MHB Categories of Pointed Sets - Aluffi, Example 3.8

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Example Sets
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Paolo Aluffi's book: Algebra: Chapter 0 ... ...

I am currently focussed on Section I.3 Categories ... ... and am trying to understand Example 3.8 which is introduced as a concrete instance of the coslice categories referred to in Example 3.7 ...

Examples 3.7 and 3.8 read as follows:https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/5568Since I do not have a basic understanding of the category of Example 3.8 my questions may not be well formulated ... for which I apologise in advance ...

My questions are as follows:Question 1

In the above text by Aluffi we read the following:

" ... ... An object in SET* is then a morphism $$f \ : \ \{ \ast \} \longrightarrow S$$ in Set where $$S$$ is any set. ... ... "My question is as follows: what exactly is $$\ast$$ ... ?

and ... ... is there only one $$\ast$$ for the category ... or one for each set ... if it is just a singleton for each set why not refer to it as a special element $$s \in S$$ ...
Question 2

In the above text by Aluffi we read the following:

" ... ... Thus we may denote object of Set* as pairs $$(S,s)$$ where $$S$$ is any set and $$s \in S$$ is any element of $$S$$ ... ... " My question is as follows: is there only one special element of $$S$$ in the category ... ... or are elements $$(S, s_1)$$ and $$(S, s_2)$$ in the category Set* where $$s_1$$ and $$s_2$$, like $$s$$, belong to the set $$S$$.

Question 3

In the above text by Aluffi we read the following:

" ... ... A morphism between two such objects $$(S,s) \longrightarrow (T,t)$$, corresponds then to a set-function $$\sigma \ : \ S \longrightarrow T$$ such that $$\sigma (s) = t$$. ... ... "


My question is as follows: the prescription $$\sigma \ : \ S \longrightarrow T$$ such that $$\sigma (s) = t$$ does not tell us how the other elements of $$S$$ are mapped ... ... ? ... and there are many alternatives ... and hence presumably, many $$\sigma$$s ... ... ? ... ... can someone clarify this matter ...
Hope someone can help ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Peter said:
In the above text by Aluffi we read the following:

" ... ... An object in SET* is then a morphism $$f \ : \ \{ \ast \} \longrightarrow S$$ in Set where $$S$$ is any set. ... ... "

My question is as follows: what exactly is $$\ast$$ ... ?
Doesn't the text say that $A=\{*\}$ is a fixed singleton? We fix an arbitrary one-element set $A$ and call its element $*$.

Peter said:
is there only one $$\ast$$ for the category ... or one for each set
Let's read the text again: Let $\mathsf{C}=\mathsf{Set}$ and $A=$ a fixed singleton $\{*\}$. That is, we consider a class of all sets and a particular one-element set. Where does the idea that there is one $*$ for each set come from? However, it is true that we could consider different one-element sets and get, strictly speaking, different categories $\mathsf{Set}^*$, but they will be isomorphic.

Peter said:
is there only one special element of $$S$$ in the category ... ... or are elements $$(S, s_1)$$ and $$(S, s_2)$$ in the category Set* where $$s_1$$ and $$s_2$$, like $$s$$, belong to the set $$S$$.
I assume that by "elements $$(S, s_1)$$ and $$(S, s_2)$$ in the category Set*" you mean objects of the category Set*. Yes, for each nonempty set $S$ and each $s\in S$ there is an object $(S,s)$ in Set*.

Peter said:
My question is as follows: the prescription $$\sigma \ : \ S \longrightarrow T$$ such that $$\sigma (s) = t$$ does not tell us how the other elements of $$S$$ are mapped ... ... ? ... and there are many alternatives ... and hence presumably, many $$\sigma$$s ... ... ?
Yes. Just like there are many morphisms between given objects of the category Set, there are in general many morphisms between any two objects in Set*.
 
Peter said:
I am reading Paolo Aluffi's book: Algebra: Chapter 0 ... ...

I am currently focussed on Section I.3 Categories ... ... and am trying to understand Example 3.8 which is introduced as a concrete instance of the coslice categories referred to in Example 3.7 ...

Examples 3.7 and 3.8 read as follows:Since I do not have a basic understanding of the category of Example 3.8 my questions may not be well formulated ... for which I apologise in advance ...

