DOCSLIB.ORG

Dinatural Transformations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dinatural Transformations Dinatural Transformations Dinatural transformations can be viewed as an attempt to generalize the notion of a natural transformation to functors that needn’t be of the same variance. Here is the general concept: Definition. Given functors S; T : Cop × C ! D, a dinatural transforma- tion u : S −!:: T is a family of morphisms in D, uc : S(c; c) ! T (c; c); c 2 C; such that for every f : c ! d in C we have a commutative hexagon ud S(d; d) / T (d; d) S(1;f) : T (f;1) % S(d; c) T (c; d): 9 S(f;1) T (1;f) % S(c; c) / T (c; c) uc Clearly, the restriction to the diagonal of a natural transformation u : S ) T is dinatural. In line with the introduction, one considers functors C ! D and Cop ! D and considers dinatural transformations of the functors obtained by pre- composing with projections from Cop × C. For example, given two functors F; G : C ! D, a natural transformation F ) G is just a dinatural transfor- :: mation F ◦ pr2 −! G ◦ pr2. Similarly for contravariant functors, using pr1. One also obtains a notion of “transformation” from a covariant functor F to :: a contravariant functor G: it is a dinatural transformation F ◦pr2 −! G◦pr1, which means we have uc : F (c) ! G(c); c 2 C; so that for every f : c ! d in C we have a commutative diagram F (f) F (c) / F (d) uc ud G(f) G(c) o G(d): 1 Wedges and Coends We will be interested in dinatural transformations from or to a constant func- tor e 2 D, also called wedges (or extranatural transformations). Explicitly, u : S −!:: e consists of arrows uc : S(c; c) ! e; c 2 C so that for every f : c ! d in C we have S(1;f) S(d; c) / S(d; d) S(f;1) ud S(c; c) / e: uc Definition. A coend of a functor S : Cop × C ! D is an object, written R c S(c; c) 2 D, together with an initial wedge u : S −!:: R c S(c; c). R c That is, u is a wedge uc : S(c; c) ! S(c; c) so that for any other wedge R c wc : S(c; c) ! f there exists a unique arrow φ : S(c; c) ! f in D with φ ◦ uc = wc for all c 2 C. In other words, a coend of S : Cop × C ! D is just a coequalizer S(1;f) S(d; c) / S(d; d) inf ind ` ` R c S(d; c) // S(c; c) / S(c; c): f:c!d in C c2C O O inf inc S(d; c) / S(c; c) S(f;1) In particular, in a co-complete category all coends exist. Conversely, if F : I ! C is a diagram, then a wedge from F pr2 is just a co-cone, so Z i F (i) = F pr2(i; i) ! F pr2(i; i); i 2 I; 2 is a colimit of F ; thus the existence of all coends implies that C is co-complete. The coequalizer description of the coend shows also that a co-continuous functor preserves all coends. Let F : Cop ! M and G : C ! M be functors into a monoidal category (M; ⊗). Then the coend R c F (c) ⊗ G(c) of ⊗ ◦ (F × G) is called the tensor product of F and G and written F ⊗ G. Example. (Top; ×) is monoidal. Let X 2 S = Cat(∆op; Set) be a simpli- cial set and consider also the functor ∆ ! Top; n 7! j∆nj: A coend of the functor op m ∆ × ∆ ! Top; (n; m) 7! Xn × j∆ j is called the geometric realization of X: Z n • n jXj = X × j∆ j = Xn × j∆ j: Example. Let M be a simplicial model category. In particular, M is ten- sored over S, given by a functor ⊗ : M × S ! M. If F : I ! M is a diagram, then the homotopy colimit is by definition Z i op hocolimIF = F (i) ⊗ B(i # I) 2 M Here B(− # I)op is viewed as the functor Iop ! S which associates to each i 2 I the classifying space of the comma category (i # I)op. Thus op B(i # I)n = fi0 i1 · · · in i in Ig : Ends A dinatural transformation u : e −!:: S, also called a wedge, consists of arrows uc : e ! S(c; c); c 2 C; so that for every f : c ! d we have a commutative diagram uc e / S(c; c) ud S(1;f) S(d; d) / S(c; d): S(f;1) 3 Definition. An end of a functor S : Cop × C ! D is an object R S(c; c) 2 D R :: c together with a final wedge u : c S(c; c) −! S. R That is, u is a wedge uc : S(c; c) ! S(c; c) so that for any other wedge c R wc : f ! S(c; c) there exists a unique arrow φ : f ! c S(c; c) in D with uc ◦ φ = wc for all c 2 C. The