Not signed in (Sign In)

Start a new discussion

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 bundles calculus categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-theory cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive constructive-mathematics cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry differential-topology digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory history homological homological-algebra homology homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory infinity integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal-logic model model-category-theory monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology multicategories newpage noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pasting philosophy physics planar 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-theory subobject 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.
    • CommentAuthorRodMcGuire
    • CommentTimeJul 4th 2017
    • (edited Jul 4th 2017)

    I see Noam Zeilberger has been updating partition.

    That article yet has to mention how a partition is just a quotient object but I’m not sure how to integrate this.

    At the section the_lattice_of_partitions_of_a_finite_set I would like to add something like the following but I hesitate because I might conflict with Noam’s further intents and it really needs to be better worded and stated more precisely. Also something should probably be said about coatomisticy.


    The lattice of partions of a set SS of size nn, Π(S)\Pi(S), is atomistic. An atom corresponds to a single equality. It contain a two element set as one block while all other blocks are singletons. Thus Π(S)\Pi(S) has n*(n1)/2n * (n - 1) / 2 atoms.

    Being atomistic means that any partition π\pi is the meet of its set of atoms: π=atoms(π)\pi = \bigvee atoms(\pi).

    In terms of atoms, the meet of partitions corresponds to the intersection of their atoms: atoms(πρ)=atoms(π)atoms(ρ)atoms(\pi \wedge \rho) = atoms(\pi) \cap atoms(\rho),

    For the join of partitions new atoms may emerge through transitive closure and thus we have

    atoms(πρ)=transClos(atoms(π)atoms(ρ))atoms(\pi \vee \rho) = transClos(atoms(\pi) \cup atoms(\rho))

    where if {a,b}atoms(π\{a, b\} \in atoms(\pi) and {b,c}atoms(ρ)\{b, c\} \in atoms(\rho) then {a,c}atoms(πρ)\{a, c\} \in atoms(\pi \vee \rho) .

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJul 4th 2017

    That article yet has to mention how a partition is just a quotient object

    Isn’t it said right there under “Of sets”?

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorRodMcGuire
    • CommentTimeJul 4th 2017

    That article yet has to mention how a partition is just a quotient object

    Isn’t it said right there under “Of sets”?

    Huh? Where is quotient object mentioned or linked to that article?

    With my “integration” comment I was more concerned with whether all non-set use of “partition” also correspond to quotient objects.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJul 4th 2017

    Quotient objects of SS are given by surjections out of SS. (I didn’t know you were being so literal.)

    To be on the safe side: the quotient objects are more accurately described as regular quotient objects (they’re the same thing in SetSet of course). For categories of algebras over SetSet, there is again a bijective correspondence between congruence equivalence relations and regular quotients. The concept of exact category is a useful context where this is generalized.

  1. Rod, I did not have any big plans, so feel free to add/edit however you see fit. I started thinking a bit about the lattice of noncrossing partitions, but I don’t understand it well enough to write anything yet.

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)