categories - Category Theory list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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






             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).