homotopy limit is an example of an end. Properties of Coends We will say that a functor U : D ! E creates coends, if for every functor S : Cop × C ! D and final wedge u : US −!:: e 1. there exists a unique wedge v : S −!:: d with Uv = u to some d 2 D 2. this unique wedge is already final. The next proposition asserts that a “parameter-dependent” coend R c S(c; c; p) of a functor S : Cop × C × P ! D is functorial in p. Proposition. Suppose S(−; −; p) has a coend for each p 2 P. Then the coend of S : Cop × C ! DP may be computed pointwise. More precisely, the forgetful functor DP ! DOb(P) creates all coends, viewing Ob(P) as a discrete category. In particular, the coend may be viewed as a functor Z : Fun(Cop × C; D) ! D: Proof. Suppose we are given wedges uc(p): S(c; c; p) ! e(p) for each p 2 P. :: P We wish to find a unique extension to a wedge uc : S(c; c; −) −! e in D for an extension e of the object function e(p). Necessarily, for f : p ! q in P, uc(p) S(c; c; p) / e(p) S(1c;1c;f) e(f) uc(q) S(c; c; q) / e(q); 4 P so if uc is to be a wedge in D , there is just one way to define e on morphisms, namely as the map induced on the coend e(p) by the wedge uc(q)◦S(1c; 1c; f). It is now easy to check that the forgetful functor creates coends. The last assertion follows by taking P = [1], viewing a natural transformation as a functor Cop × C ! D[1]. Next is a Fubini-type property of coends. Proposition. Let S : Cop × C × Dop × D ! E be a functor and suppose each S(−; −; p; q) has a coend R c S(c; c; p; q). Then Z p Z c Z (c;p) S(c; c; p; p) = S(c; c; p; p); meaning that S has a coend iff R c S(c; c; −; −) has a coend and that they coincide. If in addition each S(c; d; −; −) has a coend, Z p Z c Z c Z p S(c; c; p; p) = S(c; c; p; p): Proof. A wedge S(c; c; p; p) −!:: e is dinatural in c (and in p) and thus yields a wedge R c S(c; c; p; p) −!:: e. Conversely, a wedge R c S(c; c; p; p) −!:: e (dinatural in p) may be precomposed with S(c; c; p; p) ! R c S(c; c; p; p) to make a wedge on S. The proof is an easy diagram chase, where one uses to existence of the coend of S(−; −; p; q) for all p; q to insert terms into the diagram so one is able to use the functoriality of S. 5.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Diagram Chasing in Abelian Categories
    Diagram Chasing in Abelian Categories Daniel Murfet October 5, 2006 In applications of the theory of homological algebra, results such as the Five Lemma are crucial. For abelian groups this result is proved by diagram chasing, a procedure not immediately available in a general abelian category. However, we can still prove the desired results by embedding our abelian category in the category of abelian groups. All of this material is taken from Mitchell’s book on category theory [Mit65]. Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Desired results ...................................... 1 2 Walks in Abelian Categories 3 2.1 Diagram chasing ..................................... 6 1 Introduction For our conventions regarding categories the reader is directed to our Abelian Categories (AC) notes. In particular recall that an embedding is a faithful functor which takes distinct objects to distinct objects. Theorem 1. Any small abelian category A has an exact embedding into the category of abelian groups. Proof. See [Mit65] Chapter 4, Theorem 2.6. Lemma 2. Let A be an abelian category and S ⊆ A a nonempty set of objects. There is a full small abelian subcategory B of A containing S. Proof. See [Mit65] Chapter 4, Lemma 2.7. Combining results II 6.7 and II 7.1 of [Mit65] we have Lemma 3. Let A be an abelian category, T : A −→ Ab an exact embedding. Then T preserves and reflects monomorphisms, epimorphisms, commutative diagrams, limits and colimits of finite diagrams, and exact sequences. 1.1 Desired results In the category of abelian groups, diagram chasing arguments are usually used either to establish a property (such as surjectivity) of a certain morphism, or to construct a new morphism between known objects.
