DOCSLIB.ORG

Category Theory Fundamentals

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Category Theory Fundamentals Category Theory Fundamentals Sachi Hashimoto 1 Category Theory Basics Category theory may seem abstract but I hope to convince you that it is highly understandable and useful! The goal is to get at some unifying concepts in mathematics by just studying maps. For example, one can study sets simply by studying the maps between them instead of by studying the elements inside of the sets. More precisely, here are some basic definitions. Definition. A category C is comprised of objects Ob(C) together with for any two objects X; Y 2 Ob(C) a collection of morphisms f : X ! Y and a composition operation ◦ which allows us to compose morphisms f : X ! Y and g : Y ! Z for X; Y; Z 2 Ob(C) and f; g morphisms. We require that composition is associative and each object X has the identity map idX : X ! X such that idX ◦ f = f and f ◦ idX = f for all f such that those compositions are defined. Example 1. • For example, there is a category of sets with objects which are sets and morphisms which are functions between sets. • There is a category of groups with morphisms which are group homomorphisms. • There is a category of vector spaces over a fixed field k and morphisms which are linear transformations. If C and D are categories, we can construct maps of categories. Definition. A (covariant) functor F : C ! D is a map which • for each object X 2 C assigns an object F (X) in D, and • for each morphism g : X ! Y in C assigns a morphism F (g): F (X) ! F (Y ) in D, such that F (g ◦ f) = F (g) ◦ F (f), and F (IdX ) = IdF (X). 2 The Yoneda Embedding A key example of a functor is the functor X 7! Hom( ;X), called the \functor of points". This is a op functor from a category C to Set. Let's call the functor HX and we will look into where it sends objects and morphisms in C. Fix Y 2 C. Then HX (Y ) = Hom(Y; X) takes the object Y 2 C and sends it to the set Hom(Y; X) in Set. Fix f : Y ! Z. Then HX (f) needs to take f to HX (f): HX (Y ) ! HX (Z). Let's unpack this! This is equivalent to HX (f) : Hom(Y; X) ! Hom(Z; X), so we need a morphism in Set from taking 1 a map s : Y ! X and turning it into a map Z ! X. But, we should use the fact that f : Y ! Z. So, the answer is to take s and pre-compose it with f. Thus HX (f) is pre-composition with f, HX (f) = ◦ f. Now, we can turn this on its head a bit: for each object X in C we get a functor HX . That sounds like a functor! In particular, this is now a function from C to functors from Cop ! Set. Let's op write the latter set as [C ; Set]. Then we want to prove that the assignment X 7! HX is a functor op H∗ : C! [C ; Set]. This is called the Yoneda Embedding. First, we need to understand what H∗ does to morphisms a little better. A morphism between functors is a natural transformation, so in order to understand this, we have to understand natural transformations. If this helps, natural transformations are like homotopies. If not, don't worry about it. In the abstract, suppose that I have two functors F and G taking a category C to a category D. When would we say that these functors are equivalent? I want to assign every object F (X) to the object G(X) and every morphism F (f) to the morphism G(f) in a compatible way. If I fix an object X 2 C and assign F (X) ! G(X) by ηX (and similarly assign for every object in C a pairing η), then for each morphism f : X ! Y in C, I will get a constraint, depicted by the following diagram: F (f) F (X) / F (Y ) ηX ηY G(X) / G(Y ) G(f) F (f) sends F (X) to F (Y ), but G(f) sends G(X) to G(Y ) and we have assigned F (Y ) to G(Y ) by ηY . We need the square to commute. In our example above, we will let F = HA and G = HB for two objects A and B. If f : A ! B is any morphism, it gives rise to a natural transformation given by composition with f. 3 Representability and Pro-Representability Representability is sort of the converse of what we just discussed. We showed how to take an object X and turn it into a functor HX : C ! Set by setting HX = Hom(X; ). Suppose instead we were handed a (now covariant) functor F : C ! Set. Could we find some X 2 C such that F = Hom(X; ) (the covariant version)? In other words, can we find X and a natural isomorphism φ : F ∼= Hom(X; )? If so, we say that F is representable or F is represented by (X; φ). (We can play the same game with contravariant too but all my examples later are covariant). Yoneda's lemma says the following thing about the functor HX : Lemma 1 (Yoneda). Let F be an arbitrary functor C ! Set. Then natural transformations from F to HX are in bijection with the set F (X). This is quite easy to prove from what we have done so far, the idea is to consider the distinguished element which is the identity element, but I will leave it as an exercise for the