Deveno said:
To explain what I mean, I'd have to define a comma category. It's a long explanation, though, and you may not understand it just yet.
Suppose we have 3 categories $\mathcal{A},\mathcal{B},\mathcal{C}$.
Furthermore, suppose we have two functors:
$\mathcal{A}\stackrel{F}{\to}\mathcal{C}\stackrel{G}{\leftarrow}\mathcal{B}$
We can make the comma category $(F\downarrow G)$ as follows:
The objects are triples $(A,B,f)$ where $A$ is an object of $\mathcal{A},\ B$ is an object of $\mathcal{B}$, and $f \in \text{Hom}_{\mathcal{C}}(F(A),G(B))$ (that is an arrow of $\mathcal{C}, f:F(A) \to G(B)$).
The arrows are commutative squares, or equivalently, an arrow between $(A,B,f)$ and $(A',B',f')$ is a pair of arrows $(g,h)$ where:
$g:A \to A'$
$h:B \to B'$
and:
$f' \circ F(g) = G(h) \circ f$
Now some constructions that come up when you use special functors have their own names. If $\mathcal{A} = \mathcal{C}$ and $F$ is the identity functor of $\mathcal{C}$, and $G$ is a functor:
$G:\mathbf{1} \to \mathcal{C}$ (where $\mathbf{1}$ is "the" category with one object ($\ast$), and one (identity) arrow), then what $G$ does is just pick out an object $C$ of $\mathcal{C}$.
In this case, the triples $(A,\ast,f)$ can be abbreviated $(A,f)$ (the object $C$ being understood), and the commutative squares can be "shrunk" to commutative triangles (since $F$ is the identity functor of $\mathcal{C}$, and we don't need to explicitly include identity arrows in commutative diagrams).
Specifically, the objects $(A,f)$ can be identified as arrows $f:A \to C$, so that an arrow $(A,f) \to (A',f')$ is an arrow:
$g:A \to A'$ such that:
$f = f' \circ g$
In this case $(F\downarrow G)$ is often written $(\mathcal{C}\downarrow C)$ and called the slice category of $\mathcal{C}$ over $C$ or "objects over $C$".
Dually, we could have $\mathcal{B} = \mathcal{C}$ with $G$ the identity functor, and $F$ a functor from $\mathbf{1}$. In this case, our commutative triangles have a common source, and this is the co-slice category $(C\downarrow \mathcal{C})$. In this case our objects are arrows $(A,f)$ where:
$f:C \to A$
so that an arrow $(A,f) \to (A',f')$ is an arrow $g:A \to A'$ such that: $g \circ f = f'$.
You've seen this sort of thing before, when you were looking at modules of $R$-module homomorphisms.
*****************
To answer your second question:
You can think of it this way- any function $f:A \to Z$ that "factors through $\pi$" (that is, respects the equivalence relation $\sim$ on $A$), induces its own partition of $A$, namely the pre-image sets. Thus the partition induced by $\pi$ is a REFINEMENT of the partition induced by $f$. The partition induced by $\pi$, therefore (which is $\sim$) is the FINEST partition of $A$ that respects $\sim$ (we just don't refine $\sim$ any further!). That is $\sim$ is "minimal among partitions that refine $\sim$".
All this really means is that if $f:A \to Z$ gives the same partition (via pre-images $f^{-1}(z)$) as $\sim$, then $A/\sim$ and $Z$ are "isomorphic sets" that is:
$[a] \leftrightarrow f(a)$ is a bijection between $A/\sim$ and $Z$, and that this bijection is uniquely determined by $f$ (not only is there "a" bijection, but there is a SPECIFIC bijection that yields identical partitions of $A$).
The "uniqueness" then, in what I posted before is that $g:A/\sim \to Z$ HAS TO BE $\tilde{\varphi}$, no OTHER function:
$g: A/\sim \to Z$ will have the property that:
$g \circ \pi = \varphi$
(since $g$ respects $\sim$ it has to be constant on the equivalence classes of $\sim$, and the value it takes on each equivalence class has to be $\varphi(b)$ for every $b \in [a]$).
