Can we define a preordered set from a slice category of locally small categories?
$begingroup$
I'm trying to define a preordered set $(S, prec )$ from small category $mathcal{C}$ using slice categories $(A downarrow mathcal{C})$.
Yet I want to ask if anyone can see a flaw in my reasoning, please. My reasoning is the following.
Given category $mathcal{C}$ consider slice category $(A downarrow mathcal{C})$ under object $A$. Now take the collection of all homsets in this slice category. By virtue of $mathcal{C}$ being small, this collection is a set. By virtue of $mathcal{C}$ being locally small, every homset is a set, hence we are able to define each homset's cardinality:
$|(A downarrow mathcal{C})(A,X)|$, for all $X in |mathcal{C}|$
I write this cardinality as $|(A,X)|$ for simplicity. So we can now define a preordered set $(S,prec)$ as follows:
Take set $S$ to have elements the homsets of $(A downarrow mathcal{C})$ and
say $X prec Y $ whenever $|(A,X)| leq |(A,Y)|$
It is clear that we have reflexivity and transitivity, right? the only property we lose from partial order $leq$ is antisymmetry because homsets with the same cardinality need-not be equal.
Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
category-theory order-theory
asked Nov 26 '18 at 13:32
Hugo Nava KoppHugo Nava Kopp
1237
$endgroup$
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
I'm trying to define a preordered set $(S, prec )$ from small category $mathcal{C}$ using slice categories $(A downarrow mathcal{C})$.
Yet I want to ask if anyone can see a flaw in my reasoning, please. My reasoning is the following.
Given category $mathcal{C}$ consider slice category $(A downarrow mathcal{C})$ under object $A$. Now take the collection of all homsets in this slice category. By virtue of $mathcal{C}$ being small, this collection is a set. By virtue of $mathcal{C}$ being locally small, every homset is a set, hence we are able to define each homset's cardinality:
$|(A downarrow mathcal{C})(A,X)|$, for all $X in |mathcal{C}|$
I write this cardinality as $|(A,X)|$ for simplicity. So we can now define a preordered set $(S,prec)$ as follows:
Take set $S$ to have elements the homsets of $(A downarrow mathcal{C})$ and
say $X prec Y $ whenever $|(A,X)| leq |(A,Y)|$
It is clear that we have reflexivity and transitivity, right? the only property we lose from partial order $leq$ is antisymmetry because homsets with the same cardinality need-not be equal.
Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
category-theory order-theory
asked Nov 26 '18 at 13:32
Hugo Nava KoppHugo Nava Kopp
1237
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Seems reasonable to me. Even ignoring all of the category theory stuff, once you've got a set of sets (by any means), you can always put a pre-order on them by doing this.
$endgroup$
– user3482749
Nov 26 '18 at 13:40
$begingroup$
Thanks for the feedback @Andrés
$endgroup$
– Hugo Nava Kopp
Nov 26 '18 at 18:04
$begingroup$
Note, that a small category is automatically locally small.
$endgroup$
– Oskar
Nov 26 '18 at 18:07
$begingroup$
Thanks @Oskar. I've edited my question
$endgroup$
– Hugo Nava Kopp
Nov 26 '18 at 18:15
2
$begingroup$
The objects of $Adownarrowmathcal C$ are pair of an object $X$ and an arrow $Ato X$. Therefore, $(Adownarrowmathcal C)(A,X)$ for $X$ an object in $mathcal C$ doesn't make sense. You need to say something like $(Adownarrowmathcal C)(f,g)$ for arrows $f:Ato A$ and $g:Ato X$ of $mathcal C$. Also, if you intend $A$ to stand for $id_A$, then that's the initial object and all those homsets are singleton sets which is probably not what you want.
$endgroup$
– Derek Elkins
Nov 26 '18 at 18:18
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
I'm trying to define a preordered set $(S, prec )$ from small category $mathcal{C}$ using slice categories $(A downarrow mathcal{C})$.
Yet I want to ask if anyone can see a flaw in my reasoning, please. My reasoning is the following.