    [Show full text]
  • The Left and Right Homotopy Relations We Recall That a Coproduct of Two
    The left and right homotopy relations We recall that a coproduct of two objects A and B in a category C is an object A q B together with two maps in1 : A → A q B and in2 : B → A q B such that, for every pair of maps f : A → C and g : B → C, there exists a unique map f + g : A q B → C 0 such that f = (f + g) ◦ in1 and g = (f + g) ◦ in2. If both A q B and A q B 0 0 0 are coproducts of A and B, then the maps in1 + in2 : A q B → A q B and 0 in1 + in2 : A q B → A q B are isomorphisms and each others inverses. The map ∇ = id + id: A q A → A is called the fold map. Dually, a product of two objects A and B in a category C is an object A × B together with two maps pr1 : A × B → A and pr2 : A × B → B such that, for every pair of maps f : C → A and g : C → B, there exists a unique map (f, g): C → A × B 0 such that f = pr1 ◦(f, g) and g = pr2 ◦(f, g). If both A × B and A × B 0 are products of A and B, then the maps (pr1, pr2): A × B → A × B and 0 0 0 (pr1, pr2): A × B → A × B are isomorphisms and each others inverses. The map ∆ = (id, id): A → A × A is called the diagonal map. Definition Let C be a model category, and let f : A → B and g : A → B be two maps.
    [Show full text]
  • Limits Commutative Algebra May 11 2020 1. Direct Limits Definition 1
    Limits Commutative Algebra May 11 2020 1. Direct Limits Definition 1: A directed set I is a set with a partial order ≤ such that for every i; j 2 I there is k 2 I such that i ≤ k and j ≤ k. Let R be a ring. A directed system of R-modules indexed by I is a collection of R modules fMi j i 2 Ig with a R module homomorphisms µi;j : Mi ! Mj for each pair i; j 2 I where i ≤ j, such that (i) for any i 2 I, µi;i = IdMi and (ii) for any i ≤ j ≤ k in I, µi;j ◦ µj;k = µi;k. We shall denote a directed system by a tuple (Mi; µi;j). The direct limit of a directed system is defined using a universal property. It exists and is unique up to a unique isomorphism. Theorem 2 (Direct limits). Let fMi j i 2 Ig be a directed system of R modules then there exists an R module M with the following properties: (i) There are R module homomorphisms µi : Mi ! M for each i 2 I, satisfying µi = µj ◦ µi;j whenever i < j. (ii) If there is an R module N such that there are R module homomorphisms νi : Mi ! N for each i and νi = νj ◦µi;j whenever i < j; then there exists a unique R module homomorphism ν : M ! N, such that νi = ν ◦ µi. The module M is unique in the sense that if there is any other R module M 0 satisfying properties (i) and (ii) then there is a unique R module isomorphism µ0 : M ! M 0.
    [Show full text]
  • Diagram Chasing in Abelian Categories
    Diagram Chasing in Abelian Categories Toni Annala Contents 1 Overview 2 2 Abelian Categories 3 2.1 Denition and basic properties . .3 2.2 Subobjects and quotient objects . .6 2.3 The image and inverse image functors . 11 2.4 Exact sequences and diagram chasing . 16 1 Chapter 1 Overview This is a short note, intended only for personal use, where I x diagram chasing in general abelian categories. I didn't want to take the Freyd-Mitchell embedding theorem for granted, and I didn't like the style of the Freyd's book on the topic. Therefore I had to do something else. As this was intended only for personal use, and as I decided to include this to the application quite late, I haven't touched anything in chapter 2. Some vague references to Freyd's book are made in the passing, they mean the book Abelian Categories by Peter Freyd. How diagram chasing is xed then? The main idea is to chase subobjects instead of elements. The sections 2.1 and 2.2 contain many standard statements about abelian categories, proved perhaps in a nonstandard way. In section 2.3 we dene the image and inverse image functors, which let us transfer subobjects via a morphism of objects. The most important theorem in this section is probably 2.3.11, which states that for a subobject U of X, and a morphism f : X ! Y , we have ff −1U = U \ imf. Some other results are useful as well, for example 2.3.2, which says that the image functor associated to a monic morphism is injective.
