Not signed in

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

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

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 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 internal-categories k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure 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 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

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorporton
   • CommentTimeOct 15th 2013
   • (edited Oct 15th 2013)
   • PermaLink
   Author: porton
   Format: MarkdownItexSorry for a duplicated post, but duplicated research would be even worse. From <a href="https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.math/ZkoXFgJ8pm0">this USENET post</a>: Has anyone heard about categories with ordered set of objects and embeddings $\operatorname{Hom}(A_0,B_0) \rightarrow Hom(A_1,B_1)$ when $A_0\leq A_1$ and $B_0\leq B_1$? That is it is specified: 1. a category; 2. an order (or preorder?) on objects; 3. aforementioned embeddings (by an embedding I mean an injective function preserving composition). One example: <em>Reloid</em> is a triple $(A;B;F)$ where $A$ and $B$ are sets and $F$ is a filter on the cartesian product $A\times B$. It turns to be a category when we define composition $G\circ F$ as the filter corresponding to the base $\{ g\circ f | f\in F, g\in G \}$. When $A_0\subseteq A_1$ and $B_0\subseteq B_1$ we have $A_0\times B_0\subseteq A_1\times B_1$ and thus there is an obvious embedding of filters on $A_0\times B_0$ into filters on $A_1\times B_1$.

   Sorry for a duplicated post, but duplicated research would be even worse.

   From this USENET post:

   Has anyone heard about categories with ordered set of objects and embeddings $\operatorname{Hom}(A_0,B_0) \rightarrow Hom(A_1,B_1)$ when $A_0\leq A_1$ and $B_0\leq B_1$?

   That is it is specified: 1. a category; 2. an order (or preorder?) on objects; 3. aforementioned embeddings (by an embedding I mean an injective function preserving composition).

   One example: Reloid is a triple $(A;B;F)$ where $A$ and $B$ are sets and $F$ is a filter on the cartesian product $A\times B$. It turns to be a category when we define composition $G\circ F$ as the filter corresponding to the base $\{ g\circ f | f\in F, g\in G \}$.

   When $A_0\subseteq A_1$ and $B_0\subseteq B_1$ we have $A_0\times B_0\subseteq A_1\times B_1$ and thus there is an obvious embedding of filters on $A_0\times B_0$ into filters on $A_1\times B_1$.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorporton
   • CommentTimeOct 15th 2013
   • PermaLink
   Author: porton
   Format: MarkdownItexFrom my drafts: Definition. A <em>hierarchical category</em> is a category with a partially ordered [TODO: or preordered?] set of objects and an injective function preserving composition $\operatorname{Hom} ( A_0 ; A_1) \rightarrow \operatorname{Hom} ( B_0 ; B_1)$ defined whenever $A_0 \leq B_0$ and $A_1 \leq B_1$. Definition. A <em>category with embeddings of objects</em> is a category with a partially ordered [TODO: or preordered?] set of objects and morphism $A \hookrightarrow B : A \rightarrow B$ (<em>embedding</em> of $A$ into $B$) defined for every objects $A \leq B$. Definition. A <em>dagger category with embeddings of objects</em> is a category which is both a dagger category and a category with embeddings of objects. Obvious. Every dagger category with embeddings of objects induces a hierarchical category by the formula $f \mapsto ( A_1 \hookrightarrow B_1) \circ f \circ ( A_0 \hookrightarrow B_0)^{\dagger}$ for $f : A_0 \rightarrow A_1$ and $A_0 \leq B_0$ and $A_1 \leq B_1$.

   From my drafts:

   Definition. A hierarchical category is a category with a partially ordered [TODO: or preordered?] set of objects and an injective function preserving composition $\operatorname{Hom} ( A_0 ; A_1) \rightarrow \operatorname{Hom} ( B_0 ; B_1)$ defined whenever $A_0 \leq B_0$ and $A_1 \leq B_1$.

   Definition. A category with embeddings of objects is a category with a partially ordered [TODO: or preordered?] set of objects and morphism $A \hookrightarrow B : A \rightarrow B$ (embedding of $A$ into $B$) defined for every objects $A \leq B$.

   Definition. A dagger category with embeddings of objects is a category which is both a dagger category and a category with embeddings of objects.

