Category Theory - Initial and Final Objects

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of initial objects in category theory, specifically focusing on the empty set as an initial object in the category of sets (Set). Participants seek clarification on the definitions and implications of this concept, referencing examples and exercises from a textbook.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • Peter requests clarification on why the empty set $$\emptyset$$ is considered an initial object in Set, particularly regarding the existence of a unique morphism from $$\emptyset$$ to any set $$A$$.
  • Some participants explain that a morphism from $$\emptyset$$ to $$A$$ can be viewed as a relation from $$\emptyset$$ to $$A$$, which results in the empty relation since $$\emptyset \times A = \emptyset$$.
  • One participant reiterates that for any set $$X$$, if there is exactly one morphism from $$X$$ to every set $$A$$, it follows that $$X$$ must be $$\emptyset$$, thus supporting the claim that $$\emptyset$$ is the unique initial object in Set.
  • Peter acknowledges the previous explanations and expresses gratitude for the clarity provided, indicating a need for further understanding of the rigorous justification for these concepts.
  • Another participant emphasizes the definition of a function as a subset of the Cartesian product of two sets, suggesting this perspective is crucial for understanding the situation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the definition and implications of the empty set as an initial object in Set, but there remains a lack of consensus on the clarity and rigor of the explanations provided, as Peter continues to seek further understanding.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes references to specific examples and exercises from a textbook, which may limit the scope of the conversation to those particular contexts. Additionally, there are unresolved aspects regarding the formal proof requested by Peter for Exercise 5.2.

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Paolo Aluffi's book, Algebra: Chapter 0.

I am currently focused on Chapter I, Section 5: Universal Properties.

I need some help Example 5.3 and Exercise 5.2 in this section.
QUESTION 1Example 5.3 reads as follows:View attachment 4484

Can someone clearly explain why $$\emptyset$$ is initial ...

We need every set $$A$$ in the category Set to have exactly one morphism (set function):

$$\emptyset \rightarrow A$$

and Aluffi seems to be saying that the 'empty graph' ( an "empty or nothing function" ? ) is the unique function from $$\emptyset$$ to $$A$$ ... is that right ...?

It seems a highly contrived function (morphism) ... indeed, what is the empty graph exactly ... and how do we rigorously justify the assertion that it is actually a function ...

Can someone please explain clearly just what Aluffi is saying here ... ?
QUESTION 2

Exercise 5.2 in Chapter I, Section 5 reads as follows:View attachment 4485Can someone show me how to construct a rigorous and formal proof for this exercise ... ?Help will be much appreciated ...

PeterPeter
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Peter,

It could be useful to remember that a function between two given sets $A, B$ is a subset of $A \times B$ (with some other properties, of course)
 
Peter,

I've given this explanation to you before (that $\emptyset$ is initial in Set), but it's been a while and it doesn't hurt to reiterate. ;) Let $A$ be a set. A morphism $\emptyset \to A$ is a relation from $\emptyset$ to $A$, i.e., a subset $R$ of $\emptyset \times A$ such that for every $x \in \emptyset$, there is a unique $a \in A$ such that $(x,a) \in R$. Now since $\emptyset \times A = \emptyset$, $R = \emptyset$. So there is only one morphism $\emptyset \to A$.

Now let $X$ be a set such that for every set $A$, there is exactly one morphism $X \to A$. Then in particular, there is only one moprhism $X \to \emptyset$. Every element of $X$ maps to only one element of $\emptyset$; this cannot happen unless $X = \emptyset$. There, $\emptyset$ is the unique initial object in Set.
 
Euge said:
Peter,

I've given this explanation to you before (that $\emptyset$ is initial in Set), but it's been a while and it doesn't hurt to reiterate. ;) Let $A$ be a set. A morphism $\emptyset \to A$ is a relation from $\emptyset$ to $A$, i.e., a subset $R$ of $\emptyset \times A$ such that for every $x \in \emptyset$, there is a unique $a \in A$ such that $(x,a) \in R$. Now since $\emptyset \times A = \emptyset$, $R = \emptyset$. So there is only one morphism $\emptyset \to A$.

Now let $X$ be a set such that for every set $A$, there is exactly one morphism $X \to A$. Then in particular, there is only one moprhism $X \to \emptyset$. Every element of $X$ maps to only one element of $\emptyset$; this cannot happen unless $X = \emptyset$. There, $\emptyset$ is the unique initial object in Set.
Thanks for for that post, Euge ... It is most helpful and clear ...

My apologies for forgetting the advice and help that you gave some time earlier ...

Peter

- - - Updated - - -

Fallen Angel said:
Hi Peter,

It could be useful to remember that a function between two given sets $A, B$ is a subset of $A \times B$ (with some other properties, of course)

indeed ... a helpful point that is essentially the clue to the situation ... Thanks Fallen Angel ..

Peter
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K