listener. Example 2. There is a forgetful functor from groups to sets, which takes a group and forgets about the group structure. This is representable by Z. 2 Similarly, the forgetful functor from rings to sets is representable by Z[x]. You can play this game with other forgetful functors: try it out for yourself! Sometimes the representing object that you want doesn't quite live in the category you are in. I'm not going to belabor this point, mostly because it is a relatively straightforward leap of intuition and we don't have much time, but it's possible that instead of being representable, F is of the form limi Hom(Xi;Y ) where we are taking a direct limit, for example if we are interested in a n limit of Z=p Z as n increases, but Zp is not an object in our category because are are only looking at Artinian rings. 4 Products and Fibre Products Before we talk about fibre products, let's review the definition of product, placing it in the setting of a category. This generalizes the notion of a cartesian product. Definition. Let A and B be objects in a category. Then the product of A and B is an object A×B together with projection maps π0 : A × B ! A and π1 : A × B ! B such that whenever we have an object C with maps f0 : C ! A and f1 : C ! B there is a unique map f : C ! A × B such that the following diagram commutes: C f0 f1 f { # AAo × B / B π0 π1 We can prove the product is unique up to unique isomorphism. Example 3. In the category of sets the product is simply the cartesian product. In the category of groups the product is the direct product of groups. A fibre product can be see as a special kind of product. Often, we like to think of categories where something lives over a base field or base ring. These are categories of objects that come with a morphism to a certain object. For example, we might think of the category of finite dimensional k-algebras: these are algebras A that come with a structure map A ! k. Similarly, we could be in a category of k-schemes, or S-schemes, and this will be a category of schemes which all have a map to Spec k or Spec S. Morphisms between these objects will have to preserve these structure maps. We will see that one way to define a fibre product is simply to say that it is a product in such a category. That is what makes fibre proudcts so important. The diagram for the fibre product of A and B over s and t looks like this: C f1 f " π1 $ A ×Z B / B f0 π0 t A s / Z 3 The fibre product does not need to exist, but if it does it exists up to isomorphism. What is the fibre product? Let's do an example in the category of sets. The product A × B is just the cartesian product, but if we have maps s : A ! Z and t : B ! Z then A ×Z B = f(a; b) 2 A × Bjs(a) = t(b)g: This we can compute by tracing a pair (a; b) around the diagram: going around the right side, we get (a; b) 7! b 7! t(b). Going around the left side we get (a; b) 7! a 7! s(a). So for that pair to be in the fibre product we must have s(a) = t(b), and we can see this is an if and only if statement. It is not hard to show that this satisfies the universal property above. 5 Mayer-Vietoris The Mayer-Veitoris principle will give another criterion for representability. We are motivated by the following situation from topology.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Categories of Sets with a Group Action
    Categories of sets with a group action Bachelor Thesis of Joris Weimar under supervision of Professor S.J. Edixhoven Mathematisch Instituut, Universiteit Leiden Leiden, 13 June 2008 Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Abstract . .1 1.2 Working method . .1 1.2.1 Notation . .1 2 Categories 3 2.1 Basics . .3 2.1.1 Functors . .4 2.1.2 Natural transformations . .5 2.2 Categorical constructions . .6 2.2.1 Products and coproducts . .6 2.2.2 Fibered products and fibered coproducts . .9 3 An equivalence of categories 13 3.1 G-sets . 13 3.2 Covering spaces . 15 3.2.1 The fundamental group . 15 3.2.2 Covering spaces and the homotopy lifting property . 16 3.2.3 Induced homomorphisms . 18 3.2.4 Classifying covering spaces through the fundamental group . 19 3.3 The equivalence . 24 3.3.1 The functors . 25 4 Applications and examples 31 4.1 Automorphisms and recovering the fundamental group . 31 4.2 The Seifert-van Kampen theorem . 32 4.2.1 The categories C1, C2, and πP -Set ................... 33 4.2.2 The functors . 34 4.2.3 Example . 36 Bibliography 38 Index 40 iii 1 Introduction 1.1 Abstract In the 40s, Mac Lane and Eilenberg introduced categories. Although by some referred to as abstract nonsense, the idea of categories allows one to talk about mathematical objects and their relationions in a general setting. Its origins lie in the field of algebraic topology, one of the topics that will be explored in this thesis. First, a concise introduction to categories will be given.
