**Changes-note**. Changed the already existing page 201707071634 to now contain a different svg illustration, planned to be used in an integrated way in pasting schemes soon.

**Metadata.** Like here, except that in 201707071634 symbols (arrows) indicating what is to be interpreted to 2-cells are given, in the same direction as in Power’s paper.

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.

]]>