My questions are as follows:Question 1

In the above text by Aluffi we read the following:

" ... ... An object in SET* is then a morphism $$f \ : \ \{ \ast \} \longrightarrow S$$ in Set where $$S$$ is any set. ... ... "My question is as follows: what exactly is $$\ast$$ ... ?

and ... ... is there only one $$\ast$$ for the category ... or one for each set ... if it is just a singleton for each set why not refer to it as a special element $$s \in S$$ ...

It is a "generic" singleton set. If you prefer, you may think of it as the set $\{1\}$, although that notation implies we have some sort of numeric structure, which is not the case. In the category $\mathbf{Set}$, singletons are unique-up to set-isomorphism (bijection).
Question 2

In the above text by Aluffi we read the following:

" ... ... Thus we may denote object of Set* as pairs $$(S,s)$$ where $$S$$ is any set and $$s \in S$$ is any element of $$S$$ ... ... " My question is as follows: is there only one special element of $$S$$ in the category ... ... or are elements $$(S, s_1)$$ and $$(S, s_2)$$ in the category Set* where $$s_1$$ and $$s_2$$, like $$s$$, belong to the set $$S$$.

It is possible to have $(S,s_1)$ and $(S,s_2)$ where $S = S$ but $s_1 \neq s_2$-but the idea is we are thinking of each $S$ as "coming with" a distinguished point", or "base point" that "roots it." I admit it may not immediately be clear *why* we are doing this, but perhaps this might make it clear.

In the category $\mathbf{Set}$, there is an initial object $\emptyset$: that is, there is a unique function $\emptyset \to A$ for any $A$, the empty function. We also have terminal objects, there is a unique function $A \to \{\ast\}$ (these are called "constant functions"). Note that the initial object and the terminal object are "different". Using pointed sets fixes this asymmetry.

Question 3

In the above text by Aluffi we read the following:

" ... ... A morphism between two such objects $$(S,s) \longrightarrow (T,t)$$, corresponds then to a set-function $$\sigma \ : \ S \longrightarrow T$$ such that $$\sigma (s) = t$$. ... ... "


My question is as follows: the prescription $$\sigma \ : \ S \longrightarrow T$$ such that $$\sigma (s) = t$$ does not tell us how the other elements of $$S$$ are mapped ... ... ? ... and there are many alternatives ... and hence presumably, many $$\sigma$$s ... ... ? ... ... can someone clarify this matter ...
Hope someone can help ...

Peter

Morphisms in a category are typically NOT unique, just as morphisms in $\mathbf{Set}$ are non-unique (we typically have MANY functions $f:A \to B$, for any pair $(A,B) \in [\mathcal{Obj}(\mathbf{Set})]^2$). Just so, a morphism in $\mathbf{Set}_{\ast}$ is a function $f: (A,a_0) \to (B,b_0)$ such that $f:A \to B$ is a function with $f(a_0) = b_0$. Such maps are called "base-point preserving".
 
Deveno said:
It is a "generic" singleton set. If you prefer, you may think of it as the set $\{1\}$, although that notation implies we have some sort of numeric structure, which is not the case. In the category $\mathbf{Set}$, singletons are unique-up to set-isomorphism (bijection). It is possible to have $(S,s_1)$ and $(S,s_2)$ where $S = S$ but $s_1 \neq s_2$-but the idea is we are thinking of each $S$ as "coming with" a distinguished point", or "base point" that "roots it." I admit it may not immediately be clear *why* we are doing this, but perhaps this might make it clear.

In the category $\mathbf{Set}$, there is an initial object $\emptyset$: that is, there is a unique function $\emptyset \to A$ for any $A$, the empty function. We also have terminal objects, there is a unique function $A \to \{\ast\}$ (these are called "constant functions"). Note that the initial object and the terminal object are "different". Using pointed sets fixes this asymmetry.
Morphisms in a category are typically NOT unique, just as morphisms in $\mathbf{Set}$ are non-unique (we typically have MANY functions $f:A \to B$, for any pair $(A,B) \in [\mathcal{Obj}(\mathbf{Set})]^2$). Just so, a morphism in $\mathbf{Set}_{\ast}$ is a function $f: (A,a_0) \to (B,b_0)$ such that $f:A \to B$ is a function with $f(a_0) = b_0$. Such maps are called "base-point preserving".
Thanks Evgeny, Deveno ... appreciate your help ...

