{"id":1748,"date":"2012-03-25T14:44:22","date_gmt":"2012-03-25T18:44:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/scientopia.org\/blogs\/goodmath\/?p=1748"},"modified":"2020-08-04T09:22:01","modified_gmt":"2020-08-04T13:22:01","slug":"substuff","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/2012\/03\/25\/substuff\/","title":{"rendered":"Substuff"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>What&#8217;s a subset? That&#8217;s easy: if we have two sets A and B, A is a subset of B if every member of A is also a member of B.<\/p>\n<p>We can take the same basic idea, and apply it to something which a tad more structure, to get subgroups. What&#8217;s a subgroup? If we have two groups A and B, and the values in group A are a subset of the values in group B, then A is a subgroup of B.<\/p>\n<p>The point of category theory is to take concepts like &#8220;subset&#8221; and generalize them so that we can apply the same idea in many different domains. In category theory, we don&#8217;t ask &#8220;what&#8217;s a subset?&#8221;. We ask, for any structured THING, what does it mean to be a sub-THING? We&#8217;re being very general here, and that&#8217;s always a bit tricky. We&#8217;ll start by building a basic construction, and look at it in terms of sets and subsets, where we already understand the specific concept.<\/p>\n<p>In terms of sets, the most generic way of defining subsets is using functions. Suppose we have a set, A. How can we define all of the subsets of A, <em>in terms of functions<\/em>? We can do it using injective functions, as follows. (As a reminder, a function from X to Y where every value in X is mapped to a <em>distinct<\/em> function in y.)<\/p>\n<p>For the set, A, we can take the set of <em>all<\/em> injective functions <em>to<\/em> A. We&#8217;ll call that set of functions <b>Inj<\/b>(A).<\/p>\n<p>Given <b>Inj<\/b>(A), we can define equivalence classes over <b>Inj<\/b>(A), so that <img src='http:\/\/l.wordpress.com\/latex.php?latex=f%3A%20X%20%5Crightarrow%20A&#038;bg=FFFFFF&#038;fg=000000&#038;s=0' title='f: X \\rightarrow A' style='vertical-align:1%' class='tex' alt='f: X \\rightarrow A' \/> and <img src='http:\/\/l.wordpress.com\/latex.php?latex=g%3A%20Y%20%5Crightarrow%20A&#038;bg=FFFFFF&#038;fg=000000&#038;s=0' title='g: Y \\rightarrow A' style='vertical-align:1%' class='tex' alt='g: Y \\rightarrow A' \/> are equivalent if there is an isomorphism between X and Y.<\/p>\n<p>The domain of each function in one of the equivalence classes in <b>Inj<\/b>(A) is a function isomorphic to a subset of A. So each equivalence class of injective functions defines a subset of A.<\/p>\n<p>And there we go: we&#8217;ve got a very abstract definition of subsets.<\/p>\n<p>Now we can take that, and generalize that function-based definition to categories, so that it can define a sub-object of any kind of object that can be represented in a category.<\/p>\n<p>Before we jump in, let me review one important definition from before; the monomorphism, or monic arrow.<\/p>\n<p>A <em>monic arrow<\/em> is an arrow <img src='http:\/\/l.wordpress.com\/latex.php?latex=f%20%3A%20a%20%5Crightarrow%20b&#038;bg=FFFFFF&#038;fg=000000&#038;s=0' title='f : a \\rightarrow b' style='vertical-align:1%' class='tex' alt='f : a \\rightarrow b' \/> such that<br \/>\n<img src='http:\/\/l.wordpress.com\/latex.php?latex=%5Cforall%20g_1%2C%20g_2%3A%20x%20%5Crightarrow%20a%3A%20f%20%5Ccirc%20g_1%20%5Cge%20f%20%5Ccirc%20g_2%20%5CRightarrow%20g_1%20%3D%20g_2&#038;bg=FFFFFF&#038;fg=000000&#038;s=0' title='\\forall g_1, g_2: x \\rightarrow a: f \\circ g_1 \\ge f \\circ g_2 \\Rightarrow g_1 = g_2' style='vertical-align:1%' class='tex' alt='\\forall g_1, g_2: x \\rightarrow a: f \\circ g_1 \\ge f \\circ g_2 \\Rightarrow g_1 = g_2' \/> (That is, if any two arrows composed with <img src='http:\/\/l.wordpress.com\/latex.php?latex=f&#038;bg=FFFFFF&#038;fg=000000&#038;s=0' title='f' style='vertical-align:1%' class='tex' alt='f' \/> in <img src='http:\/\/l.wordpress.com\/latex.php?latex=f%20%5Ccirc%20g&#038;bg=FFFFFF&#038;fg=000000&#038;s=0' title='f \\circ g' style='vertical-align:1%' class='tex' alt='f \\circ g' \/> end up at the same object only if they are the same.)