Given category $mathcal{C}$ consider slice category $(A downarrow mathcal{C})$ under object $A$. Now take the collection of all homsets in this slice category. By virtue of $mathcal{C}$ being small, this collection is a set. By virtue of $mathcal{C}$ being locally small, every homset is a set, hence we are able to define each homset's cardinality:
$|(A downarrow mathcal{C})(A,X)|$, for all $X in |mathcal{C}|$
I write this cardinality as $|(A,X)|$ for simplicity. So we can now define a preordered set $(S,prec)$ as follows:
Take set $S$ to have elements the homsets of $(A downarrow mathcal{C})$ and
say $X prec Y $ whenever $|(A,X)| leq |(A,Y)|$
It is clear that we have reflexivity and transitivity, right? the only property we lose from partial order $leq$ is antisymmetry because homsets with the same cardinality need-not be equal.
Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
category-theory order-theory
asked Nov 26 '18 at 13:32
Hugo Nava KoppHugo Nava Kopp
1237
$endgroup$
I'm trying to define a preordered set $(S, prec )$ from small category $mathcal{C}$ using slice categories $(A downarrow mathcal{C})$.
Yet I want to ask if anyone can see a flaw in my reasoning, please. My reasoning is the following.
Given category $mathcal{C}$ consider slice category $(A downarrow mathcal{C})$ under object $A$. Now take the collection of all homsets in this slice category. By virtue of $mathcal{C}$ being small, this collection is a set. By virtue of $mathcal{C}$ being locally small, every homset is a set, hence we are able to define each homset's cardinality:
$|(A downarrow mathcal{C})(A,X)|$, for all $X in |mathcal{C}|$
I write this cardinality as $|(A,X)|$ for simplicity. So we can now define a preordered set $(S,prec)$ as follows:
Take set $S$ to have elements the homsets of $(A downarrow mathcal{C})$ and
say $X prec Y $ whenever $|(A,X)| leq |(A,Y)|$
It is clear that we have reflexivity and transitivity, right? the only property we lose from partial order $leq$ is antisymmetry because homsets with the same cardinality need-not be equal.
Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
category-theory order-theory
category-theory order-theory
asked Nov 26 '18 at 13:32
Hugo Nava KoppHugo Nava Kopp
1237
asked Nov 26 '18 at 13:32
Hugo Nava KoppHugo Nava Kopp
1237
edited Nov 26 '18 at 18:14
Hugo Nava Kopp
asked Nov 26 '18 at 13:32
Hugo Nava KoppHugo Nava Kopp
1237
asked Nov 26 '18 at 13:32
Hugo Nava KoppHugo Nava Kopp
1237
asked Nov 26 '18 at 13:32
Hugo Nava KoppHugo Nava Kopp
1237
1237
1
$begingroup$
Seems reasonable to me. Even ignoring all of the category theory stuff, once you've got a set of sets (by any means), you can always put a pre-order on them by doing this.
$endgroup$
– user3482749
Nov 26 '18 at 13:40
$begingroup$
Thanks for the feedback @Andrés
$endgroup$
– Hugo Nava Kopp
Nov 26 '18 at 18:04
$begingroup$
Note, that a small category is automatically locally small.
$endgroup$
– Oskar
Nov 26 '18 at 18:07
$begingroup$
Thanks @Oskar. I've edited my question
$endgroup$
– Hugo Nava Kopp
Nov 26 '18 at 18:15
2
$begingroup$
The objects of $Adownarrowmathcal C$ are pair of an object $X$ and an arrow $Ato X$. Therefore, $(Adownarrowmathcal C)(A,X)$ for $X$ an object in $mathcal C$ doesn't make sense. You need to say something like $(Adownarrowmathcal C)(f,g)$ for arrows $f:Ato A$ and $g:Ato X$ of $mathcal C$. Also, if you intend $A$ to stand for $id_A$, then that's the initial object and all those homsets are singleton sets which is probably not what you want.
$endgroup$
– Derek Elkins
Nov 26 '18 at 18:18
|
show 2 more comments
1
$begingroup$
Seems reasonable to me. Even ignoring all of the category theory stuff, once you've got a set of sets (by any means), you can always put a pre-order on them by doing this.
$endgroup$
– user3482749
Nov 26 '18 at 13:40
$begingroup$
Thanks for the feedback @Andrés
$endgroup$
– Hugo Nava Kopp
Nov 26 '18 at 18:04
$begingroup$
Note, that a small category is automatically locally small.
$endgroup$
– Oskar
Nov 26 '18 at 18:07
$begingroup$
Thanks @Oskar. I've edited my question
$endgroup$
– Hugo Nava Kopp
Nov 26 '18 at 18:15
2
$begingroup$
The objects of $Adownarrowmathcal C$ are pair of an object $X$ and an arrow $Ato X$. Therefore, $(Adownarrowmathcal C)(A,X)$ for $X$ an object in $mathcal C$ doesn't make sense. You need to say something like $(Adownarrowmathcal C)(f,g)$ for arrows $f:Ato A$ and $g:Ato X$ of $mathcal C$. Also, if you intend $A$ to stand for $id_A$, then that's the initial object and all those homsets are singleton sets which is probably not what you want.
