How does one show that $A cong T times A $ when $T$ is terminal?
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I want to show:
$$ A cong T times A $$
so for that I wanted to do $f;g = 1_A$ and $g;f = 1_{T times A}$. The first one is easy $f;g = 1_A$ because we know $T times A$ is a limit so for any other cone $(C,{gamma_A,gamma_T})$ of the disconnected objects $T$,$A$ we have the factorization:
$$ gamma_A = f;g$$
in particular for $gamma_A = 1_A$. So it works.
But how do we show the other direction? I assume something to do with the fact that $T$ is terminal (i.e. admits unique morphisms to it from any object) but this simple fact is escaping me right now. Any idea?
category-theory
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I want to show:
$$ A cong T times A $$
so for that I wanted to do $f;g = 1_A$ and $g;f = 1_{T times A}$. The first one is easy $f;g = 1_A$ because we know $T times A$ is a limit so for any other cone $(C,{gamma_A,gamma_T})$ of the disconnected objects $T$,$A$ we have the factorization:
$$ gamma_A = f;g$$
in particular for $gamma_A = 1_A$. So it works.
But how do we show the other direction? I assume something to do with the fact that $T$ is terminal (i.e. admits unique morphisms to it from any object) but this simple fact is escaping me right now. Any idea?
category-theory
1
Use the Yoneda lemma; show that $text{Hom}(-, A) cong text{Hom}(-, T times A)$ as functors.
– Qiaochu Yuan
Nov 22 at 21:48
@QiaochuYuan I know this is embarrassing but I just started with CT so idk what Yoneda's lemma is. I think it would be very strange to use it since it has been taught to me yet...
– Pinocchio
Nov 22 at 21:51
If you don't know the Yoneda lemma then you can't even prove that limits are unique up to unique isomorphism yet; I recommend that you learn the Yoneda lemma as soon as possible.
– Qiaochu Yuan
Nov 22 at 21:52
@QiaochuYuan I know how to prove two limits are isomorphic without appealing to that lemma. It comes out naturally when one connects the two limits with a unique isomorphism...hmmm...
– Pinocchio
Nov 22 at 21:55
2
A brute force approach is to simply write out what the isomorphism is and prove that it is an isomorphism. The latter step will require using the universal properties of products and the terminal object.
– Derek Elkins
Nov 22 at 22:42
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I want to show:
$$ A cong T times A $$
so for that I wanted to do $f;g = 1_A$ and $g;f = 1_{T times A}$. The first one is easy $f;g = 1_A$ because we know $T times A$ is a limit so for any other cone $(C,{gamma_A,gamma_T})$ of the disconnected objects $T$,$A$ we have the factorization:
$$ gamma_A = f;g$$
in particular for $gamma_A = 1_A$. So it works.
But how do we show the other direction? I assume something to do with the fact that $T$ is terminal (i.e. admits unique morphisms to it from any object) but this simple fact is escaping me right now. Any idea?
category-theory
I want to show:
$$ A cong T times A $$
so for that I wanted to do $f;g = 1_A$ and $g;f = 1_{T times A}$. The first one is easy $f;g = 1_A$ because we know $T times A$ is a limit so for any other cone $(C,{gamma_A,gamma_T})$ of the disconnected objects $T$,$A$ we have the factorization:
$$ gamma_A = f;g$$
in particular for $gamma_A = 1_A$. So it works.
But how do we show the other direction? I assume something to do with the fact that $T$ is terminal (i.e. admits unique morphisms to it from any object) but this simple fact is escaping me right now. Any idea?
category-theory
category-theory
asked Nov 22 at 21:33
Pinocchio
1,86321754
1,86321754
1
Use the Yoneda lemma; show that $text{Hom}(-, A) cong text{Hom}(-, T times A)$ as functors.
– Qiaochu Yuan
Nov 22 at 21:48
@QiaochuYuan I know this is embarrassing but I just started with CT so idk what Yoneda's lemma is. I think it would be very strange to use it since it has been taught to me yet...
– Pinocchio
Nov 22 at 21:51
If you don't know the Yoneda lemma then you can't even prove that limits are unique up to unique isomorphism yet; I recommend that you learn the Yoneda lemma as soon as possible.
– Qiaochu Yuan
Nov 22 at 21:52
@QiaochuYuan I know how to prove two limits are isomorphic without appealing to that lemma. It comes out naturally when one connects the two limits with a unique isomorphism...hmmm...
– Pinocchio
Nov 22 at 21:55
2
A brute force approach is to simply write out what the isomorphism is and prove that it is an isomorphism. The latter step will require using the universal properties of products and the terminal object.
– Derek Elkins
Nov 22 at 22:42
|
show 1 more comment
1
Use the Yoneda lemma; show that $text{Hom}(-, A) cong text{Hom}(-, T times A)$ as functors.
