following definition: we call two morphisms $f : X rightarrow A, g : Y rightarrow A$ with the same target isomorphic if there exists an isomorphism $u : X rightarrow Y$ such that $f = g circ u$. In my eyes, in most texts, this definition is asserted almost by fiat, without diving into what this actually means and why this is a reasonable definition. It's not obvious to me that this is a reasonable definition, for several reasons.
One issue with this definition is that it's not obvious to me why you need it at all - why we can't just define subobjects as isomorphism classes of objects that have monomorphisms into the target in question.
But my larger problem is this. It's obvious what the corresponding definition of isomorphism is between morphisms that share the same source, but what about morphisms that share neither a source nor a target? I would expect that the natural definition would be to say that $f : X rightarrow A, g : Y rightarrow B$ are isomoprhic if there exist two isomorphisms $u : X rightarrow Y, v : A rightarrow B$ such that $f = v^{-1} circ g circ u$. The benefit of this definition is that I believe it flows naturally from the preorder on morphisms in which we define $f preceq g$ iff $f$ factors through $g$, as the equivalence. However, this definition of isomorphism of morphisms doesn't actually appear to say the same thing as the above
This definition appears - to me - to the notion of isomorphism in the twisted arrow category, also called the category of factorizations: two morphisms are considered however, when specialized to the case $A = B$, this doesn't actually appear to say the same thing as the previous definition, as we have an extra automorphism tacked on to the end.
So is there a way to generalize isomorphism of morphisms that share the same target to isomorphism of all morphisms? If not, why not?
category-theory topos-theory
category-theory topos-theory
asked Jan 20 at 21:11
Billy SmithBilly Smith
927
asked Jan 20 at 21:11
Billy SmithBilly Smith
927
edited Jan 20 at 21:19
Billy Smith
asked Jan 20 at 21:11
Billy SmithBilly Smith
927
asked Jan 20 at 21:11
Billy SmithBilly Smith
927
asked Jan 20 at 21:11
Billy SmithBilly Smith
927
927
$begingroup$
I think this may be what you're looking for.
$endgroup$
– Matematleta
Jan 20 at 22:20
$begingroup$
Regarding your second paragraph, how would you distinguish between two subobjects that are the "same size" but are different subobjects? Your proposal here would make no distinction between ${2x:xinmathbb{N}}$ and ${pinmathbb{N}:ptextrm{ is prime}}$; i.e. this would give you only the cardinals of subobjects.
$endgroup$
– Malice Vidrine
Jan 20 at 22:47
$begingroup$
@Matematleta: It might be; I can't honestly tell. Do you think you could flesh out the connections between subobjects and monos in the arrow category, perhaps motivating the standard definition of the subobject?
$endgroup$
– Billy Smith
Jan 20 at 22:48
$begingroup$
Matematleta's link is what you're looking for, as you've written it. The notion of isomorphism for arrows with the same target $A$ is just isomorphism in the category $mathcal{C}/A$; and the notion of isomorphism of arbitrary arrows that you propose is exactly isomorphism in the arrow category of $mathcal{C}$, of which $mathcal{C}/A$ is a subcategory.
$endgroup$
– Malice Vidrine
Jan 20 at 22:59
$begingroup$
@Malice - it’s not obvious to me that that’s true, because of what I said above about there being an extra automorphism involved in the isomorphism in the arrow category. That is, it seems to me like two morphisms f and g are isomorphic in the arrow category if f=vgu, where u and v are iso, which should mean that for two morphisms that share the same target, we have f=vgu where v is an automorphism. This appears to me to be more general than f=gu alone, but perhaps that’s not actually true?
$endgroup$
– Billy Smith
Jan 21 at 9:48
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
I think this may be what you're looking for.
$endgroup$
– Matematleta
Jan 20 at 22:20
$begingroup$
Regarding your second paragraph, how would you distinguish between two subobjects that are the "same size" but are different subobjects? Your proposal here would make no distinction between ${2x:xinmathbb{N}}$ and ${pinmathbb{N}:ptextrm{ is prime}}$; i.e. this would give you only the cardinals of subobjects.
$endgroup$
– Malice Vidrine
Jan 20 at 22:47
$begingroup$
@Matematleta: It might be; I can't honestly tell. Do you think you could flesh out the connections between subobjects and monos in the arrow category, perhaps motivating the standard definition of the subobject?
