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 definitions 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 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 nforum 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.
   • CommentAuthorml
   • CommentTimeMar 4th 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: ml
   Format: MarkdownItexHi, I have a beginner's question. In $Vect_{R}$, the linear application $f:R \rightarrow E$ ($E$ a vector space over $R$) defined such as $f(1)=u$ allows to see the vector obtained by multiplication $\lambda u$ as the image of $\lambda$ : $f(\lambda)=\lambda u$. Is there a similar way to define the addition $u+v$ between two vectors $u$ and $v$ ? Thank you for your help. Marc

   Hi,

   I have a beginner’s question. In $Vect_{R}$, the linear application $f:R \rightarrow E$ ($E$ a vector space over $R$) defined such as $f(1)=u$ allows to see the vector obtained by multiplication $\lambda u$ as the image of $\lambda$ : $f(\lambda)=\lambda u$. Is there a similar way to define the addition $u+v$ between two vectors $u$ and $v$ ?

   Thank you for your help.

   Marc

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeMar 4th 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexAbout the only thing to comes to my mind is, in not quite beginner's language, that the [[codiagonal]] map $\nabla: E \times E \to E$ is in fact vector addition. In other words, this is one of those situations in which an operation in the algebraic theory to hand turns out to be an algebra homomorphism. This type of thing is explored in various directions within the nLab, for example in the article [[commutative algebraic theory]] and in the article [[Eckmann-Hilton argument]].

   About the only thing to comes to my mind is, in not quite beginner’s language, that the codiagonal map $\nabla: E \times E \to E$ is in fact vector addition. In other words, this is one of those situations in which an operation in the algebraic theory to hand turns out to be an algebra homomorphism. This type of thing is explored in various directions within the nLab, for example in the article commutative algebraic theory and in the article Eckmann-Hilton argument.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorml
   • CommentTimeMar 4th 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: ml
   Format: MarkdownItexThank you. My question is related to this paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.6067.pdf of David Spivak in which he asserts : "... there is an similarly elegant way to understand addition of vectors in terms of morphisms." (page 14). So, i thought that an answer could be as easy to understand as the one in this paper. But reading the links you kindly provided, i'm not so sure now ...

   Thank you. My question is related to this paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.6067.pdf of David Spivak in which he asserts : “… there is an similarly elegant way to understand addition of vectors in terms of morphisms.” (page 14). So, i thought that an answer could be as easy to understand as the one in this paper. But reading the links you kindly provided, i’m not so sure now …

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeMar 4th 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexYou should ignore the links then. The point is that if we represent vectors $v$ by morphisms $\mathbb{R} \to V$, then you can represent $u + v$ (in terms of morphisms $u: \mathbb{R} \to E, v: \mathbb{R} \to E$) by the composite morphism $$\mathbb{R} \stackrel{\Delta}{\to} \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R} \stackrel{u \times v}{\to} E \times E \stackrel{\nabla}{\to} E$$ where $\Delta$ is the diagonal map.

   You should ignore the links then. The point is that if we represent vectors $v$ by morphisms $\mathbb{R} \to V$, then you can represent $u + v$ (in terms of morphisms $u: \mathbb{R} \to E, v: \mathbb{R} \to E$) by the composite morphism

   $$\mathbb{R} \stackrel{\Delta}{\to} \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R} \stackrel{u \times v}{\to} E \times E \stackrel{\nabla}{\to} E$$

   where $\Delta$ is the diagonal map.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorml
   • CommentTimeMar 4th 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: ml
   Format: MarkdownItexIf I understand, $\Delta(1)=(1,1)$, then applying $(l_u,l_v)$ (in Spivak's terminology), you get $(l_u(1),l_v(1))=(u,v)$ and then, $\nabla (u,v)=u+v$, all of them being morphisms of the $Vect_R$ category. Thank you so much.

   If I understand, $\Delta(1)=(1,1)$, then applying $(l_u,l_v)$ (in Spivak’s terminology), you get $(l_u(1),l_v(1))=(u,v)$ and then, $\nabla (u,v)=u+v$, all of them being morphisms of the $Vect_R$ category. Thank you so much.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorml
   • CommentTimeMar 4th 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: ml
   Format: MarkdownItexI have a question related to the one you already answered. In a vector space $E$, is there a way to define subspaces via stability by morphisms ? Thanks again for your expertise.

   I have a question related to the one you already answered. In a vector space $E$, is there a way to define subspaces via stability by morphisms ? Thanks again for your expertise.