    [Show full text]
  • A Category-Theoretic Approach to Representation and Analysis of Inconsistency in Graph-Based Viewpoints
    A Category-Theoretic Approach to Representation and Analysis of Inconsistency in Graph-Based Viewpoints by Mehrdad Sabetzadeh A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Graduate Department of Computer Science University of Toronto Copyright c 2003 by Mehrdad Sabetzadeh Abstract A Category-Theoretic Approach to Representation and Analysis of Inconsistency in Graph-Based Viewpoints Mehrdad Sabetzadeh Master of Science Graduate Department of Computer Science University of Toronto 2003 Eliciting the requirements for a proposed system typically involves different stakeholders with different expertise, responsibilities, and perspectives. This may result in inconsis- tencies between the descriptions provided by stakeholders. Viewpoints-based approaches have been proposed as a way to manage incomplete and inconsistent models gathered from multiple sources. In this thesis, we propose a category-theoretic framework for the analysis of fuzzy viewpoints. Informally, a fuzzy viewpoint is a graph in which the elements of a lattice are used to specify the amount of knowledge available about the details of nodes and edges. By defining an appropriate notion of morphism between fuzzy viewpoints, we construct categories of fuzzy viewpoints and prove that these categories are (finitely) cocomplete. We then show how colimits can be employed to merge the viewpoints and detect the inconsistencies that arise independent of any particular choice of viewpoint semantics. Taking advantage of the same category-theoretic techniques used in defining fuzzy viewpoints, we will also introduce a more general graph-based formalism that may find applications in other contexts. ii To my mother and father with love and gratitude. Acknowledgements First of all, I wish to thank my supervisor Steve Easterbrook for his guidance, support, and patience.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes and Solutions to Exercises for Mac Lane's Categories for The
    Stefan Dawydiak Version 0.3 July 2, 2020 Notes and Exercises from Categories for the Working Mathematician Contents 0 Preface 2 1 Categories, Functors, and Natural Transformations 2 1.1 Functors . .2 1.2 Natural Transformations . .4 1.3 Monics, Epis, and Zeros . .5 2 Constructions on Categories 6 2.1 Products of Categories . .6 2.2 Functor categories . .6 2.2.1 The Interchange Law . .8 2.3 The Category of All Categories . .8 2.4 Comma Categories . 11 2.5 Graphs and Free Categories . 12 2.6 Quotient Categories . 13 3 Universals and Limits 13 3.1 Universal Arrows . 13 3.2 The Yoneda Lemma . 14 3.2.1 Proof of the Yoneda Lemma . 14 3.3 Coproducts and Colimits . 16 3.4 Products and Limits . 18 3.4.1 The p-adic integers . 20 3.5 Categories with Finite Products . 21 3.6 Groups in Categories . 22 4 Adjoints 23 4.1 Adjunctions . 23 4.2 Examples of Adjoints . 24 4.3 Reflective Subcategories . 28 4.4 Equivalence of Categories . 30 4.5 Adjoints for Preorders . 32 4.5.1 Examples of Galois Connections . 32 4.6 Cartesian Closed Categories . 33 5 Limits 33 5.1 Creation of Limits . 33 5.2 Limits by Products and Equalizers . 34 5.3 Preservation of Limits . 35 5.4 Adjoints on Limits . 35 5.5 Freyd's adjoint functor theorem . 36 1 6 Chapter 6 38 7 Chapter 7 38 8 Abelian Categories 38 8.1 Additive Categories . 38 8.2 Abelian Categories . 38 8.3 Diagram Lemmas . 39 9 Special Limits 41 9.1 Interchange of Limits .