<\/p>\n<p>So, basically, the monic arrow is the category theoretic version of an injective function. We&#8217;ve taken the idea of what an injective function means, in terms of how functions compose, and when we generalized it, the result is the monic arrow.<\/p>\n<p>Suppose we have a category <img src='http:\/\/l.wordpress.com\/latex.php?latex=C&#038;bg=FFFFFF&#038;fg=000000&#038;s=0' title='C' style='vertical-align:1%' class='tex' alt='C' \/>, and an object <img src='http:\/\/l.wordpress.com\/latex.php?latex=a%20in%20%5Cmbox%7BObj%7D%28C%29&#038;bg=FFFFFF&#038;fg=000000&#038;s=0' title='a in \\mbox{Obj}(C)' style='vertical-align:1%' class='tex' alt='a in \\mbox{Obj}(C)' \/>. If there are are two monic arrows <img src='http:\/\/l.wordpress.com\/latex.php?latex=f%20%3A%20x%20%5Crightarrow%20a&#038;bg=FFFFFF&#038;fg=000000&#038;s=0' title='f : x \\rightarrow a' style='vertical-align:1%' class='tex' alt='f : x \\rightarrow a' \/> and <img src='http:\/\/l.wordpress.com\/latex.php?latex=g%20%3A%20y%20%5Crightarrow%20a&#038;bg=FFFFFF&#038;fg=000000&#038;s=0' title='g : y \\rightarrow a' style='vertical-align:1%' class='tex' alt='g : y \\rightarrow a' \/>, and<br \/>\nthere is an arrow <img src='http:\/\/l.wordpress.com\/latex.php?latex=h&#038;bg=FFFFFF&#038;fg=000000&#038;s=0' title='h' style='vertical-align:1%' class='tex' alt='h' \/> such that <img src='http:\/\/l.wordpress.com\/latex.php?latex=g%20%5Ccirc%20h%20%3D%20f&#038;bg=FFFFFF&#038;fg=000000&#038;s=0' title='g \\circ h = f' style='vertical-align:1%' class='tex' alt='g \\circ h = f' \/>, then we say <img src='http:\/\/l.wordpress.com\/latex.php?latex=f%20%5Cle%20g&#038;bg=FFFFFF&#038;fg=000000&#038;s=0' title='f \\le g' style='vertical-align:1%' class='tex' alt='f \\le g' \/> (read &#8220;f factors through g&#8221;). Now, we can take that &#8220;\u2264&#8221; relation, and use it to define an equivalence class of morphisms using <img src='http:\/\/l.wordpress.com\/latex.php?latex=f%20%5Cequiv%20g%20%5CLeftrightarrow%20f%20%5Cle%20g%20%5Cland%20g%20%5Cle%20f&#038;bg=FFFFFF&#038;fg=000000&#038;s=0' title='f \\equiv g \\Leftrightarrow f \\le g \\land g \\le f' style='vertical-align:1%' class='tex' alt='f \\equiv g \\Leftrightarrow f \\le g \\land g \\le f' \/>.<\/p>\n<p>What we wind up with using that equivalence relation is a set of equivalence classes of monomorphisms pointing at A. Each of those equivalence classes of morphisms defines a subobject of A. (Within the equivalence classes are objects which have isomorphisms, so the sources of those arrows are equivalent with respect to this relation.) A subobject of A is the sources of an arrow in one of those equivalence classes.<\/p>\n<p>It&#8217;s exactly the same thing as the function-based definition of sets. We&#8217;ve created a very general concept of sub-THING, which works exactly the same way as sub-sets, but can be applied to any category-theoretic structure.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>What&#8217;s a subset? That&#8217;s easy: if we have two sets A and B, A is a subset of B if every member of A is also a member of B. We can take the same basic idea, and apply it to something which a tad more structure, to get subgroups. What&#8217;s a subgroup? If we [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[76,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1748","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-category-theory","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/s4lzZS-substuff","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1748","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1748"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1748\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3874,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1748\/revisions\/3874"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1748"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1748"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1748"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}