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeMar 4th 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexRe #5: yes, exactly. Re #6: I'm guessing that by stability by morphisms, you mean something category-theoretic that plays the role of "being closed under addition and scalar multiplication". It turns out to be even easier than that: we say that any [[monomorphism]] $i: V \to E$ in $Vect$ defines a subspace, with it being understood that two monomorphisms $i: V \to E, j: W \to E$ define the same subspace if there is an isomorphism $\phi: V \to W$ such that $j = i\phi$ (i.e., the obvious triangle commutes). The same type of definition applies to any category to define a [[subobject]], and hence applies across all of mathematics. One might have to tweak the definition a little in some cases to match the usual notion of "subthing"; for example in topology, [[topological subspaces]] may be defined as isomorphism classes of [[regular monomorphisms]]. But at least in algebraic situations, the notion of subalgebra (such as vector subspace) agrees with the straightforward notion of subobject as described in the previous paragraph. Of course at some point one should match up this simple definition of algebraic subobject (in terms of monomorphisms) with the more set-theoretic description in terms of being closed under the relevant algebraic operations. If $V \subseteq E$ is a subset closed under the relevant operations, then $V$ becomes a vector space and the inclusion map $i: V \subseteq E$ taking $v \in V$ to $v \in E$ is a homomorphism and indeed a monomorphism; essentially the same argument applies to any algebraic situation. In the other direction, if $f: V \to E$ is any monomorphism, then closure under operations is expressed by a commutative diagram like $$\array{ V \times V & \stackrel{+_V}{\to} & V \\ \mathllap{f \times f} \downarrow & & \downarrow \mathrlap{f} \\ E \times E & \underset{+_E}{\to} & E }$$ This works especially smoothly in a case like $Vect$ where the algebraic operations like $+$ are already homomorphisms, so that the diagram lives in $Vect$. It works only slightly less smoothly for other algebraic categories like $Grp$ (the category of groups) where the algebraic operations like group multiplication $m$ are *not* homomorphisms. In this case the diagram lives in $Set$, and one understands the diagram as referring to underlying *sets* $U(V)$ of algebras $V$, and underlying *functions* $U(f)$ of homomorphisms $f: V \to E$. There the official appropriate diagram might look more like $$\array{ U(V) \times U(V) & \stackrel{m_V}{\to} & U(V) \\ \mathllap{U(f) \times U(f)} \downarrow & & \downarrow \mathrlap{U(f)} \\ U(E) \times U(E) & \underset{m_E}{\to} & U(E) }$$ where the general piece of wisdom is that $n$-ary algebraic operations induce natural transformations $U^n \to U$ (like $m_{\bullet}: U^2 \to U$), from $n$-fold powers of the the underlying set functor $U$ to $U$, and such diagrams are just naturality commutativity squares. (This piece of wisdom is a kind of starting point for Lawvere's way of doing universal algebra: in every case there is a natural bijection between $n$-ary operations of the algebraic theory and natural transformations $U^n \to U$, and you can more or less *define* operations to be such natural transformations.)

   Re #5: yes, exactly.

   Re #6: I’m guessing that by stability by morphisms, you mean something category-theoretic that plays the role of “being closed under addition and scalar multiplication”.

   It turns out to be even easier than that: we say that any monomorphism $i: V \to E$ in $Vect$ defines a subspace, with it being understood that two monomorphisms $i: V \to E, j: W \to E$ define the same subspace if there is an isomorphism $\phi: V \to W$ such that $j = i\phi$ (i.e., the obvious triangle commutes).

   The same type of definition applies to any category to define a subobject, and hence applies across all of mathematics. One might have to tweak the definition a little in some cases to match the usual notion of “subthing”; for example in topology, topological subspaces may be defined as isomorphism classes of regular monomorphisms. But at least in algebraic situations, the notion of subalgebra (such as vector subspace) agrees with the straightforward notion of subobject as described in the previous paragraph.

   Of course at some point one should match up this simple definition of algebraic subobject (in terms of monomorphisms) with the more set-theoretic description in terms of being closed under the relevant algebraic operations. If $V \subseteq E$ is a subset closed under the relevant operations, then $V$ becomes a vector space and the inclusion map $i: V \subseteq E$ taking $v \in V$ to $v \in E$ is a homomorphism and indeed a monomorphism; essentially the same argument applies to any algebraic situation. In the other direction, if $f: V \to E$ is any monomorphism, then closure under operations is expressed by a commutative diagram like

   $$\array{ V \times V & \stackrel{+_V}{\to} & V \\ \mathllap{f \times f} \downarrow & & \downarrow \mathrlap{f} \\ E \times E & \underset{+_E}{\to} & E }$$

   This works especially smoothly in a case like $Vect$ where the algebraic operations like $+$ are already homomorphisms, so that the diagram lives in $Vect$. It works only slightly less smoothly for other algebraic categories like $Grp$ (the category of groups) where the algebraic operations like group multiplication $m$ are not homomorphisms. In this case the diagram lives in $Set$, and one understands the diagram as referring to underlying sets $U(V)$ of algebras $V$, and underlying functions $U(f)$ of homomorphisms $f: V \to E$. There the official appropriate diagram might look more like

   $$\array{ U(V) \times U(V) & \stackrel{m_V}{\to} & U(V) \\ \mathllap{U(f) \times U(f)} \downarrow & & \downarrow \mathrlap{U(f)} \\ U(E) \times U(E) & \underset{m_E}{\to} & U(E) }$$

   where the general piece of wisdom is that $n$-ary algebraic operations induce natural transformations $U^n \to U$ (like $m_{\bullet}: U^2 \to U$), from $n$-fold powers of the the underlying set functor $U$ to $U$, and such diagrams are just naturality commutativity squares. (This piece of wisdom is a kind of starting point for Lawvere’s way of doing universal algebra: in every case there is a natural bijection between $n$-ary operations of the algebraic theory and natural transformations $U^n \to U$, and you can more or less define operations to be such natural transformations.)

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthorGuest
   • CommentTimeFeb 24th 2021
   • PermaLink
   Author: Guest
   Format: MarkdownItexAfter nearly three years, I realize I didn't thank you for your last reply. So, here it is : A big thank you Todd :)

   After nearly three years, I realize I didn’t thank you for your last reply. So, here it is : A big thank you Todd :)

9. • CommentRowNumber9.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeFeb 24th 2021
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexYou're welcome!

   You’re welcome!