– Qiaochu Yuan
Nov 22 at 21:48
@QiaochuYuan I know this is embarrassing but I just started with CT so idk what Yoneda's lemma is. I think it would be very strange to use it since it has been taught to me yet...
– Pinocchio
Nov 22 at 21:51
If you don't know the Yoneda lemma then you can't even prove that limits are unique up to unique isomorphism yet; I recommend that you learn the Yoneda lemma as soon as possible.
– Qiaochu Yuan
Nov 22 at 21:52
@QiaochuYuan I know how to prove two limits are isomorphic without appealing to that lemma. It comes out naturally when one connects the two limits with a unique isomorphism...hmmm...
– Pinocchio
Nov 22 at 21:55
2
A brute force approach is to simply write out what the isomorphism is and prove that it is an isomorphism. The latter step will require using the universal properties of products and the terminal object.
– Derek Elkins
Nov 22 at 22:42
1
1
Use the Yoneda lemma; show that $text{Hom}(-, A) cong text{Hom}(-, T times A)$ as functors.
– Qiaochu Yuan
Nov 22 at 21:48
Use the Yoneda lemma; show that $text{Hom}(-, A) cong text{Hom}(-, T times A)$ as functors.
– Qiaochu Yuan
Nov 22 at 21:48
@QiaochuYuan I know this is embarrassing but I just started with CT so idk what Yoneda's lemma is. I think it would be very strange to use it since it has been taught to me yet...
– Pinocchio
Nov 22 at 21:51
@QiaochuYuan I know this is embarrassing but I just started with CT so idk what Yoneda's lemma is. I think it would be very strange to use it since it has been taught to me yet...
– Pinocchio
Nov 22 at 21:51
If you don't know the Yoneda lemma then you can't even prove that limits are unique up to unique isomorphism yet; I recommend that you learn the Yoneda lemma as soon as possible.
– Qiaochu Yuan
Nov 22 at 21:52
If you don't know the Yoneda lemma then you can't even prove that limits are unique up to unique isomorphism yet; I recommend that you learn the Yoneda lemma as soon as possible.
– Qiaochu Yuan
Nov 22 at 21:52
@QiaochuYuan I know how to prove two limits are isomorphic without appealing to that lemma. It comes out naturally when one connects the two limits with a unique isomorphism...hmmm...
– Pinocchio
Nov 22 at 21:55
@QiaochuYuan I know how to prove two limits are isomorphic without appealing to that lemma. It comes out naturally when one connects the two limits with a unique isomorphism...hmmm...
– Pinocchio
Nov 22 at 21:55
2
2
A brute force approach is to simply write out what the isomorphism is and prove that it is an isomorphism. The latter step will require using the universal properties of products and the terminal object.
– Derek Elkins
Nov 22 at 22:42
A brute force approach is to simply write out what the isomorphism is and prove that it is an isomorphism. The latter step will require using the universal properties of products and the terminal object.
– Derek Elkins
Nov 22 at 22:42
|
show 1 more comment
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Here's the brute-force approach I mentioned in the comments. This is definitely not the slickest way.
Let $pi_i : A_1times A_2to A_i$ be projections of the product $A_1times A_2$. Let $langle f,grangle : Bto A_1times A_2$ where $f: Bto A_1$ and $g : Bto A_2$ be the unique morphism (for any $B$, $f$, and $g$) whose existence is guaranteed by the universal property. The universal property can then be stated as: $pi_icirclangle f_1,f_2rangle = f_i$ and $langle pi_1circ g,pi_2circ grangle = g$ for any pair of arrows $f_i: Bto A_i$ for any $B$ and any $g : C to A_1times A_2$ and any $C$.
Let $1$ be a terminal object and $!_A : Ato 1$ be the unique morphism (for each $A$) whose existence is guaranteed by the universal property of terminal objects. The universal property can then be stated as: $!_A = f$ for any $f : Ato 1$ for any $A$.
