From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/323 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: categories Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories Subject: Re: Intuitionism's Limits Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 10:36:01 -0400 (AST) Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1241016891 25180 80.91.229.2 (29 Apr 2009 14:54:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 14:54:51 +0000 (UTC) To: categories Original-X-From: cat-dist Mon Mar 3 10:36:21 1997 Original-Received: by mailserv.mta.ca; id AA21520; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 10:36:01 -0400 Original-Lines: 17 Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:323 Archived-At: Date: Sun, 2 Mar 1997 15:52:17 -0500 (EST) From: Peter Freyd To William James, You must be using a non-standard (philosophical?) definition of "monic", since it is obvious using the standard (mathematical) definition that a monic remains a monic in any subcategory containing it (to get unnecessarily technical, because it's given by a universally quantified Horn sentence). Could you tell us your definition? (For the record: f: A -> B is monic iff for all x,x':X -> A it x f x' f is the case that X -> A -> B = X -> A -> B implies x = x'.)