From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/3448
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: "Prof. Peter Johnstone"
Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories
Subject: Re: Reflexive coequalizers
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 14:37:24 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID:
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1241019310 8797 80.91.229.2 (29 Apr 2009 15:35:10 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:35:10 +0000 (UTC)
To: categories@mta.ca
Original-X-From: rrosebru@mta.ca Mon Oct 9 21:26:34 2006 -0300
Return-path:
Envelope-to: categories-list@mta.ca
Delivery-date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 21:26:34 -0300
Original-Received: from Majordom by mailserv.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.61)
(envelope-from )
id 1GX5OG-0005DQ-2D
for categories-list@mta.ca; Mon, 09 Oct 2006 21:22:36 -0300
In-Reply-To:
Original-Sender: cat-dist@mta.ca
Precedence: bulk
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 9
Original-Lines: 22
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:3448
Archived-At:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, Richard Garner wrote:
>
> 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?
>
It certainly follows from the fact that reflexive coequalizers
commute with finite products in Set (or in any cartesian closed
category). This is a result that some people attribute to me,
since the first place it was explicitly written down seems to
have been my PhD thesis, though I'm sure it was known well
before that.
Peter Johnstone