Claim: $pi_2 : 1times A to A$ and $langle !_A,id_Arangle : Ato 1times A$ form an isomorphism, i.e. are mutually inverse. We need to show $$begin{align}pi_2circlangle!_A,id_Arangle & = id_Aqquad text{ and }\
langle !_A,id_Aranglecircpi_2 & = id_{1times A}end{align}$$
The first holds immediately via the universal property for products. For the second, we use the second part of the universal property of products which implies that if $pi_icirc f=pi_icirc g$ for $iin{1,2}$ then $f=g$. (Why?) Let's try to prove $$begin{align}pi_1circlangle !_A,id_Aranglecircpi_2 & = pi_1circ id_{1times A}\ pi_2circlangle !_A,id_Aranglecircpi_2 & = pi_2circ id_{1times A}end{align}$$ The second immediately follows from the universal property for products. For the former we get $$begin{align}pi_1circlangle !_A,id_Aranglecircpi_2 & = {!_A}circ pi_2 \ & = {!_{1times A}} \ & = pi_1 \ & = pi_1circ id_{1times A}\end{align}$$
The $!_Acircpi_2 = {!_{1times A}}$ and $!_{1times A} = pi_1$ both used the universal property of terminal objects. As mentioned, we finish by using the universal property of $1times A$ to get $$begin{align}langlepi_1circlangle!_A,id_Aranglecircpi_2,pi_2circlangle!_A,id_Aranglecircpi_2rangle & =langlepi_1circ id_{1times A},pi_2circ id_{1times A}rangle\ & = id_{1times A}end{align}$$
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Show that $A$ satisfies the universal property for $Ttimes A$. Let $pi_T=!$ (the unique map to $T$), and let $pi_A=1_A$ (the identity on $A$). Now let $f:Bto T$ and $g:Bto A$ be any arrows. Define $h:Bto A$ by $h=g$. Then $pi_Tcirc h=f$ since there is only one map $Bto T$ and $pi_Acirc h=1_Acirc g=g$. Furthermore, if $h':Bto A$ is another such map satisfying these relations, then $$h'=1_Acirc h'=pi_Acirc h'=pi_Acirc h=1_Acirc h=h,$$ which gives uniqueness. Since products are unique up to isomorphism, we conclude $Acong Ttimes A.$
Why does everyone think you need Yoneda to prove something so basic?
how and where did you use the fact that $T$ was terminal?
– Pinocchio
Nov 22 at 22:45
1
There's a unique map from any object into $T,$ so there was no choice of $f$ at all - any map $Bto T$ must be the unique map $Bto T$ given by the universal property of $T.$ That $f$ factors as $Bto Ato T$ again follows because there is a unique map from any object to $T$: you have maps $Bto A$ and $Ato T,$ so the composition is a (hence the) map $Bto T.$
– Stahl
Nov 22 at 22:49
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
The arrows from some object $B$ to $Ttimes A$ correspond naturally to pairs
of arrows $(f,g)$ where $f:Bto T$ and $g:Bto A$. But there's only one arrow
from $B$ to $T$, so the arrows $Bto Ttimes A$ correspond naturally to the arrows
from $Bto A$. So there's a natural equivalence of Hom-functors $text{Hom}(-,A)$
and $text{Hom}(-,Ttimes A)$. So $A$ is isomorphic to $Ttimes A$
(basically by Yoneda).
In a more calculational form: $$begin{align}text{Hom}(-,Ttimes A) & cong text{Hom}(-,T)timestext{Hom}(-,A)\& cong 1timestext{Hom}(-,A)\&congtext{Hom}(-,A)end{align}$$ Then Yoneda as usual. The first isomorphism is the universal property of products (in the form of representability). The second is the universal property of the terminal object. The final is just set-theoretic reasoning.
– Derek Elkins
Nov 24 at 9:08
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
For a proof from first principles (with functors and Yoneda officially not yet in sight), have a look at Theorem 26 and then Theorem 27(i) of this Gentle Introduction.
1
/me endeavors to influence Peter Smith to add a chapter on (co)ends to this introduction, or at least mention them...
– Derek Elkins
Nov 22 at 22:49
1
I'll get back to that Introduction one day, I hope (when another book is off to the publishers ...). Promises, promises ...
– Peter Smith
Nov 22 at 23:52
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3009689%2fhow-does-one-show-that-a-cong-t-times-a-when-t-is-terminal%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Here's the brute-force approach I mentioned in the comments. This is definitely not the slickest way.
Let $pi_i : A_1times A_2to A_i$ be projections of the product $A_1times A_2$. Let $langle f,grangle : Bto A_1times A_2$ where $f: Bto A_1$ and $g : Bto A_2$ be the unique morphism (for any $B$, $f$, and $g$) whose existence is guaranteed by the universal property. The universal property can then be stated as: $pi_icirclangle f_1,f_2rangle = f_i$ and $langle pi_1circ g,pi_2circ grangle = g$ for any pair of arrows $f_i: Bto A_i$ for any $B$ and any $g : C to A_1times A_2$ and any $C$.
Let $1$ be a terminal object and $!_A : Ato 1$ be the unique morphism (for each $A$) whose existence is guaranteed by the universal property of terminal objects. The universal property can then be stated as: $!_A = f$ for any $f : Ato 1$ for any $A$.