    [Show full text]
  • Derived Functors and Homological Dimension (Pdf)
    DERIVED FUNCTORS AND HOMOLOGICAL DIMENSION George Torres Math 221 Abstract. This paper overviews the basic notions of abelian categories, exact functors, and chain complexes. It will use these concepts to define derived functors, prove their existence, and demon- strate their relationship to homological dimension. I affirm my awareness of the standards of the Harvard College Honor Code. Date: December 15, 2015. 1 2 DERIVED FUNCTORS AND HOMOLOGICAL DIMENSION 1. Abelian Categories and Homology The concept of an abelian category will be necessary for discussing ideas on homological algebra. Loosely speaking, an abelian cagetory is a type of category that behaves like modules (R-mod) or abelian groups (Ab). We must first define a few types of morphisms that such a category must have. Definition 1.1. A morphism f : X ! Y in a category C is a zero morphism if: • for any A 2 C and any g; h : A ! X, fg = fh • for any B 2 C and any g; h : Y ! B, gf = hf We denote a zero morphism as 0XY (or sometimes just 0 if the context is sufficient). Definition 1.2. A morphism f : X ! Y is a monomorphism if it is left cancellative. That is, for all g; h : Z ! X, we have fg = fh ) g = h. An epimorphism is a morphism if it is right cancellative. The zero morphism is a generalization of the zero map on rings, or the identity homomorphism on groups. Monomorphisms and epimorphisms are generalizations of injective and surjective homomorphisms (though these definitions don't always coincide). It can be shown that a morphism is an isomorphism iff it is epic and monic.
    [Show full text]
  • Categories, Functors, and Natural Transformations I∗
    Lecture 2: Categories, functors, and natural transformations I∗ Nilay Kumar June 4, 2014 (Meta)categories We begin, for the moment, with rather loose definitions, free from the technicalities of set theory. Definition 1. A metagraph consists of objects a; b; c; : : :, arrows f; g; h; : : :, and two operations, as follows. The first is the domain, which assigns to each arrow f an object a = dom f, and the second is the codomain, which assigns to each arrow f an object b = cod f. This is visually indicated by f : a ! b. Definition 2. A metacategory is a metagraph with two additional operations. The first is the identity, which assigns to each object a an arrow Ida = 1a : a ! a. The second is the composition, which assigns to each pair g; f of arrows with dom g = cod f an arrow g ◦ f called their composition, with g ◦ f : dom f ! cod g. This operation may be pictured as b f g a c g◦f We require further that: composition is associative, k ◦ (g ◦ f) = (k ◦ g) ◦ f; (whenever this composition makese sense) or diagrammatically that the diagram k◦(g◦f)=(k◦g)◦f a d k◦g f k g◦f b g c commutes, and that for all arrows f : a ! b and g : b ! c, we have 1b ◦ f = f and g ◦ 1b = g; or diagrammatically that the diagram f a b f g 1b g b c commutes. ∗This talk follows [1] I.1-4 very closely. 1 Recall that a diagram is commutative when, for each pair of vertices c and c0, any two paths formed from direct edges leading from c to c0 yield, by composition of labels, equal arrows from c to c0.
    [Show full text]
  • Direct Products and Homomorphisms
    Commuting properties Direct products and homomorphisms Simion Breaz logo Simion Breaz Direct products and homomorphisms Products and coproducts Commuting properties Contravariant functors Covariant functors Outline 1 Commuting properties Products and coproducts Contravariant functors Covariant functors logo Simion Breaz Direct products and homomorphisms Products and coproducts Commuting properties Contravariant functors Covariant functors Introduction Important properties of objects in particular categories (e.g. varieties of universal algebras) can be described using commuting properties of some canonical functors. For instance, in [Ad´amek and Rosicki: Locally presentable categories] there are the following examples: If V is a variety of finitary algebras and A ∈ V then A is finitely generated iff the functor Hom(A, −): V → Set preserves direct unions (i.e. directed colimits of monomorphisms); A is finitely presented (i.e. it is generated by finitely many generators modulo finitely many relations) iff the functor Hom(A, −): V → Set preserves directed colimits. logo Simion Breaz Direct products and homomorphisms Products and coproducts Commuting properties Contravariant functors Covariant functors Introduction Important properties of objects in particular categories (e.g. varieties of universal algebras) can be described using commuting properties of some canonical functors. For instance, in [Ad´amek and Rosicki: Locally presentable categories] there are the following examples: If V is a variety of finitary algebras and A ∈ V then A is finitely generated iff the functor Hom(A, −): V → Set preserves direct unions (i.e. directed colimits of monomorphisms); A is finitely presented (i.e. it is generated by finitely many generators modulo finitely many relations) iff the functor Hom(A, −): V → Set preserves directed colimits.