$endgroup$
– Billy Smith
Jan 20 at 22:48
$begingroup$
Matematleta's link is what you're looking for, as you've written it. The notion of isomorphism for arrows with the same target $A$ is just isomorphism in the category $mathcal{C}/A$; and the notion of isomorphism of arbitrary arrows that you propose is exactly isomorphism in the arrow category of $mathcal{C}$, of which $mathcal{C}/A$ is a subcategory.
$endgroup$
– Malice Vidrine
Jan 20 at 22:59
$begingroup$
@Malice - it’s not obvious to me that that’s true, because of what I said above about there being an extra automorphism involved in the isomorphism in the arrow category. That is, it seems to me like two morphisms f and g are isomorphic in the arrow category if f=vgu, where u and v are iso, which should mean that for two morphisms that share the same target, we have f=vgu where v is an automorphism. This appears to me to be more general than f=gu alone, but perhaps that’s not actually true?
$endgroup$
– Billy Smith
Jan 21 at 9:48
$begingroup$
I think this may be what you're looking for.
$endgroup$
– Matematleta
Jan 20 at 22:20
$begingroup$
I think this may be what you're looking for.
$endgroup$
– Matematleta
Jan 20 at 22:20
$begingroup$
Regarding your second paragraph, how would you distinguish between two subobjects that are the "same size" but are different subobjects? Your proposal here would make no distinction between ${2x:xinmathbb{N}}$ and ${pinmathbb{N}:ptextrm{ is prime}}$; i.e. this would give you only the cardinals of subobjects.
$endgroup$
– Malice Vidrine
Jan 20 at 22:47
$begingroup$
Regarding your second paragraph, how would you distinguish between two subobjects that are the "same size" but are different subobjects? Your proposal here would make no distinction between ${2x:xinmathbb{N}}$ and ${pinmathbb{N}:ptextrm{ is prime}}$; i.e. this would give you only the cardinals of subobjects.
$endgroup$
– Malice Vidrine
Jan 20 at 22:47
$begingroup$
@Matematleta: It might be; I can't honestly tell. Do you think you could flesh out the connections between subobjects and monos in the arrow category, perhaps motivating the standard definition of the subobject?
$endgroup$
– Billy Smith
Jan 20 at 22:48
$begingroup$
@Matematleta: It might be; I can't honestly tell. Do you think you could flesh out the connections between subobjects and monos in the arrow category, perhaps motivating the standard definition of the subobject?
$endgroup$
– Billy Smith
Jan 20 at 22:48
$begingroup$
Matematleta's link is what you're looking for, as you've written it. The notion of isomorphism for arrows with the same target $A$ is just isomorphism in the category $mathcal{C}/A$; and the notion of isomorphism of arbitrary arrows that you propose is exactly isomorphism in the arrow category of $mathcal{C}$, of which $mathcal{C}/A$ is a subcategory.
$endgroup$
– Malice Vidrine
Jan 20 at 22:59
$begingroup$
Matematleta's link is what you're looking for, as you've written it. The notion of isomorphism for arrows with the same target $A$ is just isomorphism in the category $mathcal{C}/A$; and the notion of isomorphism of arbitrary arrows that you propose is exactly isomorphism in the arrow category of $mathcal{C}$, of which $mathcal{C}/A$ is a subcategory.
$endgroup$
– Malice Vidrine
Jan 20 at 22:59
$begingroup$
@Malice - it’s not obvious to me that that’s true, because of what I said above about there being an extra automorphism involved in the isomorphism in the arrow category. That is, it seems to me like two morphisms f and g are isomorphic in the arrow category if f=vgu, where u and v are iso, which should mean that for two morphisms that share the same target, we have f=vgu where v is an automorphism. This appears to me to be more general than f=gu alone, but perhaps that’s not actually true?
$endgroup$
– Billy Smith
Jan 21 at 9:48
$begingroup$
@Malice - it’s not obvious to me that that’s true, because of what I said above about there being an extra automorphism involved in the isomorphism in the arrow category. That is, it seems to me like two morphisms f and g are isomorphic in the arrow category if f=vgu, where u and v are iso, which should mean that for two morphisms that share the same target, we have f=vgu where v is an automorphism. This appears to me to be more general than f=gu alone, but perhaps that’s not actually true?
