Categorical extension of Cayley's Theorem

  • Thread starter Thread starter Singularity
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Extension Theorem
AI Thread Summary
Cayley's theorem can be extended to categories, allowing any category with a set of morphisms to be represented with sets as objects and functions as morphisms. The discussion revolves around understanding the definition of morphisms in the context of a 'dual' category, which has a different meaning in existing literature. The original poster seeks clarification on constructing a functor from their category to the category of sets, while avoiding a complete proof of the representation result. After consulting a professor and working through the details, they have successfully identified a functor and plan to explore its faithful properties further. The conversation highlights the complexities of categorical representations and the nuances of defining morphisms.
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!
 
Mathematics 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.
 
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Back
Top