The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 |
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:
As I understand, a morphism on is a structure-preserving
> > 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
> 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
transformation. I don't see the point of category theory otherwise. Dan
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||