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?










share|cite|improve this question


















  • 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















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?










share|cite|improve this question


















  • 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













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?










share|cite|improve this question













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






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










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














  • 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










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 $$begin{align}langlepi_1circlangle!_A,id_Aranglecircpi_2,pi_2circlangle!_A,id_Aranglecircpi_2rangle & =langlepi_1circ id_{1times A},pi_2circ id_{1times A}rangle\ & = id_{1times A}end{align}$$






share|cite|improve this answer




























    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?






    share|cite|improve this answer





















    • 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




















    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).






    share|cite|improve this answer





















    • 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




















    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.






    share|cite|improve this answer



















    • 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











    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
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    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 $$begin{align}langlepi_1circlangle!_A,id_Aranglecircpi_2,pi_2circlangle!_A,id_Aranglecircpi_2rangle & =langlepi_1circ id_{1times A},pi_2circ id_{1times A}rangle\ & = id_{1times A}end{align}$$






    share|cite|improve this answer

























      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 $$begin{align}langlepi_1circlangle!_A,id_Aranglecircpi_2,pi_2circlangle!_A,id_Aranglecircpi_2rangle & =langlepi_1circ id_{1times A},pi_2circ id_{1times A}rangle\ & = id_{1times A}end{align}$$






      share|cite|improve this answer























        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 $$begin{align}langlepi_1circlangle!_A,id_Aranglecircpi_2,pi_2circlangle!_A,id_Aranglecircpi_2rangle & =langlepi_1circ id_{1times A},pi_2circ id_{1times A}rangle\ & = id_{1times A}end{align}$$






        share|cite|improve this answer












        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 $$begin{align}langlepi_1circlangle!_A,id_Aranglecircpi_2,pi_2circlangle!_A,id_Aranglecircpi_2rangle & =langlepi_1circ id_{1times A},pi_2circ id_{1times A}rangle\ & = id_{1times A}end{align}$$







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Nov 22 at 23:39









        Derek Elkins

        16k11336




        16k11336






















            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?






            share|cite|improve this answer





















            • 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

















            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?






            share|cite|improve this answer





















            • 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















            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?






            share|cite|improve this answer












            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?







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            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




















            • 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












            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).






            share|cite|improve this answer





















            • 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

















            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).






            share|cite|improve this answer





















            • 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















            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).






            share|cite|improve this answer












            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).







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            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




















            • 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












            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.






            share|cite|improve this answer



















            • 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















            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.






            share|cite|improve this answer



















            • 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













            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.






            share|cite|improve this answer














            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.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            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














            • 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


















            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            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.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            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





















































            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







            Popular posts from this blog

            Bundesstraße 106

            Verónica Boquete

            Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten