The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Message from discussion Proposed Formal Definition of a Concrete Category

From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Subject:
 Validation: For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon.

More options Oct 13 2012, 5:31 pm
Newsgroups: sci.logic, sci.math
From: Dan Christensen <Dan_Christen...@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2012 14:31:31 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Sat, Oct 13 2012 5:31 pm
Subject: Re: Proposed Formal Definition of a Concrete Category
On Oct 13, 4:13 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:

> Dan Christensen <Dan_Christen...@sympatico.ca> writes:
> > Interesting point, but isn't a morphism wrt to some property (or
> > structure) P just a transformation that preserves property P? That is
> > my intuitive sense of it. You cannot transform any set into its power
> > set since, in a transformation, one element is transforms into exactly
> > one other element. Can you then have morphism from a set to its power
> > set?

> The function f:N -> P(N) mapping n to {n} is a morphism in the category
> Set.

> So is the function g:N -> P(N) mapping n to N \ {n}.

> And the function mapping n to N.

> And the function mapping n to n u {0,...,47}.

> And so on.

> You see that *sets* of elements are elements of the powerset.  Thus, a
> function S -> P(S) takes elements of S to subsets of S -- because
> subsets of S *are* elements of P(S).

As I understand, a morphism on is a structure-preserving
transformation. I don't see the point of category theory otherwise.

Dan