Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf sheaves simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 17th 2023

    Have further touched the formatting and wording of the list of (counter-)examples (here).

    diff, v32, current

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorvarkor
    • CommentTimeNov 17th 2023

    I was sure there was a discussion to remove this page, because it was agreed that being balanced was not a property that was relevant in category theory. However, I can’t find the discussion now… I would have expected it to be in this thread, so I’m surprised there weren’t any previous messages here.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 18th 2023

    How is it not relevant?

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 18th 2023
    • (edited Nov 18th 2023)

    added a couple of references:

    diff, v35, current

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorvarkor
    • CommentTimeNov 18th 2023

    Regarding relevance, it’s quite telling that there are many examples on this page, but no properties or results involving balanced categories. That may just be because the page has not been developed significantly, but my feeling is that it is primarily because there are very few interesting properties or results regarding balanced categories. This answer by Mike Shulman implies that he knows of no uses of the property, and Todd Trimble suggests a single one: the result that a balanced quasitopos is a topos. For a concept to be worth a name, one should expect at least a few useful results. It would be nice to find some others.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 18th 2023

    It sounds like you are overthinking this.

    We clearly want to be able to write things like:

    To prove that ff is an isomorphism it is now sufficient, since 𝒞\mathcal{C} is balanced, to prove that it is both a monomorphism and an epimorphism.

    Also, the discussion you point to argues against saying “bimorphism” not against “balanced category”.

    I don’t think this entry should be deleted.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorvarkor
    • CommentTimeNov 18th 2023

    We clearly want to be able to write things like:

    This kind of argument arises commonly in the consideration of factorisation systems on categories: one often sees a proof appealing to the fact that a morphism that is both in the left class and the right class of a factorisation system is an isomorphism. However, making use of such an argument in a category without such a factorisation system, in the specific case that E = { epis } and M = { monos }, seems uncommon (I only know of the one aforementioned example). However, it could be that I am not familiar with literature that makes use of these kinds of arguments. That is why I think it would be nice to write down some examples on this page, if anyone knows of any.

    Also, the discussion you point to argues against saying “bimorphism” not against “balanced category”.

    The very first paragraph of the discussion argues against the value of “bimorphism”, but the rest of the discussion is a counterargument to the claim that “the concept of bimorphism is valuable because the concept of balanced category is valuable”.

    It sounds like you are overthinking this.

    Perhaps. It has just always struck me as odd that many authors define the notion of balanced category (e.g. in introductory textbooks), and give examples and counterexamples of such, yet rarely, if ever, make use of the concept technically.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorvarkor
    • CommentTimeNov 18th 2023

    (Re.:

    I was sure there was a discussion to remove this page, because it was agreed that being balanced was not a property that was relevant in category theory. However, I can’t find the discussion now… I would have expected it to be in this thread, so I’m surprised there weren’t any previous messages here.

    I realised I had been thinking of the nLab page on bimorphisms (https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/13659/bimorphism), which was removed.)

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorRodMcGuire
    • CommentTimeNov 18th 2023

    the page currently has the example:

    In a poset or a quiver, or more generally in any thin category, every morphism is both monic and epic

    which doesn’t make sense since a quiver isn’t a category. Maybe “free category on a quiver” was intended but such is not generally thin.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 18th 2023

    I have reworded the last (counter-)example to clarify the intended meaning (as far as I can tell, this is from revision 9).

    diff, v36, current

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 18th 2023

    (Incidentally, in the page history, starting with that revision 9, one can see the old discussion, inside a query box, that the comment #2 above may have been remembering.)