   Obvious. Every dagger category with embeddings of objects induces a hierarchical category by the formula $f \mapsto ( A_1 \hookrightarrow B_1) \circ f \circ ( A_0 \hookrightarrow B_0)^{\dagger}$ for $f : A_0 \rightarrow A_1$ and $A_0 \leq B_0$ and $A_1 \leq B_1$.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorporton
   • CommentTimeOct 15th 2013
   • (edited Oct 15th 2013)
   • PermaLink
   Author: porton
   Format: MarkdownItexIn other words, a category with embeddings of objects is a category with a partially ordered [or preordered?] set of objects and a functor from the poset of objects into the category.

   In other words, a category with embeddings of objects is a category with a partially ordered [or preordered?] set of objects and a functor from the poset of objects into the category.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeOct 21st 2013
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItexI\'d say the same thing as in #3, and partial order or preorder makes no difference up to equivalence (assuming the axiom of choice, or alternatively using anafunctors). But I\'m not sure that this is what you want! The sets $A$ and $B$ in a reloid should only be *abstract* sets; that is, even if you are working in $ZFC$ (or something similar), you don\'t really care about the membership tree of its elements (and elements\' elements, etc). And indeed (if I\'m not confused), you not only have an injection $\operatorname{Reld}(A_0,B_0) \rightarrowtail \operatorname{Reld}(A_1,B_1)$ when $A_0 \subseteq A_1$ and $B_0 \subseteq B_1$; you have such an injection for every pair of injections $A_0 \rightarrowtail A_1$ and $B_0 \rightarrowtail B_1$. So I think that you\'re looking for a [[double category]], which has two kinds of morphisms; in this case, one kind is the injections and one kind is the reloids. (Although, you might consider whether you can generalize further from injections to arbitrary functions.)

   I'd say the same thing as in #3, and partial order or preorder makes no difference up to equivalence (assuming the axiom of choice, or alternatively using anafunctors).

   But I'm not sure that this is what you want! The sets $A$ and $B$ in a reloid should only be abstract sets; that is, even if you are working in $ZFC$ (or something similar), you don't really care about the membership tree of its elements (and elements' elements, etc). And indeed (if I'm not confused), you not only have an injection $\operatorname{Reld}(A_0,B_0) \rightarrowtail \operatorname{Reld}(A_1,B_1)$ when $A_0 \subseteq A_1$ and $B_0 \subseteq B_1$; you have such an injection for every pair of injections $A_0 \rightarrowtail A_1$ and $B_0 \rightarrowtail B_1$.

   So I think that you're looking for a double category, which has two kinds of morphisms; in this case, one kind is the injections and one kind is the reloids. (Although, you might consider whether you can generalize further from injections to arbitrary functions.)

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorporton
   • CommentTimeOct 21st 2013
   • PermaLink
   Author: porton
   Format: MarkdownItexI can't open your link (nLab wiki does not work again). What you suggest me is generalization for the sake of generalization. It is not always good. I see no any reason whatsoever to consider arbitrary injections instead of set embeddings only. The notion of subsets is used by me to define "restriction" of a funcoid or reloid to this set (just like to restriction of a topological space to a set). This is in turn to be used to define equalizers and co-equalizers of funcoids or reloids. (I try to calculate equalizers to prove the theorems that in my categories all (co)products exist.)

   I can’t open your link (nLab wiki does not work again).

   What you suggest me is generalization for the sake of generalization. It is not always good. I see no any reason whatsoever to consider arbitrary injections instead of set embeddings only.

   The notion of subsets is used by me to define “restriction” of a funcoid or reloid to this set (just like to restriction of a topological space to a set). This is in turn to be used to define equalizers and co-equalizers of funcoids or reloids. (I try to calculate equalizers to prove the theorems that in my categories all (co)products exist.)

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeOct 22nd 2013
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItex@porton Toby's suggestion is not "generalization for the sake of generalization" (and btw, that sounds pretty rude to me). It's more that he's 'generalizing' so that the concept becomes invariant under categorical equivalence. Experience has shown that this is generally a wise move. Whether equalizers and coequalizers exist will not depend on whether you use subsets or arbitrary injections -- again by categorical equivalence.

   @porton Toby’s suggestion is not “generalization for the sake of generalization” (and btw, that sounds pretty rude to me). It’s more that he’s ’generalizing’ so that the concept becomes invariant under categorical equivalence. Experience has shown that this is generally a wise move.

   Whether equalizers and coequalizers exist will not depend on whether you use subsets or arbitrary injections – again by categorical equivalence.