How abusive of notation is it to drop isomorphisms?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter icantadd
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Drop Notation
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion centers on the notation abuse in category theory, specifically regarding isomorphisms involving terminal objects. The example provided illustrates how the isomorphism \( A \cong A \times 1 \) can lead to confusion when the mapping \( \langle a, 1_1 \rangle : 1 \to A \times 1 \) is treated as simply \( a \). While such identifications are often harmless, the potential for confusion necessitates caution and awareness of the underlying structure. The consensus is that while notation simplifications enhance readability, they can obscure important distinctions if not handled carefully.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of category theory concepts, particularly terminal objects.
  • Familiarity with isomorphisms and their implications in mathematical structures.
  • Knowledge of notation conventions in mathematical literature.
  • Ability to interpret mappings and projections in categorical contexts.
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore the concept of terminal objects in category theory.
  • Study the implications of isomorphisms in categorical structures.
  • Learn about notation conventions and their impact on mathematical clarity.
  • Investigate common pitfalls in mathematical notation and how to avoid them.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, category theorists, and students of advanced mathematics seeking to deepen their understanding of notation and isomorphisms in category theory.

icantadd
Messages
109
Reaction score
0
I have a general sort of structural question. I have been reading a lot of maths papers lately, and it seems there are some isomorphisms that people omit from their calculations. For example, in a category with a terminal object, 1,
[tex]A \cong A \times 1[/tex]
where the isomorphism is given from left to right by [tex]\langle 1_A , !_A \rangle[/tex] where ! is the unique map into the terminal object, and the isomorphism from right to left is (left) projection. Now, let [tex]a : 1 \to A[/tex]; an example of the abuse of notation I have seen quite often is to regard
[tex]\langle a , 1_1 \rangle : 1 \to A \times 1[/tex] as just [tex]a[/tex]

Are there any obvious problems with making such an association? Are there any non-obvious problems with making such an association? Am I missing something?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Mathematics would be much more difficult to read if we didn't make such identifications. Usually, there are no problems with it, but you should always keep in mind that you made the identification. Sometimes you can find yourself very confused about something, and it turns out you forgot you identified some things previously. But normally, there are no problems...
 
Thank you for the reply!
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Determining isomorphism for ##\frac{R}{(a, b)}##
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
MHB Is G/G isomorphic to the trivial group? A proof for G/G\cong \{e\}
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad ##(A/\mathfrak{a})_{\mathfrak{p}/\mathfrak{a}}## and its isomorphism?
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
Undergrad Trouble with a passage in Zariski & Samuel's Commutative algebra text
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Undergrad Question about "A Group Epimorphism is Surjective"
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
MHB Category Theory - Isomorphisms of Posets
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Undergrad Differences between left vs right actions in some group theory questions
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Graduate Elementary question about Dirac notation
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Undergrad Strange index notation for linear transformation matrix
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Graduate Lagrange multipliers on Banach spaces (in Dirac notation)
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K