$endgroup$
– Derek Elkins
Nov 26 '18 at 18:18
1
1
$begingroup$
Seems reasonable to me. Even ignoring all of the category theory stuff, once you've got a set of sets (by any means), you can always put a pre-order on them by doing this.
$endgroup$
– user3482749
Nov 26 '18 at 13:40
$begingroup$
Seems reasonable to me. Even ignoring all of the category theory stuff, once you've got a set of sets (by any means), you can always put a pre-order on them by doing this.
$endgroup$
– user3482749
Nov 26 '18 at 13:40
$begingroup$
Thanks for the feedback @Andrés
$endgroup$
– Hugo Nava Kopp
Nov 26 '18 at 18:04
$begingroup$
Thanks for the feedback @Andrés
$endgroup$
– Hugo Nava Kopp
Nov 26 '18 at 18:04
$begingroup$
Note, that a small category is automatically locally small.
$endgroup$
– Oskar
Nov 26 '18 at 18:07
$begingroup$
Note, that a small category is automatically locally small.
$endgroup$
– Oskar
Nov 26 '18 at 18:07
$begingroup$
Thanks @Oskar. I've edited my question
$endgroup$
– Hugo Nava Kopp
Nov 26 '18 at 18:15
$begingroup$
Thanks @Oskar. I've edited my question
$endgroup$
– Hugo Nava Kopp
Nov 26 '18 at 18:15
2
2
$begingroup$
The objects of $Adownarrowmathcal C$ are pair of an object $X$ and an arrow $Ato X$. Therefore, $(Adownarrowmathcal C)(A,X)$ for $X$ an object in $mathcal C$ doesn't make sense. You need to say something like $(Adownarrowmathcal C)(f,g)$ for arrows $f:Ato A$ and $g:Ato X$ of $mathcal C$. Also, if you intend $A$ to stand for $id_A$, then that's the initial object and all those homsets are singleton sets which is probably not what you want.
$endgroup$
– Derek Elkins
Nov 26 '18 at 18:18
$begingroup$
The objects of $Adownarrowmathcal C$ are pair of an object $X$ and an arrow $Ato X$. Therefore, $(Adownarrowmathcal C)(A,X)$ for $X$ an object in $mathcal C$ doesn't make sense. You need to say something like $(Adownarrowmathcal C)(f,g)$ for arrows $f:Ato A$ and $g:Ato X$ of $mathcal C$. Also, if you intend $A$ to stand for $id_A$, then that's the initial object and all those homsets are singleton sets which is probably not what you want.
$endgroup$
– Derek Elkins
Nov 26 '18 at 18:18
|
show 2 more comments
0
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3014340%2fcan-we-define-a-preordered-set-from-a-slice-category-of-locally-small-categories%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3014340%2fcan-we-define-a-preordered-set-from-a-slice-category-of-locally-small-categories%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
Seems reasonable to me. Even ignoring all of the category theory stuff, once you've got a set of sets (by any means), you can always put a pre-order on them by doing this.
$endgroup$
– user3482749
Nov 26 '18 at 13:40
$begingroup$
Thanks for the feedback @Andrés
$endgroup$
– Hugo Nava Kopp
Nov 26 '18 at 18:04
$begingroup$
Note, that a small category is automatically locally small.
$endgroup$
– Oskar
Nov 26 '18 at 18:07
$begingroup$
Thanks @Oskar. I've edited my question
$endgroup$
– Hugo Nava Kopp
Nov 26 '18 at 18:15
2
$begingroup$
The objects of $Adownarrowmathcal C$ are pair of an object $X$ and an arrow $Ato X$. Therefore, $(Adownarrowmathcal C)(A,X)$ for $X$ an object in $mathcal C$ doesn't make sense. You need to say something like $(Adownarrowmathcal C)(f,g)$ for arrows $f:Ato A$ and $g:Ato X$ of $mathcal C$. Also, if you intend $A$ to stand for $id_A$, then that's the initial object and all those homsets are singleton sets which is probably not what you want.
$endgroup$
– Derek Elkins
Nov 26 '18 at 18:18