    [Show full text]
  • N-Quasi-Abelian Categories Vs N-Tilting Torsion Pairs 3
    N-QUASI-ABELIAN CATEGORIES VS N-TILTING TORSION PAIRS WITH AN APPLICATION TO FLOPS OF HIGHER RELATIVE DIMENSION LUISA FIOROT Abstract. It is a well established fact that the notions of quasi-abelian cate- gories and tilting torsion pairs are equivalent. This equivalence fits in a wider picture including tilting pairs of t-structures. Firstly, we extend this picture into a hierarchy of n-quasi-abelian categories and n-tilting torsion classes. We prove that any n-quasi-abelian category E admits a “derived” category D(E) endowed with a n-tilting pair of t-structures such that the respective hearts are derived equivalent. Secondly, we describe the hearts of these t-structures as quotient categories of coherent functors, generalizing Auslander’s Formula. Thirdly, we apply our results to Bridgeland’s theory of perverse coherent sheaves for flop contractions. In Bridgeland’s work, the relative dimension 1 assumption guaranteed that f∗-acyclic coherent sheaves form a 1-tilting torsion class, whose associated heart is derived equivalent to D(Y ). We generalize this theorem to relative dimension 2. Contents Introduction 1 1. 1-tilting torsion classes 3 2. n-Tilting Theorem 7 3. 2-tilting torsion classes 9 4. Effaceable functors 14 5. n-coherent categories 17 6. n-tilting torsion classes for n> 2 18 7. Perverse coherent sheaves 28 8. Comparison between n-abelian and n + 1-quasi-abelian categories 32 Appendix A. Maximal Quillen exact structure 33 Appendix B. Freyd categories and coherent functors 34 Appendix C. t-structures 37 References 39 arXiv:1602.08253v3 [math.RT] 28 Dec 2019 Introduction In [6, 3.3.1] Beilinson, Bernstein and Deligne introduced the notion of a t- structure obtained by tilting the natural one on D(A) (derived category of an abelian category A) with respect to a torsion pair (X , Y).
    [Show full text]
  • Categorical Semantics of Constructive Set Theory
    Categorical semantics of constructive set theory Beim Fachbereich Mathematik der Technischen Universit¨atDarmstadt eingereichte Habilitationsschrift von Benno van den Berg, PhD aus Emmen, die Niederlande 2 Contents 1 Introduction to the thesis 7 1.1 Logic and metamathematics . 7 1.2 Historical intermezzo . 8 1.3 Constructivity . 9 1.4 Constructive set theory . 11 1.5 Algebraic set theory . 15 1.6 Contents . 17 1.7 Warning concerning terminology . 18 1.8 Acknowledgements . 19 2 A unified approach to algebraic set theory 21 2.1 Introduction . 21 2.2 Constructive set theories . 24 2.3 Categories with small maps . 25 2.3.1 Axioms . 25 2.3.2 Consequences . 29 2.3.3 Strengthenings . 31 2.3.4 Relation to other settings . 32 2.4 Models of set theory . 33 2.5 Examples . 35 2.6 Predicative sheaf theory . 36 2.7 Predicative realizability . 37 3 Exact completion 41 3.1 Introduction . 41 3 4 CONTENTS 3.2 Categories with small maps . 45 3.2.1 Classes of small maps . 46 3.2.2 Classes of display maps . 51 3.3 Axioms for classes of small maps . 55 3.3.1 Representability . 55 3.3.2 Separation . 55 3.3.3 Power types . 55 3.3.4 Function types . 57 3.3.5 Inductive types . 58 3.3.6 Infinity . 60 3.3.7 Fullness . 61 3.4 Exactness and its applications . 63 3.5 Exact completion . 66 3.6 Stability properties of axioms for small maps . 73 3.6.1 Representability . 74 3.6.2 Separation . 74 3.6.3 Power types .