Claim: $pi_2 : 1times A to A$ and $langle !_A,id_Arangle : Ato 1times A$ form an isomorphism, i.e. are mutually inverse. We need to show $$begin{align}pi_2circlangle!_A,id_Arangle & = id_Aqquad text{ and }\
langle !_A,id_Aranglecircpi_2 & = id_{1times A}end{align}$$
The first holds immediately via the universal property for products. For the second, we use the second part of the universal property of products which implies that if $pi_icirc f=pi_icirc g$ for $iin{1,2}$ then $f=g$. (Why?) Let's try to prove $$begin{align}pi_1circlangle !_A,id_Aranglecircpi_2 & = pi_1circ id_{1times A}\ pi_2circlangle !_A,id_Aranglecircpi_2 & = pi_2circ id_{1times A}end{align}$$ The second immediately follows from the universal property for products. For the former we get $$begin{align}pi_1circlangle !_A,id_Aranglecircpi_2 & = {!_A}circ pi_2 \ & = {!_{1times A}} \ & = pi_1 \ & = pi_1circ id_{1times A}\end{align}$$
The $!_Acircpi_2 = {!_{1times A}}$ and $!_{1times A} = pi_1$ both used the universal property of terminal objects. As mentioned, we finish by using the universal property of $1times A$ to get $$begin{align}langlepi_1circlangle!_A,id_Aranglecircpi_2,pi_2circlangle!_A,id_Aranglecircpi_2rangle & =langlepi_1circ id_{1times A},pi_2circ id_{1times A}rangle\ & = id_{1times A}end{align}$$
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Here's the brute-force approach I mentioned in the comments. This is definitely not the slickest way.
Let $pi_i : A_1times A_2to A_i$ be projections of the product $A_1times A_2$. Let $langle f,grangle : Bto A_1times A_2$ where $f: Bto A_1$ and $g : Bto A_2$ be the unique morphism (for any $B$, $f$, and $g$) whose existence is guaranteed by the universal property. The universal property can then be stated as: $pi_icirclangle f_1,f_2rangle = f_i$ and $langle pi_1circ g,pi_2circ grangle = g$ for any pair of arrows $f_i: Bto A_i$ for any $B$ and any $g : C to A_1times A_2$ and any $C$.
Let $1$ be a terminal object and $!_A : Ato 1$ be the unique morphism (for each $A$) whose existence is guaranteed by the universal property of terminal objects. The universal property can then be stated as: $!_A = f$ for any $f : Ato 1$ for any $A$.
Claim: $pi_2 : 1times A to A$ and $langle !_A,id_Arangle : Ato 1times A$ form an isomorphism, i.e. are mutually inverse. We need to show $$begin{align}pi_2circlangle!_A,id_Arangle & = id_Aqquad text{ and }\
langle !_A,id_Aranglecircpi_2 & = id_{1times A}end{align}$$
The first holds immediately via the universal property for products. For the second, we use the second part of the universal property of products which implies that if $pi_icirc f=pi_icirc g$ for $iin{1,2}$ then $f=g$. (Why?) Let's try to prove $$begin{align}pi_1circlangle !_A,id_Aranglecircpi_2 & = pi_1circ id_{1times A}\ pi_2circlangle !_A,id_Aranglecircpi_2 & = pi_2circ id_{1times A}end{align}$$ The second immediately follows from the universal property for products. For the former we get $$begin{align}pi_1circlangle !_A,id_Aranglecircpi_2 & = {!_A}circ pi_2 \ & = {!_{1times A}} \ & = pi_1 \ & = pi_1circ id_{1times A}\end{align}$$
The $!_Acircpi_2 = {!_{1times A}}$ and $!_{1times A} = pi_1$ both used the universal property of terminal objects. As mentioned, we finish by using the universal property of $1times A$ to get $$begin{align}langlepi_1circlangle!_A,id_Aranglecircpi_2,pi_2circlangle!_A,id_Aranglecircpi_2rangle & =langlepi_1circ id_{1times A},pi_2circ id_{1times A}rangle\ & = id_{1times A}end{align}$$
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Here's the brute-force approach I mentioned in the comments. This is definitely not the slickest way.
Let $pi_i : A_1times A_2to A_i$ be projections of the product $A_1times A_2$. Let $langle f,grangle : Bto A_1times A_2$ where $f: Bto A_1$ and $g : Bto A_2$ be the unique morphism (for any $B$, $f$, and $g$) whose existence is guaranteed by the universal property. The universal property can then be stated as: $pi_icirclangle f_1,f_2rangle = f_i$ and $langle pi_1circ g,pi_2circ grangle = g$ for any pair of arrows $f_i: Bto A_i$ for any $B$ and any $g : C to A_1times A_2$ and any $C$.
Let $1$ be a terminal object and $!_A : Ato 1$ be the unique morphism (for each $A$) whose existence is guaranteed by the universal property of terminal objects. The universal property can then be stated as: $!_A = f$ for any $f : Ato 1$ for any $A$.
