I have a question that asks the following: Let S,* and T,. be binary structures and let the there be a homomorphism betweeen the two. If this is surjective, then if S is a group, so is T. I don’t understand what there is to prove. Isn’t the definition of a homomorphism between two structures … Read more

## How can you take the dual of a category whose objects are Sets?

Let’s say I have a category with two objects A {1, 2} B {3} I have the following morphisms ida A->A, 1->1, 2->2 idb B->B, 3->3 f A->B 1->3, 2->3 How can I take the dual category? If I flip the arrows, where does f point? Does it become two arrows? Do you choose? Thanks … Read more

## Is the category of (pre)sheaves over a singleton isomorphic to the category of sets?

I’m wondering whether PSh({x}) or Sh({x}) are equivalent to the category of sets. For sheaves, since the value on an initial object is a terminal object, It seems like the only degree of freedom except choice of singleton is the value on {x}. Still though, I’m not sure whether I’m not talking nonsense. For presheaves, … Read more

## Categories like FinSet\mathsf{FinSet}, but with elements of Z\mathbb{Z} or Q\mathbb{Q} as objects?

Suppose, we do universal algebra in a “non-evil” fashion, such that every algebra carries around an equivalence relation ≅ that poses as equality and such that size issues don’t matter (we may have proper classes as underlying “sets”). If we consider the category of finite sets with binary products ×, binary coproducts +, the empty … Read more

## Confusion about categorical viewpoint of normal subgroups

One way to define normal subgroups is as normal monos in Grp. Another uses quotients by internal equivalence relations, which makes use (I think) of the fact Grp has effective equivalence relations – each equivalence relation is a the kernel pair of its coequalizer. What’s the theory linking these two definitions? Answer Let me state … Read more

## How many objects are in Set\mathbf{Set}? [closed]

Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers. Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post. Closed 6 years ago. Improve this question … or does this question even make sense, considering the object “collection” of Set is a proper class rather than … Read more

## If functions compose both ways to make automorphisms, are they isomorphisms?

Let’s say that we have morphisms f:A→B and g:B→A such that f∘g and g∘f are both automorphisms (an automorphism is a morphism that is both iso and endo). Are f and g isomorphisms? The converse is true. Also they won’t necessarily be inverses. If it is not true in general, which categories is it true … Read more

## Exponential in the category Relation

Is it possible to define exponential and currying in the category Relation? If not, what is the reason that we cannot? Answer The category Rel has a zero object, i.e. an object that is both initial and terminal. On the other hand, any cartesian closed category with a zero object must be trivial: indeed, X≅1×X≅0×X≅0 … Read more

## Can we always define a congruence category?

In Awodey’s Category Theory the congruence category is defined as follows… We have a congruence ~ on a category C. Then C~ is defined as: (C~)0=C0 (C~)1={⟨f,g⟩,f~g} ˜1C=⟨1C,1C⟩ ⟨f′,g′⟩∘⟨f,g⟩=⟨f′f,g′g⟩ Now what bothers me is that in general we may not have products in the category C, but the definition uses products of the form A×A, … Read more

## Why are concretizable categories locally small?

I have seen it mentioned in a few places that concrete (or concretizable) categories are locally small, but never seen any proof. Is it particularly trivial? If not, does anybody have some reference or sketch proof? Answer By definition, the concrete \mathcal C has a faithful functor U: \mathcal C \to \text{Set}. In other words, … Read more