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 1.3: Direct Products and Sums
    Lecture 1.3: Direct products and sums Matthew Macauley Department of Mathematical Sciences Clemson University http://www.math.clemson.edu/~macaule/ Math 8530, Advanced Linear Algebra M. Macauley (Clemson) Lecture 1.3: Direct products and sums Math 8530, Advanced Linear Algebra 1 / 5 Overview In previous lectures, we learned about vectors spaces and subspaces. We learned about what it meant for a subset to span, to be linearly independent, and to be a basis. In this lecture, we will see how to create new vector spaces from old ones. We will see several ways to \multiply" vector spaces together, and will learn how to construct: the complement of a subspace the direct sum of two subspaces the direct product of two vector spaces M. Macauley (Clemson) Lecture 1.3: Direct products and sums Math 8530, Advanced Linear Algebra 2 / 5 Complements and direct sums Theorem 1.5 (a) Every subspace Y of a finite-dimensional vector space X is finite-dimensional. (b) Every subspace Y has a complement in X : another subspace Z such that every vector x 2 X can be written uniquely as x = y + z; y 2 Y ; z 2 Z; dim X = dim Y + dim Z: Proof Definition X is the direct sum of subspaces Y and Z that are complements of each other. More generally, X is the direct sum of subspaces Y1;:::; Ym if every x 2 X can be expressed uniquely as x = y1 + ··· + ym; yi 2 Yi : We denote this as X = Y1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Ym. M. Macauley (Clemson) Lecture 1.3: Direct products and sums Math 8530, Advanced Linear Algebra 3 / 5 Direct products Definition The direct product of X1 and X2 is the vector space X1 × X2 := (x1; x2) j x1 2 X1; x2 2 X2 ; with addition and multiplication defined component-wise.
    [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]
  • On the Constructive Elementary Theory of the Category of Sets
    On the Constructive Elementary Theory of the Category of Sets Aruchchunan Surendran Ludwig-Maximilians-University Supervision: Dr. I. Petrakis August 14, 2019 1 Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 Elements of basic Category Theory 3 2.1 The category Set ................................3 2.2 Basic definitions . .4 2.3 Basic properties of Set .............................6 2.3.1 Epis and monos . .6 2.3.2 Elements as arrows . .8 2.3.3 Binary relations as monic arrows . .9 2.3.4 Coequalizers as quotient sets . 10 2.4 Membership of elements . 12 2.5 Partial and total arrows . 14 2.6 Cartesian closed categories (CCC) . 16 2.6.1 Products of objects . 16 2.6.2 Application: λ-Calculus . 18 2.6.3 Exponentials . 21 3 Constructive Elementary Theory of the Category of Sets (CETCS) 26 3.1 Constructivism . 26 3.2 Axioms of ETCS . 27 3.3 Axioms of CETCS . 28 3.4 Π-Axiom . 29 3.5 Set-theoretic consequences . 32 3.5.1 Quotient Sets . 32 3.5.2 Induction . 34 3.5.3 Constructing new relations with logical operations . 35 3.6 Correspondence to standard categorical formulations . 42 1 1 Introduction The Elementary Theory of the Category of Sets (ETCS) was first introduced by William Lawvere in [4] in 1964 to give an axiomatization of sets. The goal of this thesis is to describe the Constructive Elementary Theory of the Category of Sets (CETCS), following its presentation by Erik Palmgren in [2]. In chapter 2. we discuss basic elements of Category Theory. Category Theory was first formulated in the year 1945 by Eilenberg and Mac Lane in their paper \General theory of natural equivalences" and is the study of generalized functions, called arrows, in an abstract algebra.
    [Show full text]
  • Forcing with Copies of Countable Ordinals
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Volume 143, Number 4, April 2015, Pages 1771–1784 S 0002-9939(2014)12360-4 Article electronically published on December 4, 2014 FORCING WITH COPIES OF COUNTABLE ORDINALS MILOSˇ S. KURILIC´ (Communicated by Mirna Dˇzamonja) Abstract. Let α be a countable ordinal and P(α) the collection of its subsets isomorphic to α. We show that the separative quotient of the poset P(α), ⊂ is isomorphic to a forcing product of iterated reduced products of Boolean γ algebras of the form P (ω )/Iωγ ,whereγ ∈ Lim ∪{1} and Iωγ is the corre- sponding ordinal ideal. Moreover, the poset P(α), ⊂ is forcing equivalent to + a two-step iteration of the form (P (ω)/Fin) ∗ π,where[ω] “π is an ω1- + closed separative pre-order” and, if h = ω1,to(P (ω)/Fin) . Also we analyze δ I the quotients over ordinal ideals P (ω )/ ωδ and the corresponding cardinal invariants hωδ and tωδ . 1. Introduction The posets of the form P(X), ⊂,whereX is a relational structure and P(X) the set of (the domains of) its isomorphic substructures, were considered in [7], where a classification of the relations on countable sets related to the forcing-related properties of the corresponding posets of copies is described. So, defining two structures to be equivalent if the corresponding posets of copies produce the same generic extensions, we obtain a rough classification of structures which, in general, depends on the properties of the model of set theory in which we work. For example, under CH all countable linear orders are partitioned in only two classes.
    [Show full text]