    [Show full text]
  • Math 395: Category Theory Northwestern University, Lecture Notes
    Math 395: Category Theory Northwestern University, Lecture Notes Written by Santiago Can˜ez These are lecture notes for an undergraduate seminar covering Category Theory, taught by the author at Northwestern University. The book we roughly follow is “Category Theory in Context” by Emily Riehl. These notes outline the specific approach we’re taking in terms the order in which topics are presented and what from the book we actually emphasize. We also include things we look at in class which aren’t in the book, but otherwise various standard definitions and examples are left to the book. Watch out for typos! Comments and suggestions are welcome. Contents Introduction to Categories 1 Special Morphisms, Products 3 Coproducts, Opposite Categories 7 Functors, Fullness and Faithfulness 9 Coproduct Examples, Concreteness 12 Natural Isomorphisms, Representability 14 More Representable Examples 17 Equivalences between Categories 19 Yoneda Lemma, Functors as Objects 21 Equalizers and Coequalizers 25 Some Functor Properties, An Equivalence Example 28 Segal’s Category, Coequalizer Examples 29 Limits and Colimits 29 More on Limits/Colimits 29 More Limit/Colimit Examples 30 Continuous Functors, Adjoints 30 Limits as Equalizers, Sheaves 30 Fun with Squares, Pullback Examples 30 More Adjoint Examples 30 Stone-Cech 30 Group and Monoid Objects 30 Monads 30 Algebras 30 Ultrafilters 30 Introduction to Categories Category theory provides a framework through which we can relate a construction/fact in one area of mathematics to a construction/fact in another. The goal is an ultimate form of abstraction, where we can truly single out what about a given problem is specific to that problem, and what is a reflection of a more general phenomenom which appears elsewhere.
    [Show full text]
  • Homotopy Commutative Diagrams and Their Realizations *
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 57 (1989) 5-24 5 North-Holland HOMOTOPY COMMUTATIVE DIAGRAMS AND THEIR REALIZATIONS * W.G. DWYER Department of Mathematics, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN465.56, U.S.A D.M. KAN Department of Mathematics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, U.S.A. J.H. SMITH Department of Mathematics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD21218, lJ.S.A Communicated by J.D. Stasheff Received 11 September 1986 Revised 21 September 1987 In this paper we describe an obstruction theory for the problem of taking a commutative diagram in the homotopy category of topological spaces and lifting it to an actual commutative diagram of spaces. This directly generalizes the work of G. Cooke on extending a homotopy action of a group G to a topological action of G. 1. Introduction 1.1. Summary. In [2], Cooke asked when a homotopy action of a group G on a CW-complex X is equivalent, in an appropriate sense, to a topological action of G on some homotopically equivalent space. He converted this problem into a lifting problem, which then gave rise to a sequence of obstructions, whose vanishing insured the existence of the desired topological action. These obstructions were ele- ments of the cohomology of G with local coefficients in the homotopy groups of the function space Xx. As a group is just a category with one object in which all maps are invertible, one can consider the corresponding problem for homotopy actions of an arbitrary small topological category D on a set {X,} of CW-complexes, indexed by the objects DE D.
    [Show full text]
  • 14. Limits One of the More Interesting Notions of Category Theory, Is the Theory of Limits
    14. Limits One of the more interesting notions of category theory, is the theory of limits. Definition 14.1. Let I be a category and let F : I −! C be a func- tor. A prelimit for F is an object L of C, together with morphisms fI : L −! F (I), for every object I of I, which are compatible in the fol- lowing sense: Given a morphism f : I −! J in I, the following diagram commutes f L I- F (I) F (f) - fJ ? F (J): The limit of F , denoted L = lim F is a prelimit L, which is uni- I versal amongst all prelimits in the following sense: Given any prelimit L0 there is a unique morphism g : L0 −! L, such that for every object I in I, the following diagram commutes g L0 - L fI f 0 - I ? F (I): Informally, then, if we think of a prelimit as being to the left of every object F (I), then the limit is the furthest prelimit to the right. Note that limits, if they exist at all, are unique, up to unique isomorphism, by the standard argument. Note also that there is a dual notion, the notion of colimits. In this case, F is a contravariant functor and all the arrows go the other way (informally, then, a prelimit is to the right of every object F (I) and a limit is any prelimit which is furthest to the left). Let us look at some special cases. First suppose we take for I the category with one object and one morphism.
