* Re: [TYPES] origin of the term "hom-set"?
[not found] ` <CAEX2k5EgPV6YRkb-CfzZUVL+wcoqQ78Czn8ewE98U-wFGC1pyw-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
@ 2014-11-05 18:27 ` Harley Eades III
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Harley Eades III @ 2014-11-05 18:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Derek Dreyer; +Cc: Types list, Categories mailing list
[ The Types Forum, http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list ]
Hi, Derek.
I am not sure of this myself, but I am forwarding this to the categories list as
well.
Category theorist: Do you happen to know the answer to Derek’s question?
See below.
I am willing to bet someone there knows.
Very best,
.\ Harley Eades
On Nov 5, 2014, at 12:51 PM, Derek Dreyer <dreyer-41PbBDiSz5tAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> [ The Types Forum, http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list ]
>
> Hi. Does anyone know the origin of the term "hom-set"? It came up
> yesterday in class, and after a little googling, I have not turned up
> the answer. I always assumed it stood for "homomorphism set" (?) but
> even that much I have not been able to verify, and it doesn't explain
> why we are talking about "homomorphisms" as opposed to "morphisms" (or
> "sets" rather than "collections", since the hom-set is not always a
> set). I presume there is some historical reason for this?
>
> Thanks,
> Derek
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread