From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/3446 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Garner Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories Subject: Reflexive coequalizers Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 11:14:34 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1241019308 8791 80.91.229.2 (29 Apr 2009 15:35:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:35:08 +0000 (UTC) To: categories@mta.ca Original-X-From: rrosebru@mta.ca Mon Oct 9 09:49:31 2006 -0300 Return-path: Envelope-to: categories-list@mta.ca Delivery-date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 09:49:31 -0300 Original-Received: from Majordom by mailserv.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1GWuQU-0002KX-0S for categories-list@mta.ca; Mon, 09 Oct 2006 09:40:10 -0300 Original-Sender: cat-dist@mta.ca Precedence: bulk X-Keywords: X-UID: 7 Original-Lines: 19 Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:3446 Archived-At: Dear categorists, I have a proof that the indiscrete category functor Set -> Cat preserves reflexive coequalizers which, although straightfoward, uses the explicit description of colimits in Cat. Is this necessary, or can I deduce the result from general principles? [Also, I'm sure this result must appear somewhere but I can't find a reference for it. If anyone knows of one, I'd be grateful.] Many thanks, Richard