    [Show full text]
  • Commutative Diagrams Easy to Design, Parse and Tweak
    CoDiCommutative Diagrams for TEX enchiridion 1.0.1 11th June 2020 CoDi is a TikZ library. Its aim is making commutative diagrams easy to design, parse and tweak. 2 Preliminaries Preliminaries TikZ is the only dependency of CoDi. This ensures compatibility with most1 TEX avours. Furthermore, it can be invoked both as a standalone and as a TikZ library. Below are minimal working examples for the main dialects. TEX package ConTEXt module LATEX package \DOCUMENTCLASS{ARTICLE} \INPUT \USEMODULE \USEPACKAGE {COMMUTATIVE-DIAGRAMS} [COMMUTATIVE-DIAGRAMS] {COMMUTATIVE-DIAGRAMS} \STARTTEXT \BEGIN{DOCUMENT} \CODI \STARTCODI \BEGIN{CODI} % DIAGRAM HERE % DIAGRAM HERE % DIAGRAM HERE \ENDCODI \STOPCODI \END{CODI} \BYE \STOPTEXT \END{DOCUMENT} TEX(TikZ library) ConTEXt (TikZ library) LATEX(TikZ library) \DOCUMENTCLASS{ARTICLE} \INPUT{TIKZ} \USEMODULE[TIKZ] \USEPACKAGE{TIKZ} \USETIKZLIBRARY \USETIKZLIBRARY \USETIKZLIBRARY [COMMUTATIVE-DIAGRAMS] [COMMUTATIVE-DIAGRAMS] {COMMUTATIVE-DIAGRAMS} \STARTTEXT \BEGIN{DOCUMENT} \TIKZPICTURE[CODI] \STARTTIKZPICTURE[CODI] \BEGIN{TIKZPICTURE}[CODI] % DIAGRAM HERE % DIAGRAM HERE % DIAGRAM HERE \ENDTIKZPICTURE \STOPTIKZPICTURE \END{TIKZPICTURE} \BYE \STOPTEXT \END{DOCUMENT} A useful TikZ feature exclusive to LATEX is externalization. It is an \DOCUMENTCLASS{ARTICLE} eective way to boost processing times by (re)compiling gures \USEPACKAGE as external les only when strictly necessary. {COMMUTATIVE-DIAGRAMS} % OR, EQUIVALENTLY : %\USEPACKAGE{TIKZ} A small expedient is necessary to use it with CoDi: diagrams %\USETIKZLIBRARY must be wrapped in TIKZPICTURE environments endowed with %{COMMUTATIVE-DIAGRAMS} the /tikz/codi key. \USETIKZLIBRARY{EXTERNAL} \TIKZEXTERNALIZE On the side is an example saving the pictures in the ./tikzpics/ [PREFIX=TIKZPICS/] folder to keep things tidy. \BEGIN{DOCUMENT} \BEGIN{TIKZPICTURE}[CODI] ) % DIAGRAM HERE \END{TIKZPICTURE} Basic knowledge of TikZ is assumed. A plethora of excellent re- \END{DOCUMENT} sources exist, so no crash course on the matter will be improvised here.
    [Show full text]
  • FINITE CATEGORIES with PUSHOUTS 1. Introduction
    Theory and Applications of Categories, Vol. 30, No. 30, 2015, pp. 1017{1031. FINITE CATEGORIES WITH PUSHOUTS D. TAMBARA Abstract. Let C be a finite category. For an object X of C one has the hom-functor Hom(−;X) of C to Set. If G is a subgroup of Aut(X), one has the quotient functor Hom(−;X)=G. We show that any finite product of hom-functors of C is a sum of hom- functors if and only if C has pushouts and coequalizers and that any finite product of hom-functors of C is a sum of functors of the form Hom(−;X)=G if and only if C has pushouts. These are variations of the fact that a finite category has products if and only if it has coproducts. 1. Introduction It is well-known that in a partially ordered set the infimum of an arbitrary subset exists if and only if the supremum of an arbitrary subset exists. A categorical generalization of this is also known. When a partially ordered set is viewed as a category, infimum and supremum are respectively product and coproduct, which are instances of limits and colimits. A general theorem states that a category has small limits if and only if it has small colimits under certain smallness conditions ([Freyd and Scedrov, 1.837]). We seek an equivalence of this sort for finite categories. As finite categories having products are just partially ordered sets, we ought to replace the existence of product by some weaker condition. Let C be a category. For an object X of C, hX denotes the hom-functor Hom(−;X) of C to the category Set.