Claim: $pi_2 : 1times A to A$ and $langle !_A,id_Arangle : Ato 1times A$ form an isomorphism, i.e. are mutually inverse. We need to show $$begin{align}pi_2circlangle!_A,id_Arangle & = id_Aqquad text{ and }\
langle !_A,id_Aranglecircpi_2 & = id_{1times A}end{align}$$
The first holds immediately via the universal property for products. For the second, we use the second part of the universal property of products which implies that if $pi_icirc f=pi_icirc g$ for $iin{1,2}$ then $f=g$. (Why?) Let's try to prove $$begin{align}pi_1circlangle !_A,id_Aranglecircpi_2 & = pi_1circ id_{1times A}\ pi_2circlangle !_A,id_Aranglecircpi_2 & = pi_2circ id_{1times A}end{align}$$ The second immediately follows from the universal property for products. For the former we get $$begin{align}pi_1circlangle !_A,id_Aranglecircpi_2 & = {!_A}circ pi_2 \ & = {!_{1times A}} \ & = pi_1 \ & = pi_1circ id_{1times A}\end{align}$$
The $!_Acircpi_2 = {!_{1times A}}$ and $!_{1times A} = pi_1$ both used the universal property of terminal objects. As mentioned, we finish by using the universal property of $1times A$ to get $$begin{align}langlepi_1circlangle!_A,id_Aranglecircpi_2,pi_2circlangle!_A,id_Aranglecircpi_2rangle & =langlepi_1circ id_{1times A},pi_2circ id_{1times A}rangle\ & = id_{1times A}end{align}$$
Here's the brute-force approach I mentioned in the comments. This is definitely not the slickest way.
Let $pi_i : A_1times A_2to A_i$ be projections of the product $A_1times A_2$. Let $langle f,grangle : Bto A_1times A_2$ where $f: Bto A_1$ and $g : Bto A_2$ be the unique morphism (for any $B$, $f$, and $g$) whose existence is guaranteed by the universal property. The universal property can then be stated as: $pi_icirclangle f_1,f_2rangle = f_i$ and $langle pi_1circ g,pi_2circ grangle = g$ for any pair of arrows $f_i: Bto A_i$ for any $B$ and any $g : C to A_1times A_2$ and any $C$.
Let $1$ be a terminal object and $!_A : Ato 1$ be the unique morphism (for each $A$) whose existence is guaranteed by the universal property of terminal objects. The universal property can then be stated as: $!_A = f$ for any $f : Ato 1$ for any $A$.
Claim: $pi_2 : 1times A to A$ and $langle !_A,id_Arangle : Ato 1times A$ form an isomorphism, i.e. are mutually inverse. We need to show $$begin{align}pi_2circlangle!_A,id_Arangle & = id_Aqquad text{ and }\
langle !_A,id_Aranglecircpi_2 & = id_{1times A}end{align}$$
The first holds immediately via the universal property for products. For the second, we use the second part of the universal property of products which implies that if $pi_icirc f=pi_icirc g$ for $iin{1,2}$ then $f=g$. (Why?) Let's try to prove $$begin{align}pi_1circlangle !_A,id_Aranglecircpi_2 & = pi_1circ id_{1times A}\ pi_2circlangle !_A,id_Aranglecircpi_2 & = pi_2circ id_{1times A}end{align}$$ The second immediately follows from the universal property for products. For the former we get $$begin{align}pi_1circlangle !_A,id_Aranglecircpi_2 & = {!_A}circ pi_2 \ & = {!_{1times A}} \ & = pi_1 \ & = pi_1circ id_{1times A}\end{align}$$
The $!_Acircpi_2 = {!_{1times A}}$ and $!_{1times A} = pi_1$ both used the universal property of terminal objects. As mentioned, we finish by using the universal property of $1times A$ to get $$begin{align}langlepi_1circlangle!_A,id_Aranglecircpi_2,pi_2circlangle!_A,id_Aranglecircpi_2rangle & =langlepi_1circ id_{1times A},pi_2circ id_{1times A}rangle\ & = id_{1times A}end{align}$$
answered Nov 22 at 23:39
Derek Elkins
16k11336
16k11336
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Show that $A$ satisfies the universal property for $Ttimes A$. Let $pi_T=!$ (the unique map to $T$), and let $pi_A=1_A$ (the identity on $A$). Now let $f:Bto T$ and $g:Bto A$ be any arrows. Define $h:Bto A$ by $h=g$. Then $pi_Tcirc h=f$ since there is only one map $Bto T$ and $pi_Acirc h=1_Acirc g=g$. Furthermore, if $h':Bto A$ is another such map satisfying these relations, then $$h'=1_Acirc h'=pi_Acirc h'=pi_Acirc h=1_Acirc h=h,$$ which gives uniqueness. Since products are unique up to isomorphism, we conclude $Acong Ttimes A.$
Why does everyone think you need Yoneda to prove something so basic?
how and where did you use the fact that $T$ was terminal?
