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

Discussion Tag Cloud

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).

Atrium > Mathematics, Physics & Philosophy: Help to solve a simple CT problem

Bottom of Page

1 to 1 of 1

  1.  
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorporton
    • CommentTimeNov 16th 2013

    You know that I am attempting to prove that categories Fcd and Rld defined by myself are cartesian closed.

    My former attempt to prove it failed. I followed the pattern of the category of digraphs. But today I have found that there are troubles in my way to define cartesian product in the category of digraphs. (Previously I have skipped proving it, as considered it too trivial. That was my error.)

    Now I realize that I have some trouble to specify exponential object, evaluation, and transpose for so simple thing as the category of digraphs.

    This was probably the reason why I haven’t yet proved that Fcd and Rld are cartesian closed.

    I ask for help proving that the category of digraphs is cartesian closed. Sorry for my stupidity, but it appeared not quite trivial.

    See my exact question at math.stackexchange.com.

    Note that I define a digraph as a relation on a set, so there are at most one edge between any two vertexes.

1 to 1 of 1

  1.