Reflecting on your posts now ... still a bit puzzled though ... especially about {*} ...

Peter
 
Peter said:
Thanks Evgeny, Deveno ... appreciate your help ...

Reflecting on your posts now ... still a bit puzzled though ... especially about {*} ...

Peter

In category theory, one is concerned with how things BEHAVE, not what they "are". For example, the groups:

$\{1,i,-1,-i\}$ under complex multiplication and $\{[0]_4,[1]_4,[2]_4,[3]_4\}$ under addition modulo $4$ are regarded as "the same", since there exists a group isomorphism between them (what kind of things "isomorphisms" are will vary from category to category).

With sets, an "isomorphism" is a bijective function. It is pretty clear that if $\{a\}$ and $\{b\}$ are two one-element sets, then:

$f:\{a\} \to \{b\}$ given by $f(a) = b$ is a bijection between them. So insofar as their "set-behavior" is concerned, there really isn't any significant difference between them except for the SYMBOL we attach to their sole element. Put another way, the most significant ALGEBRAIC property of a "set without algebraic structure" is its SIZE (its cardinality).

For example, the sets $\{1,2,3\}$ and $\{\text{Alice},\text{Bob},\text{Carol}\}$ are "essentially the same set" (up to a re-naming). We might represent both/either by $\{a,b,c\}$.

In algebraic topology, it is common for one to make a structure out of "loops in a space", $X$. A loop is just a continuous function:

$f:\Bbb I = [0,1] \to X$, where $f(0) = f(1)$.

To compose loops, its typical to run one after another, but this only makes sense if both loops start and end at "the same place". So one "picks a basepoint". It often turns out it doesn't matter "which point in $X$" one chooses, as long as you "stick with it". So we pick a generic point, and call it $\{\ast\}$ (or we could call it $x_0$, no real difference).

Another facet of category theory is the emphasis on arrows rather than objects. With sets, we don't "need elements", we can instead speak of a mapping $\{\ast\} \to A$, which picks out the element of $A$ that is the image of this mapping. Such a mapping is necessarily injective, and thus can be considered a kind of "inclusion" function.
 
Deveno said:
In category theory, one is concerned with how things BEHAVE, not what they "are". For example, the groups:

$\{1,i,-1,-i\}$ under complex multiplication and $\{[0]_4,[1]_4,[2]_4,[3]_4\}$ under addition modulo $4$ are regarded as "the same", since there exists a group isomorphism between them (what kind of things "isomorphisms" are will vary from category to category).

With sets, an "isomorphism" is a bijective function. It is pretty clear that if $\{a\}$ and $\{b\}$ are two one-element sets, then:

$f:\{a\} \to \{b\}$ given by $f(a) = b$ is a bijection between them. So insofar as their "set-behavior" is concerned, there really isn't any significant difference between them except for the SYMBOL we attach to their sole element. Put another way, the most significant ALGEBRAIC property of a "set without algebraic structure" is its SIZE (its cardinality).

For example, the sets $\{1,2,3\}$ and $\{\text{Alice},\text{Bob},\text{Carol}\}$ are "essentially the same set" (up to a re-naming). We might represent both/either by $\{a,b,c\}$.

In algebraic topology, it is common for one to make a structure out of "loops in a space", $X$. A loop is just a continuous function:

$f:\Bbb I = [0,1] \to X$, where $f(0) = f(1)$.

To compose loops, its typical to run one after another, but this only makes sense if both loops start and end at "the same place". So one "picks a basepoint". It often turns out it doesn't matter "which point in $X$" one chooses, as long as you "stick with it". So we pick a generic point, and call it $\{\ast\}$ (or we could call it $x_0$, no real difference).

Another facet of category theory is the emphasis on arrows rather than objects. With sets, we don't "need elements", we can instead speak of a mapping $\{\ast\} \to A$, which picks out the element of $A$ that is the image of this mapping. Such a mapping is necessarily injective, and thus can be considered a kind of "inclusion" function.

Thanks for a really helpful and clarifying post, Deveno ...

Great to know about the link with algebraic topology ...

Sorry to be a bit slow in responding ... had to travel out of Tasmania for a whole ...

Peter
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...
Back
Top