– Pinocchio
Nov 22 at 22:45
1
There's a unique map from any object into $T,$ so there was no choice of $f$ at all - any map $Bto T$ must be the unique map $Bto T$ given by the universal property of $T.$ That $f$ factors as $Bto Ato T$ again follows because there is a unique map from any object to $T$: you have maps $Bto A$ and $Ato T,$ so the composition is a (hence the) map $Bto T.$
– Stahl
Nov 22 at 22:49
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Show that $A$ satisfies the universal property for $Ttimes A$. Let $pi_T=!$ (the unique map to $T$), and let $pi_A=1_A$ (the identity on $A$). Now let $f:Bto T$ and $g:Bto A$ be any arrows. Define $h:Bto A$ by $h=g$. Then $pi_Tcirc h=f$ since there is only one map $Bto T$ and $pi_Acirc h=1_Acirc g=g$. Furthermore, if $h':Bto A$ is another such map satisfying these relations, then $$h'=1_Acirc h'=pi_Acirc h'=pi_Acirc h=1_Acirc h=h,$$ which gives uniqueness. Since products are unique up to isomorphism, we conclude $Acong Ttimes A.$
Why does everyone think you need Yoneda to prove something so basic?
how and where did you use the fact that $T$ was terminal?
– Pinocchio
Nov 22 at 22:45
1
There's a unique map from any object into $T,$ so there was no choice of $f$ at all - any map $Bto T$ must be the unique map $Bto T$ given by the universal property of $T.$ That $f$ factors as $Bto Ato T$ again follows because there is a unique map from any object to $T$: you have maps $Bto A$ and $Ato T,$ so the composition is a (hence the) map $Bto T.$
– Stahl
Nov 22 at 22:49
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Show that $A$ satisfies the universal property for $Ttimes A$. Let $pi_T=!$ (the unique map to $T$), and let $pi_A=1_A$ (the identity on $A$). Now let $f:Bto T$ and $g:Bto A$ be any arrows. Define $h:Bto A$ by $h=g$. Then $pi_Tcirc h=f$ since there is only one map $Bto T$ and $pi_Acirc h=1_Acirc g=g$. Furthermore, if $h':Bto A$ is another such map satisfying these relations, then $$h'=1_Acirc h'=pi_Acirc h'=pi_Acirc h=1_Acirc h=h,$$ which gives uniqueness. Since products are unique up to isomorphism, we conclude $Acong Ttimes A.$
Why does everyone think you need Yoneda to prove something so basic?
Show that $A$ satisfies the universal property for $Ttimes A$. Let $pi_T=!$ (the unique map to $T$), and let $pi_A=1_A$ (the identity on $A$). Now let $f:Bto T$ and $g:Bto A$ be any arrows. Define $h:Bto A$ by $h=g$. Then $pi_Tcirc h=f$ since there is only one map $Bto T$ and $pi_Acirc h=1_Acirc g=g$. Furthermore, if $h':Bto A$ is another such map satisfying these relations, then $$h'=1_Acirc h'=pi_Acirc h'=pi_Acirc h=1_Acirc h=h,$$ which gives uniqueness. Since products are unique up to isomorphism, we conclude $Acong Ttimes A.$
Why does everyone think you need Yoneda to prove something so basic?
answered Nov 22 at 22:37
D. Brogan
535312
535312
how and where did you use the fact that $T$ was terminal?
– Pinocchio
Nov 22 at 22:45
1
There's a unique map from any object into $T,$ so there was no choice of $f$ at all - any map $Bto T$ must be the unique map $Bto T$ given by the universal property of $T.$ That $f$ factors as $Bto Ato T$ again follows because there is a unique map from any object to $T$: you have maps $Bto A$ and $Ato T,$ so the composition is a (hence the) map $Bto T.$
– Stahl
Nov 22 at 22:49
add a comment |
how and where did you use the fact that $T$ was terminal?
– Pinocchio
Nov 22 at 22:45
1
There's a unique map from any object into $T,$ so there was no choice of $f$ at all - any map $Bto T$ must be the unique map $Bto T$ given by the universal property of $T.$ That $f$ factors as $Bto Ato T$ again follows because there is a unique map from any object to $T$: you have maps $Bto A$ and $Ato T,$ so the composition is a (hence the) map $Bto T.$
– Stahl
Nov 22 at 22:49
how and where did you use the fact that $T$ was terminal?
– Pinocchio
Nov 22 at 22:45
how and where did you use the fact that $T$ was terminal?