$endgroup$
– Billy Smith
Jan 21 at 9:48
|
show 5 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
One way to motivate the definition of subobjects is that it works in familiar categories. For instance, in $mathbf{Set}$, every subobject of a set $S$ has a unique representative which is a subset of $S$. In particular, two distinct subsets of $S$ are never isomorphic, which would fail under either of your other two proposals. In fact, for $mathbf{Set}$ the notion of "isomorphism classes of objects admitting a mono into $S$" and "isomorphism class of arrows into $S$" are equivalent, since if $T$ and $T'$ are (without loss of generality) subsets of $S$ and there exists a bijection $varphi: Tto T'$, then we can always extend $varphi$ to an automorphism of $S$ making the arrows $Tto S$ and $T'to S$ isomorphic.
It's the notion of subset that we want to generalize in defining subobjects, for several very good reasons. The collection of subsets of a set has a rich algebraic structure: it's a complete Boolean algebra. Furthermore, functions between sets induce three morphisms of Boolean algebras which encode first-order logic. Most of this story generalizes to an arbitrary locally Cartesian closed category such as a topos, and some of it generalizes to a huge range of categories satisfying weaker properties. Your proposals amount to considering the set of mere cardinalities at most that of $S$, which has no such interesting structure.
answered Jan 25 at 18:43
Kevin CarlsonKevin Carlson
33.3k23372
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3081134%2fwhat-does-it-mean-for-two-morphisms-with-different-sources-and-targets-to-be-iso%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
One way to motivate the definition of subobjects is that it works in familiar categories. For instance, in $mathbf{Set}$, every subobject of a set $S$ has a unique representative which is a subset of $S$. In particular, two distinct subsets of $S$ are never isomorphic, which would fail under either of your other two proposals. In fact, for $mathbf{Set}$ the notion of "isomorphism classes of objects admitting a mono into $S$" and "isomorphism class of arrows into $S$" are equivalent, since if $T$ and $T'$ are (without loss of generality) subsets of $S$ and there exists a bijection $varphi: Tto T'$, then we can always extend $varphi$ to an automorphism of $S$ making the arrows $Tto S$ and $T'to S$ isomorphic.
It's the notion of subset that we want to generalize in defining subobjects, for several very good reasons. The collection of subsets of a set has a rich algebraic structure: it's a complete Boolean algebra. Furthermore, functions between sets induce three morphisms of Boolean algebras which encode first-order logic. Most of this story generalizes to an arbitrary locally Cartesian closed category such as a topos, and some of it generalizes to a huge range of categories satisfying weaker properties. Your proposals amount to considering the set of mere cardinalities at most that of $S$, which has no such interesting structure.
answered Jan 25 at 18:43
Kevin CarlsonKevin Carlson
33.3k23372
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One way to motivate the definition of subobjects is that it works in familiar categories. For instance, in $mathbf{Set}$, every subobject of a set $S$ has a unique representative which is a subset of $S$. In particular, two distinct subsets of $S$ are never isomorphic, which would fail under either of your other two proposals. In fact, for $mathbf{Set}$ the notion of "isomorphism classes of objects admitting a mono into $S$" and "isomorphism class of arrows into $S$" are equivalent, since if $T$ and $T'$ are (without loss of generality) subsets of $S$ and there exists a bijection $varphi: Tto T'$, then we can always extend $varphi$ to an automorphism of $S$ making the arrows $Tto S$ and $T'to S$ isomorphic.
It's the notion of subset that we want to generalize in defining subobjects, for several very good reasons. The collection of subsets of a set has a rich algebraic structure: it's a complete Boolean algebra. Furthermore, functions between sets induce three morphisms of Boolean algebras which encode first-order logic. Most of this story generalizes to an arbitrary locally Cartesian closed category such as a topos, and some of it generalizes to a huge range of categories satisfying weaker properties. Your proposals amount to considering the set of mere cardinalities at most that of $S$, which has no such interesting structure.
answered Jan 25 at 18:43
Kevin CarlsonKevin Carlson
33.3k23372
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One way to motivate the definition of subobjects is that it works in familiar categories. For instance, in $mathbf{Set}$, every subobject of a set $S$ has a unique representative which is a subset of $S$. In particular, two distinct subsets of $S$ are never isomorphic, which would fail under either of your other two proposals. In fact, for $mathbf{Set}$ the notion of "isomorphism classes of objects admitting a mono into $S$" and "isomorphism class of arrows into $S$" are equivalent, since if $T$ and $T'$ are (without loss of generality) subsets of $S$ and there exists a bijection $varphi: Tto T'$, then we can always extend $varphi$ to an automorphism of $S$ making the arrows $Tto S$ and $T'to S$ isomorphic.
