Talk:Comma category

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mathematics Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, which collaborates on articles related to mathematics.
Mathematics rating:	Start Class	Low Priority	Field: Foundations, logic, and set theory
Please update this rating as the article progresses, or if the rating is inaccurate. Click to show/hide comments. Please add to or update the comments to suggest improvements to the article. needs refs, try finding some here.--Cronholm144 08:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

So I just expanded this quite a bit - some of the previous phrasing has been incidentally squelched, but everything that was there before is still there now. I'm pretty sure that the new stuff is accurate, but I'm not too happy with the notation: there are far too many different symbols. It could also use a commutative diagram for the most general case. The material on adjoints is currently minimal; I've tried to say just enough to show "look, there's a connection!" without actually going into any details, but perhaps further details are needed. --AlexG 00:44, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of morphisms

I'm new to category theory, so I won't make changes myself here. But I want to suggest the following:

1. There's no definition of the identity morphism of each object in the comma category.
2. By the given definition of the morphisms, it is not specified but I suppose it must be obvious that the morphisms between two objects are taken uniquely. For example: if there are objects (a,b,f1) (a',b',f1') (a,b,f2) (a',b',f2') in the comma category, then there could be g:a->a' h:b->b' s.t. (g,h) is a morphism both in hom((a,b,f1), (a',b',f1')) and hom((a,b,f2), (a',b',f2')), but these are two separate morphism with the same notation, isn't it so?

--Itaj Sherman (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC) ’

The identity morphism for (a, b, f) is (id_a, id_b). You are right that the notation for morphisms is a bit ambiguous. Normally one thinks of the morphism as being given with its domain and codomain, but sometimes writing a map properly — (g, h) : (a, b, f) → (a’, b’, f’) — requires too much notation. I found a reference for the identity morphism in Adámek–Herrlich–Strecker, which does not comment on the ambiguity. It's possible that Mac Lane talks about it, but I don't have my copy handy at the moment. Michael Slone (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think it should be at least noted that the meaning of the definition is to be exclusive per domain and codomain, whether the books state it or not, this is what they mean. It would be helpful for people who are new to category theory - I was confused and had to go through all the definitions again to understand what was meant there. --Itaj Sherman (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

There really shouldn't be any confusion here. Two morphisms with different domains (or codomains) are never equal. This isn't special to comma categories. I agree that the language used in the article is a little loose in this regard, but I think to state it formally would add to the confusion rather than subtract from it. -- Fropuff (talk) 05:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)