– Pinocchio
Nov 22 at 22:45
1
1
There's a unique map from any object into $T,$ so there was no choice of $f$ at all - any map $Bto T$ must be the unique map $Bto T$ given by the universal property of $T.$ That $f$ factors as $Bto Ato T$ again follows because there is a unique map from any object to $T$: you have maps $Bto A$ and $Ato T,$ so the composition is a (hence the) map $Bto T.$
– Stahl
Nov 22 at 22:49
There's a unique map from any object into $T,$ so there was no choice of $f$ at all - any map $Bto T$ must be the unique map $Bto T$ given by the universal property of $T.$ That $f$ factors as $Bto Ato T$ again follows because there is a unique map from any object to $T$: you have maps $Bto A$ and $Ato T,$ so the composition is a (hence the) map $Bto T.$
– Stahl
Nov 22 at 22:49
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
The arrows from some object $B$ to $Ttimes A$ correspond naturally to pairs
of arrows $(f,g)$ where $f:Bto T$ and $g:Bto A$. But there's only one arrow
from $B$ to $T$, so the arrows $Bto Ttimes A$ correspond naturally to the arrows
from $Bto A$. So there's a natural equivalence of Hom-functors $text{Hom}(-,A)$
and $text{Hom}(-,Ttimes A)$. So $A$ is isomorphic to $Ttimes A$
(basically by Yoneda).
In a more calculational form: $$begin{align}text{Hom}(-,Ttimes A) & cong text{Hom}(-,T)timestext{Hom}(-,A)\& cong 1timestext{Hom}(-,A)\&congtext{Hom}(-,A)end{align}$$ Then Yoneda as usual. The first isomorphism is the universal property of products (in the form of representability). The second is the universal property of the terminal object. The final is just set-theoretic reasoning.
– Derek Elkins
Nov 24 at 9:08
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
The arrows from some object $B$ to $Ttimes A$ correspond naturally to pairs
of arrows $(f,g)$ where $f:Bto T$ and $g:Bto A$. But there's only one arrow
from $B$ to $T$, so the arrows $Bto Ttimes A$ correspond naturally to the arrows
from $Bto A$. So there's a natural equivalence of Hom-functors $text{Hom}(-,A)$
and $text{Hom}(-,Ttimes A)$. So $A$ is isomorphic to $Ttimes A$
(basically by Yoneda).
In a more calculational form: $$begin{align}text{Hom}(-,Ttimes A) & cong text{Hom}(-,T)timestext{Hom}(-,A)\& cong 1timestext{Hom}(-,A)\&congtext{Hom}(-,A)end{align}$$ Then Yoneda as usual. The first isomorphism is the universal property of products (in the form of representability). The second is the universal property of the terminal object. The final is just set-theoretic reasoning.
– Derek Elkins
Nov 24 at 9:08
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
The arrows from some object $B$ to $Ttimes A$ correspond naturally to pairs
of arrows $(f,g)$ where $f:Bto T$ and $g:Bto A$. But there's only one arrow
from $B$ to $T$, so the arrows $Bto Ttimes A$ correspond naturally to the arrows
from $Bto A$. So there's a natural equivalence of Hom-functors $text{Hom}(-,A)$
and $text{Hom}(-,Ttimes A)$. So $A$ is isomorphic to $Ttimes A$
(basically by Yoneda).
The arrows from some object $B$ to $Ttimes A$ correspond naturally to pairs
of arrows $(f,g)$ where $f:Bto T$ and $g:Bto A$. But there's only one arrow
from $B$ to $T$, so the arrows $Bto Ttimes A$ correspond naturally to the arrows
from $Bto A$. So there's a natural equivalence of Hom-functors $text{Hom}(-,A)$
and $text{Hom}(-,Ttimes A)$. So $A$ is isomorphic to $Ttimes A$
(basically by Yoneda).
answered Nov 22 at 21:48
Lord Shark the Unknown
99.1k958131
99.1k958131
In a more calculational form: $$begin{align}text{Hom}(-,Ttimes A) & cong text{Hom}(-,T)timestext{Hom}(-,A)\& cong 1timestext{Hom}(-,A)\&congtext{Hom}(-,A)end{align}$$ Then Yoneda as usual. The first isomorphism is the universal property of products (in the form of representability). The second is the universal property of the terminal object. The final is just set-theoretic reasoning.
– Derek Elkins
Nov 24 at 9:08
add a comment |
In a more calculational form: $$begin{align}text{Hom}(-,Ttimes A) & cong text{Hom}(-,T)timestext{Hom}(-,A)\& cong 1timestext{Hom}(-,A)\&congtext{Hom}(-,A)end{align}$$ Then Yoneda as usual. The first isomorphism is the universal property of products (in the form of representability). The second is the universal property of the terminal object. The final is just set-theoretic reasoning.
