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
   • CommentTimeMay 20th 2015
   • PermaLink
   Author: porton
   Format: MarkdownItexIs there a wide-spread notation for identity morphism on a specified object of a specific category C? (I consider several categories and there are several different identity morphisms (one for each category) on the same object.)

   Is there a wide-spread notation for identity morphism on a specified object of a specific category C? (I consider several categories and there are several different identity morphisms (one for each category) on the same object.)

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeMay 21st 2015
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItex$1_X$ or $id_X$ are frequently used.

   $!A = \sum_{E: V} (E \to A}1_X$ or $id_X$ are frequently used.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeMay 21st 2015
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItexI suggest creating some notation that distinguishes when you want to consider the object as living in one category, and as living in another. For instance, the set $S$ and the discrete topological space $S^\delta$ (not a great example, since the identity function is the same in both cases). If you don't have a functor from one category to the other, then I would in fact strongly suggest notation that makes the objects obviously different. Abusing notation and omitting inclusion functors can sometimes be ok if people know what you're talking about, but otherwise be as clear as you possibly can. (That's all I've got)

   I suggest creating some notation that distinguishes when you want to consider the object as living in one category, and as living in another. For instance, the set $S$ and the discrete topological space $S^\delta$ (not a great example, since the identity function is the same in both cases). If you don’t have a functor from one category to the other, then I would in fact strongly suggest notation that makes the objects obviously different. Abusing notation and omitting inclusion functors can sometimes be ok if people know what you’re talking about, but otherwise be as clear as you possibly can. (That’s all I’ve got)