Categorical extension of Cayley's Theorem

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Singularity
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Extension Theorem
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the extension of Cayley's theorem to categories, specifically focusing on the representation of categories with morphisms as categories with sets as objects and functions as morphisms. Participants explore the definition and properties of morphisms in this context, particularly in relation to the concept of a 'dual' category.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks clarification on the definition of morphisms in the 'dual' category related to Cayley's theorem extension.
  • Another participant questions the meaning of 'dual category' and prompts for a definition of a category acting on a set, suggesting the possibility of constructing a subcategory of Set that is isomorphic to the original category.
  • A participant acknowledges the existing literature on dual categories and confirms their focus on finding a functor from the category to Set, expressing uncertainty about checking the full and/or faithful properties of this functor.
  • One participant reports having figured out all the details of the problem, indicating progress in their understanding.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion contains multiple viewpoints regarding the definition and implications of the 'dual' category, and it remains unresolved whether the functor in question is faithful or full.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the properties of the functor and the specific definitions involved in the construction, indicating that further investigation is needed.

Singularity
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
Hey PF gurus!

I read that Cayley's theorem can be extended to categories, i.e. that any category with a set of morphisms can be represented as a category with sets as objects and functions as morphisms. I was looking at the construction and for some reason I don't fully understand how they define the morphisms in the 'dual' category. If someone could please shed some light on this, I would appreciate it. But please don't post the whole proof of the representation result - I would like to try it out myself first.

Many thanks in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What do you mean by 'dual category' here?

Have you actually defined the idea of a category acting on a set? Or are you just constructing a subcategory of Set that is isomorphic to your category C? (Or equivalently, a faithful functor C-->Set that separates (is injective on) objects)
 
Hi Hurkyl. Thanks for the reply. I realize that the concept of dual category already exists in the literature, and it has a different meaning to the one I am asking here. Clearly I am looking for a functor from C to Set (as stated in the first post I restrict myself to categories with sets of morphisms). I am unsure if I should (could) check out the full and/or faithful properties. I went to a professor in my department and he showed me the basics of the construction. I filled in the gaps and showed that one can find such a functor. I will investigate further to see if this functor is faithful.
 
Hi all, I have figured out all the details of this problem. Thanks again.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K