– Derek Elkins
Nov 24 at 9:08
In a more calculational form: $$begin{align}text{Hom}(-,Ttimes A) & cong text{Hom}(-,T)timestext{Hom}(-,A)\& cong 1timestext{Hom}(-,A)\&congtext{Hom}(-,A)end{align}$$ Then Yoneda as usual. The first isomorphism is the universal property of products (in the form of representability). The second is the universal property of the terminal object. The final is just set-theoretic reasoning.
– Derek Elkins
Nov 24 at 9:08
In a more calculational form: $$begin{align}text{Hom}(-,Ttimes A) & cong text{Hom}(-,T)timestext{Hom}(-,A)\& cong 1timestext{Hom}(-,A)\&congtext{Hom}(-,A)end{align}$$ Then Yoneda as usual. The first isomorphism is the universal property of products (in the form of representability). The second is the universal property of the terminal object. The final is just set-theoretic reasoning.
– Derek Elkins
Nov 24 at 9:08
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
For a proof from first principles (with functors and Yoneda officially not yet in sight), have a look at Theorem 26 and then Theorem 27(i) of this Gentle Introduction.
1
/me endeavors to influence Peter Smith to add a chapter on (co)ends to this introduction, or at least mention them...
– Derek Elkins
Nov 22 at 22:49
1
I'll get back to that Introduction one day, I hope (when another book is off to the publishers ...). Promises, promises ...
– Peter Smith
Nov 22 at 23:52
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
For a proof from first principles (with functors and Yoneda officially not yet in sight), have a look at Theorem 26 and then Theorem 27(i) of this Gentle Introduction.
1
/me endeavors to influence Peter Smith to add a chapter on (co)ends to this introduction, or at least mention them...
– Derek Elkins
Nov 22 at 22:49
1
I'll get back to that Introduction one day, I hope (when another book is off to the publishers ...). Promises, promises ...
– Peter Smith
Nov 22 at 23:52
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
For a proof from first principles (with functors and Yoneda officially not yet in sight), have a look at Theorem 26 and then Theorem 27(i) of this Gentle Introduction.
For a proof from first principles (with functors and Yoneda officially not yet in sight), have a look at Theorem 26 and then Theorem 27(i) of this Gentle Introduction.
edited Nov 22 at 22:16
answered Nov 22 at 22:09
Peter Smith
40.4k339118
40.4k339118
1
/me endeavors to influence Peter Smith to add a chapter on (co)ends to this introduction, or at least mention them...
– Derek Elkins
Nov 22 at 22:49
1
I'll get back to that Introduction one day, I hope (when another book is off to the publishers ...). Promises, promises ...
– Peter Smith
Nov 22 at 23:52
add a comment |
1
/me endeavors to influence Peter Smith to add a chapter on (co)ends to this introduction, or at least mention them...
– Derek Elkins
Nov 22 at 22:49
1
I'll get back to that Introduction one day, I hope (when another book is off to the publishers ...). Promises, promises ...
– Peter Smith
Nov 22 at 23:52
1
1
/me endeavors to influence Peter Smith to add a chapter on (co)ends to this introduction, or at least mention them...
– Derek Elkins
Nov 22 at 22:49
/me endeavors to influence Peter Smith to add a chapter on (co)ends to this introduction, or at least mention them...
– Derek Elkins
Nov 22 at 22:49
1
1
I'll get back to that Introduction one day, I hope (when another book is off to the publishers ...). Promises, promises ...
– Peter Smith
Nov 22 at 23:52
I'll get back to that Introduction one day, I hope (when another book is off to the publishers ...). Promises, promises ...
– Peter Smith
Nov 22 at 23:52
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3009689%2fhow-does-one-show-that-a-cong-t-times-a-when-t-is-terminal%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Use the Yoneda lemma; show that $text{Hom}(-, A) cong text{Hom}(-, T times A)$ as functors.
– Qiaochu Yuan
Nov 22 at 21:48
@QiaochuYuan I know this is embarrassing but I just started with CT so idk what Yoneda's lemma is. I think it would be very strange to use it since it has been taught to me yet...
– Pinocchio
Nov 22 at 21:51
If you don't know the Yoneda lemma then you can't even prove that limits are unique up to unique isomorphism yet; I recommend that you learn the Yoneda lemma as soon as possible.
– Qiaochu Yuan
Nov 22 at 21:52
@QiaochuYuan I know how to prove two limits are isomorphic without appealing to that lemma. It comes out naturally when one connects the two limits with a unique isomorphism...hmmm...
– Pinocchio
Nov 22 at 21:55
2
A brute force approach is to simply write out what the isomorphism is and prove that it is an isomorphism. The latter step will require using the universal properties of products and the terminal object.
– Derek Elkins
Nov 22 at 22:42