In my book on category theory it has been stated that a category in which for each pair of its objects there is "at most" one map between them can be regarded as a preordered set. I do not know the logic behind the expression "at most" here,since I think this hypothesis can be removed without losing the content. Can anybody illustrate the matter?
-
Preorders have no way to express multiple different relationships between their elements. – Kevin Carlson Feb 26 '16 at 19:28
-
@KevinCarlson I just changed the order. What about this new situation? – math_stud Feb 26 '16 at 19:36
-
I make the same comment. If there are parallel morphisms in the category, you would have to identify them to model it as a preorder. – Kevin Carlson Feb 26 '16 at 19:38
-
@KevinCarlson Suppose I "define" an order on the category as explained above,except that the "at most" hypothesis is removed. it is still a preorder – math_stud Feb 26 '16 at 19:43
-
What's the definition of your order? $x\leq y$ for two objects of the category, if and only if... – Kevin Carlson Feb 26 '16 at 19:44
-
@KevinCarlson if and only if there is a morphism between them. it is a preorder. – math_stud Feb 26 '16 at 19:46
-
1Ah yes, sure. But that throws away a lot of information: you can't recover the category from that. That's the point of the phrase "can be seen as," I.e. "Is isomorphic to." – Kevin Carlson Feb 26 '16 at 19:47
-
@KevinCarlson you are right, thanks – math_stud Feb 26 '16 at 19:51
1 Answers
I will use the following conventions:
1). A preordered set is a pair $(X,\le_X)$, where $X$ is a set and $\le_X$ is a reflexive transitive relation on it. The category of preordered sets and monotonic functions between them is denoted by $\mathbf{Preord}$.
2). A category is a $6$-tuple $(\text{Obj}(A),\text{Mor}(A),\text{dom}_A,\text{cod}_A,\text{comp}_A,\text{id}_A)$, where $\text{Obj}(A)$ and $\text{Mor}(A)$ are sets and others are functions with additional properties. The category of categories and functors between them is denoted by $\mathbf{Cat}$.
Let $A$ be a category, $a$ and $b$ be its objects. Then denote $$ \text{hom}_A(a,b)=\{f\in Mor(A)|\quad \text{dom}(f)=a,\quad \text{cod}(f)=b\}. $$
Definition. The category $A$ is called a preorder iff for every two objects $a$ and $b$ of $A$ we have $|\text{hom}_{A}(a,b)|=1$ or $|\text{hom}_{A}(a,b)|=0$, where $|\text{hom}_{A}(a,b)|$ denotes the cardinal number of the set $\text{hom}_{A}(a,b)$. Equivalently, for every two objects $a$ and $b$ the set $\text{hom}_{A}(a,b)$ contains no more than one element/at most one element.
3). The category of all preorders (not preordered sets!) is a full subcategory of $\mathbf{Cat}$; denote it by $\mathbf{CatPreord}$.
Now the main statement is that categories $\mathbf{Preord}$ and $\mathbf{CatPreord}$ are equivalent. The equivalence $\mathcal{F}\colon \mathbf{Preord}\to \mathbf{CatPreord}$ defines in the following way: $$\mathcal{F}(X,\le_X)=(X,\le_X,\text{pr}_1,\text{pr}_2,\text{tr}_{X},\text{ref}_X),$$
where $\text{pr}_1$ and $\text{pr}_2$ denote the restrictions of the first and the second projections of the product $X\times X$, the functions $\text{tr}_{X}$ and $\text{ref}_X$ define obviously by transitivity and reflexivity of $\le_X$. The inverse equivalence $\mathcal{G}\colon \mathbf{CatPreord}\to \mathbf{Preord}$ defines in the following way: $$\mathcal{G}(\text{Obj}(A),\text{Mor}(A),\text{dom}_A,\text{cod}_A,\text{comp}_A,\text{id}_A)=(\text{Obj}(A),\le_A),$$
where $\le_A$ is such relation that $a\le_Ab$ iff $|\text{hom}_A(a,b)|=1$.
Edit 3. You ask why we can't remove a hypothesis about "at most one map". The answer is that if you add to $\mathbf{CatPreord}$ some other categories with more than one arrow between two objects, then it becomes not equivalent to $\mathbf{Preord}$. That's why we can't omit the requirement about "at most one map".
Edit 2. Sorry for my inattantiveness at the first time. I have added some actual information to this answer. Kevin Carlson gave a good explanation in comments. I want to add that a preorder (category) is not a preordered set. Such arguments are true only with regarding the categories of appropriate objects (see Edit 1).
Edit 1. Of course, this definition is motivated by the connection between such categories and preordered sets. The rigorous expression of such connection is that the category $\mathbf{Preord}$ of preordered sets is equivalent to the full subcategory of category $\mathbf{Cat}$, whose objects are preorders.
- 4,513
-
-
@KevinCarlson Thanks, sorry, I read the question inattentively. But I have added an actual answer to it. – Oskar Feb 26 '16 at 19:54
-
I think I know what you mean, that every category has a subcategory with |\text{hom}{A}(a,b)|=1 or |\text{hom}{A}(a,b)|=0, and it means that this subcategory is a preordered set. but how can I see that a preordered set is a category? – math_stud Feb 26 '16 at 21:42
-
@math_stud It means something different. Let me repeat: the category with any property can't be a preordered set, because the preordered set is a set with a relation on it, but a category is a pair of sets with four functions. The statement "category with such property is a preordered set" is nothing but a statement about the equivalence of the abovementioned categories. – Oskar Feb 26 '16 at 21:50
-
@math_stud I think I should include the explicit construction of this equivalence into the answer. Wait a few minutes, please. – Oskar Feb 26 '16 at 21:53
-
-
@math_stud Now I think that "Edit 3" is a reasonably good answer to your original question. – Oskar Feb 26 '16 at 22:45
-