    [Show full text]
  • WHEN IS ∏ ISOMORPHIC to ⊕ Introduction Let C Be a Category
    WHEN IS Q ISOMORPHIC TO L MIODRAG CRISTIAN IOVANOV Abstract. For a category C we investigate the problem of when the coproduct L and the product functor Q from CI to C are isomorphic for a fixed set I, or, equivalently, when the two functors are Frobenius functors. We show that for an Ab category C this happens if and only if the set I is finite (and even in a much general case, if there is a morphism in C that is invertible with respect to addition). However we show that L and Q are always isomorphic on a suitable subcategory of CI which is isomorphic to CI but is not a full subcategory. If C is only a preadditive category then we give an example to see that the two functors can be isomorphic for infinite sets I. For the module category case we provide a different proof to display an interesting connection to the notion of Frobenius corings. Introduction Let C be a category and denote by ∆ the diagonal functor from C to CI taking any object I X to the family (X)i∈I ∈ C . Recall that C is an Ab category if for any two objects X, Y of C the set Hom(X, Y ) is endowed with an abelian group structure that is compatible with the composition. We shall say that a category is an AMon category if the set Hom(X, Y ) is (only) an abelian monoid for every objects X, Y . Following [McL], in an Ab category if the product of any two objects exists then the coproduct of any two objects exists and they are isomorphic.
    [Show full text]
  • Basic Category Theory
    Basic Category Theory TOMLEINSTER University of Edinburgh arXiv:1612.09375v1 [math.CT] 30 Dec 2016 First published as Basic Category Theory, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, Vol. 143, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2014. ISBN 978-1-107-04424-1 (hardback). Information on this title: http://www.cambridge.org/9781107044241 c Tom Leinster 2014 This arXiv version is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). Licence information: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 c Tom Leinster 2014, 2016 Preface to the arXiv version This book was first published by Cambridge University Press in 2014, and is now being published on the arXiv by mutual agreement. CUP has consistently supported the mathematical community by allowing authors to make free ver- sions of their books available online. Readers may, in turn, wish to support CUP by buying the printed version, available at http://www.cambridge.org/ 9781107044241. This electronic version is not only free; it is also freely editable. For in- stance, if you would like to teach a course using this book but some of the examples are unsuitable for your class, you can remove them or add your own. Similarly, if there is notation that you dislike, you can easily change it; or if you want to reformat the text for reading on a particular device, that is easy too. In legal terms, this text is released under the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). The licence terms are available at the Creative Commons website, https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0.
    [Show full text]
  • Category Theory and Diagrammatic Reasoning 30Th January 2019 Last Updated: 30Th January 2019
    Category theory and diagrammatic reasoning 30th January 2019 Last updated: 30th January 2019 1 Categories, functors and diagrams It is a common opinion that sets are the most basic mathematical objects. The intuition of a set is a collection of elements with no additional structure. When the set is finite, especially when it has a small number of elements, then we can describe it simply by listing its elements one by one. With infinite sets, we usually give some algorithmic procedure which generates all the elements, but this rarely completes the description: that only happens when the set is \freely generated" in some sense. Example 1. The set N of natural numbers is freely generated by the procedure: • add one element, 0, to the empty set; • at every step, if x is the last element you added, add an element Sx. It is more common that a set X is presented by first giving a set X0 of terms that denote elements of X, and which is freely generated; and then by giving an equivalence relation on X0 which tells us when two terms of X0 should be considered equal as elements of X. This is sometimes called a setoid. We can present the equivalence relation on X0 as a set X1, together with two functions s X1 X0. (1) t You should think of an element f 2 X1 as a \witness of the fact that s(f) is equal to t(f) in X". To transform this into an equivalence relation on X0, we take the relation x ∼ y if and only if there exists f 2 X1 such that s(f) = x and t(f) = y and then close it under the reflexive, symmetric, and transitive properties.
    [Show full text]