It's the notion of subset that we want to generalize in defining subobjects, for several very good reasons. The collection of subsets of a set has a rich algebraic structure: it's a complete Boolean algebra. Furthermore, functions between sets induce three morphisms of Boolean algebras which encode first-order logic. Most of this story generalizes to an arbitrary locally Cartesian closed category such as a topos, and some of it generalizes to a huge range of categories satisfying weaker properties. Your proposals amount to considering the set of mere cardinalities at most that of $S$, which has no such interesting structure.
answered Jan 25 at 18:43
Kevin CarlsonKevin Carlson
33.3k23372
$endgroup$
One way to motivate the definition of subobjects is that it works in familiar categories. For instance, in $mathbf{Set}$, every subobject of a set $S$ has a unique representative which is a subset of $S$. In particular, two distinct subsets of $S$ are never isomorphic, which would fail under either of your other two proposals. In fact, for $mathbf{Set}$ the notion of "isomorphism classes of objects admitting a mono into $S$" and "isomorphism class of arrows into $S$" are equivalent, since if $T$ and $T'$ are (without loss of generality) subsets of $S$ and there exists a bijection $varphi: Tto T'$, then we can always extend $varphi$ to an automorphism of $S$ making the arrows $Tto S$ and $T'to S$ isomorphic.
It's the notion of subset that we want to generalize in defining subobjects, for several very good reasons. The collection of subsets of a set has a rich algebraic structure: it's a complete Boolean algebra. Furthermore, functions between sets induce three morphisms of Boolean algebras which encode first-order logic. Most of this story generalizes to an arbitrary locally Cartesian closed category such as a topos, and some of it generalizes to a huge range of categories satisfying weaker properties. Your proposals amount to considering the set of mere cardinalities at most that of $S$, which has no such interesting structure.
answered Jan 25 at 18:43
Kevin CarlsonKevin Carlson
33.3k23372
answered Jan 25 at 18:43
Kevin CarlsonKevin Carlson
33.3k23372
answered Jan 25 at 18:43
Kevin CarlsonKevin Carlson
33.3k23372
answered Jan 25 at 18:43
Kevin CarlsonKevin Carlson
33.3k23372
33.3k23372
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3081134%2fwhat-does-it-mean-for-two-morphisms-with-different-sources-and-targets-to-be-iso%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
I think this may be what you're looking for.
$endgroup$
– Matematleta
Jan 20 at 22:20
$begingroup$
Regarding your second paragraph, how would you distinguish between two subobjects that are the "same size" but are different subobjects? Your proposal here would make no distinction between ${2x:xinmathbb{N}}$ and ${pinmathbb{N}:ptextrm{ is prime}}$; i.e. this would give you only the cardinals of subobjects.
$endgroup$
– Malice Vidrine
Jan 20 at 22:47
$begingroup$
@Matematleta: It might be; I can't honestly tell. Do you think you could flesh out the connections between subobjects and monos in the arrow category, perhaps motivating the standard definition of the subobject?
$endgroup$
– Billy Smith
Jan 20 at 22:48
$begingroup$
Matematleta's link is what you're looking for, as you've written it. The notion of isomorphism for arrows with the same target $A$ is just isomorphism in the category $mathcal{C}/A$; and the notion of isomorphism of arbitrary arrows that you propose is exactly isomorphism in the arrow category of $mathcal{C}$, of which $mathcal{C}/A$ is a subcategory.
$endgroup$
– Malice Vidrine
Jan 20 at 22:59
$begingroup$
@Malice - it’s not obvious to me that that’s true, because of what I said above about there being an extra automorphism involved in the isomorphism in the arrow category. That is, it seems to me like two morphisms f and g are isomorphic in the arrow category if f=vgu, where u and v are iso, which should mean that for two morphisms that share the same target, we have f=vgu where v is an automorphism. This appears to me to be more general than f=gu alone, but perhaps that’s not actually true?
$endgroup$
– Billy Smith
Jan 21 at 9:48