From: Charles Wells <charles@freude.com>
To: categories@mta.ca
Subject: Sketches
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 15:52:29 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20011205155136.02024090@mail.oberlin.net> (raw)
This is in reply to Toby Bartels, quoted below. I don't believe that those
of us who have written about "ideas" in Ehresmann's sense ever conceived
that each theory (sketch) was based on one right idea. There is no
"correct" idea for a given sketch.
I want to add, for those new to the subject, that the word "sketch" has
been used with at least three meanings. Ehresmann and his students use it
for a structure which is a weakening of the concept of category (the
composite may not be defined for all composable pairs) plus specified cones
and/or cocones. Many others have used the word sketch to refer to a
category with specified cones and/or cocones. Michael Barr and I in our
two books used "sketch" to mean a graph with specified cones and/or cocones
plus some commutativity conditions on paths; that is in the same spirit as
Ehresmann's "idea".
--Charles Wells
>Andree Ehresmann wrote in part:
>
> >He thought
> >first of calling a sketch an idea, but then reserved the word "idea" for
> >the smallest part which helps reconstruct the sketch; for instance for a
> >category, the arrows which 'represent' the domain and codomain maps and the
> >composition law.
>
>There could be multiple ideas that generate the same sketch;
>how do we decide which is the correct idea among equivalent ones?
>OTOH, if we take equivalence classes of ideas, then we're taking sketches.
>For example, one could define the idea of multiplication in a monoid
>as a binary operation and a nullary operation
>or alternatively as an operation on finite tuples.
>The former is more common, but I prefer the latter;
>who has the right idea?
>
>
>-- Toby
> toby@math.ucr.edu
Charles Wells,
Emeritus Professor of Mathematics, Case Western Reserve University
Affiliate Scholar, Oberlin College
Send all mail to:
105 South Cedar St., Oberlin, Ohio 44074, USA.
email: charles@freude.com.
home phone: 440 774 1926.
professional website: http://www.cwru.edu/artsci/math/wells/home.html
personal website: http://www.oberlin.net/~cwells/index.html
genealogical website:
http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/w/e/l/Charles-Wells/
NE Ohio Sacred Harp website: http://www.oberlin.net/~cwells/sh.htm
next reply other threads:[~2001-12-05 20:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-12-05 20:52 Charles Wells [this message]
2008-09-22 21:10 Sketches John Baez
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5.1.0.14.2.20011205155136.02024090@mail.oberlin.net \
--to=charles@freude.com \
--cc=categories@mta.ca \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).