Unpacking the Objects in the Category of Sets: Cardinality and Distinctions

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter AgentBased
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Set
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of objects in the category of sets (SET), specifically focusing on whether sets are distinguished solely by cardinality or if there are additional distinguishing features. Participants explore concepts related to isomorphism, idempotent arrows, and the implications of category theory in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asks if sets in SET are distinguished by anything beyond cardinality, using R and R^2 as examples.
  • Another participant states that R and R^2 are distinct but isomorphic objects, and mentions that SET is equivalent to its skeleton, which consists of cardinal numbers.
  • A participant acknowledges their imprecise use of the term "uncountable" and seeks clarification on the nature of functions in SET, particularly regarding idempotent arrows.
  • It is asserted that a function from R^2 to R^2 does indeed go from R^2 to itself, and various algebraic manipulations related to functions in SET are discussed.
  • A reference to a construction involving idempotents in categories is made, noting that Set has images and that the construction leads to equivalence with Set.
  • A participant expresses their background in linear algebra and group theory while indicating they are new to category theory, seeking clarification for their independent study.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the distinction between R and R^2 as isomorphic objects, but there is ongoing exploration regarding the implications of idempotent arrows and the nature of functions in SET. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the broader implications of these concepts.

Contextual Notes

Some assumptions about the definitions of cardinality and isomorphism are present, and the discussion reflects a dependency on specific constructions within category theory that may not be universally applicable.

AgentBased
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Can someone give a quick description of the objects in the category SET? In particular, are sets distinguished by anything more than cardinality (i.e. R^2 has the same cardinality as R--are they distinct objects in SET, or is there just one "uncountable set" object?)

Answers/help much appreciated!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There is a one-to-one correspondence between (small) sets and objects in Set. So R and R2 are, indeed, distinct but isomorphic objects.

Set, of course, is equivalent to its skeleton, whose objects are (small) cardinal numbers. And c=c2. (I'm using c for the cardinality of R)

Many constructions with categories are only defined up to equivalence -- so you can often replace Set with its skeleton when its convenient to do so.



P.S. "uncountable" means any cardinality greater than [itex]\aleph_0[/itex]. I'm assuming you really meant just the cardinality of R[/size]
 
Thanks! (You are right, of course, I was being sloppy in using the term "uncountable" as I did.)

So suppose you had a function in SET, something like R^2 -> R^2 given by (x_1,x_2) -> (x_1,0). Would this arrow actually go from R^2 to itself, or to some distinct set object indicating the subset? (I am trying to determine idempotent arrows in SET, without being too blatant about it.)
 
AgentBased said:
R^2 -> R^2 ... Would this arrow actually go from R^2 to itself
Yes -- that's what "R2 -> R2" means.


There are a variety of algebraic manipulations you can do on a function -- things like invoke the existence of an epic-monic factorization, or use it to define an adjoint pair (inverse image, direct image) of functors on the poset Sub(R2) of subobjects of R2. (Set is nice enough to allow these constructions -- but they don't work in bad categories) I'm not really sure what you're looking for.



It almost sounds like you are talking about a construction I saw in Categories, Allegories by Freyd and Scedrov: they define a category Split(E) whose objects are the idempotents of E and Hom(e, e') consists of all morphisms of E satisfying xe = x = e'x.

Oh! Wikipedia has an article on it here.

For each idempotent in the category, this construction formally adds a new object representing its image. (which is named by the idempotent itself) Set already has images, though, so Split(Set) turns out to be equivalent to Set.
 
Thank you! I have some background in linear algebra and group theory, but I am just starting categories. I am trying to do some independent study in Categories for the Working Mathematician, and sometimes just a little clarification or explication helps so much when working on the exercises.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K