From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/9291 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: alex Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories Subject: Re: An elementary question Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 02:15:37 +0200 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: alex NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1502734940 27951 195.159.176.226 (14 Aug 2017 18:22:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 18:22:20 +0000 (UTC) To: Dana Scott , categories@mta.ca Original-X-From: majordomo@mlist.mta.ca Mon Aug 14 20:22:15 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: gsmc-categories@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from smtp2.mta.ca ([198.164.44.40]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dhK0B-0006lo-Bf for gsmc-categories@m.gmane.org; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 20:22:11 +0200 Original-Received: from mlist.mta.ca ([138.73.1.63]:43788) by smtp2.mta.ca with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1dhJzb-0004fp-IK; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 15:21:35 -0300 Original-Received: from majordomo by mlist.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dhJzH-00056F-2J for categories-list@mlist.mta.ca; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 15:21:15 -0300 In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:9291 Archived-At: I hope so much that I do not say something monumentally stupid. I am just a student and do not want to attract negative attention, but is there not, for any P, Q a whole partial order of "generalized coproducts", in the sense that these consist of coproducts plus some relations of the form (p \leq q) or vice versa, where these coproducts are ordered by saying that one "generalized coproduct" is "smaller" than the other iff from (p \leq q) in the second it follows that this relation also holds in the first one? So the modified coproduct you describe would be the least element in this partial order of generalized coproducts. Furthermore, this modified coproduct, its dual and the normal coproduct would be the only ones that could actually made into a functor from Pos*Pos to Pos, since these are the only ones describable through of the generalized coproducts describable through a universal property: mapping each two partial orders to the lowest element in the partial order of the lattice in the first case, to the highest one in the second, and to the coproduct in the third. Of course it all depends on what you consider nice, but this is the nicest I can see, at least. I hope this is at least halfway correct (although I think it should be, since I spent some time recently contemplating a similar structure I found in a pet project of mine) and comprehensibly formulated. English is not my first language and describing mathematical structures in writing without the use of latex is a bit hard for me. I can work it out a bit more formal in a latex file if you want. Hope I could help, Alex On 13.08.2017 21:55, Dana Scott wrote: > The category of posets (= partially ordered sets) and monotone > maps is often used as an easy example -- different from the category > of sets -- that has products, coproducts, and is cartesian closed > but not a topos. > > Let P and Q be two posets. Define (P (<) Q) as the modified > coproduct where all the elements of P are made less than all the > elements of Q. QUESTION. Does (P (<) Q) have a nice categorical > definition as a functor in the category of posets? > [For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]