In group theory, we have the equivalence relation $\sim_H$ given by $g \sim_H g' \iff g^{-1}g' \in H$, for a subgroup $H$ of $G$. This equivalence is used to show that there is just one possible mapping, given $\phi: G \to G'$ (a homomorphism) from $G/\text{ker }\phi \to G'$ that respects $\sim_{\text{ker }\phi}$, namely:
$g\text{ker}\phi \mapsto \phi(g)$
In exactly the same way we say the quotient mapping $G \to G/H$ is universal among group homomorphisms that respect $\sim_H$ (clearly any such homomorphism has to send all of $H$ to the identity, since $e \in H$ and for any homomorphism $\phi:G \to G'$, we have $\phi(e) = e'$). Another way to say this, is that any normal subgroup $H$ of $G$ induces a (group-creating) partition of $G$, and $H$ creates the finest such partition that includes $H$ as one of its pieces.
Hi Deveno ... ... I thought I would follow your advice, rendered on a number of occasions, to use small examples in order to get a better sense and understanding of a notion, proposition, theorem or the like.
In this case, I am seeking to fully understand Aluffi's Claim 5.5 on page 34. Claim 5.5 asserts that $$ ( \pi, A/\sim ) $$ is an initial object of the category of functions $$ \phi \ : \ A \to Z $$ (where Z is any set and A is a particular given set) satisfying the property that $$ a' \sim a'' \Longrightarrow \phi (a') = \phi (a'') $$.
To show that $$ ( \pi, A/ \sim ) $$is an initial object we need to consider any (an arbitrary) object $$ ( \phi, Z) $$ and then show that there exists a UNIQUE (exactly one) morphism $$ \overline{ \phi } \ : \ ( \pi, A/ \sim ) \to ( \phi, Z) $$ ... ... that is there is a UNIQUE commutative diagram as shown in Figure 1 below:
View attachment 2645In other words, there is a UNIQUE (exactly one) morphism $$ \overline{ \phi } $$ making the diagram in Figure 1 commute.
Now, consider the following set A shown as partitioned by an equivalence relation $$ \sim $$.
View attachment 2646
Now consider the functions/mappings $$ \pi \ : \ a \to [a]_\sim $$ and $$ \phi \ : \ A \to Z $$ that are shown in Figure 3 below.
View attachment 2647
Now we have the following mappings or functions as follows:
(1)
$$ \pi $$ where
$$ \pi(a_1) = \pi(a_2) = \pi(a_3) = \pi(a_4) = [a_1]_\sim $$
and
$$ \pi(a_5) = \pi(a_6) = [a_5]_\sim $$
and
$$ \pi(a_7) = \pi(a_8) = \pi(a_9) = [a_7]_\sim $$
(2)
$$ \phi $$ where
$$ \phi(a_1) = \phi(a_2) = \phi(a_3) = \phi(a_4) = z_1 $$
and
$$ \phi(a_5) = \phi(a_6) = z_1 $$
and
$$ \phi(a_7) = \phi(a_8) = \phi(a_9) = z_2 $$
*** Note that given these functional assignments that $$ \phi $$ respects the partition enacted by $$ \sim $$
*** Note also that there are other possibilities we could have chosen for a map that respects the particular partition.Now, given $$ A, A/ \sim, Z $$ and the morphisms $$ \pi , \phi $$ as shown,
there is exactly and only one possibility for $$ \overline{ \phi } $$ given that we must have $$ \pi \circ \overline{ \phi } = \phi $$ and that is the following assignments:
$$ \overline{ \phi } ( [a_1]_\sim ) = z_1 $$
and
$$ \overline{ \phi } ( [a_2]_\sim ) = z_1 $$
and
$$ \overline{ \phi } ( [a_3]_\sim ) = z_2 $$
Thus, since there is only one possibility for $$ \overline{ \phi } $$, it is, by definition, UNIQUE, given $$ \pi $$ and the particular $$ \phi $$ chosen.
For a different $$ \phi $$ that also respects $$ \sim $$, we would have a different, but UNIQUE $$ \overline{ \phi } $$.
Can someone please confirm that my analysis regarding the above example is correct?
Peter
***EDIT***
One further question I have related to the term "universal properties" is as follows:
In what way does the existence of a unique morphism $$ \overline{ \phi }$$ amount so a universal property? In what way is it "universal"? Is it "universal" because a unique $$ \overline{ \phi }$$ exists for every object $$ ( \phi , Z ) $$ in the category.
As MHB members will gather from this question I am having problems getting a real sense of the idea of "universal properties" in category theory!
So any help in this will be much appreciated!Peter