What is the colon ':' called in category theory morphism definitions?












1












$begingroup$


Category theoretic morphism definition syntax, e.g.: $varphi : G to H$ uses the colon character rather than, for instance, the member-of sign e.g.: $varphi ∈ G to H$



What is the descriptive name of colon in this context? What is the semantic gain of this additional entity over member-of?






category-theory notation morphism







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 5




    $begingroup$
    The function $varphi$ does not "equal" $G to H$ (whatever that means). There are probably lots of functions/morphisms $G to H$. This notation says that $varphi$ is one of them.
    $endgroup$
    – Randall
    Dec 17 '18 at 20:31












  • $begingroup$
    Roughly speaking, a colon can often be replaced with the phrase "such that". For instance, $varphi:Gto H$ reads "$varphi$ such that $G$ maps to $H$".
    $endgroup$
    – Shaun
    Dec 17 '18 at 20:35






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    @Shaun: People do occasionally use $:$ to mean 'such that', for example in set-builder notation (e.g. ${ x in mathbb{R} mid x ge 0 }$) or after an existential quantifier (e.g. $exists x in mathbb{R} : x ge 0$), but in the context of a function (or morphism in a category) that is neither what the colon means nor how it is read.
    $endgroup$
    – Clive Newstead
    Dec 17 '18 at 20:41








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    I've never heard anyone read this colon as "such that."
    $endgroup$
    – Randall
    Dec 17 '18 at 20:41
















1












$begingroup$


Category theoretic morphism definition syntax, e.g.: $varphi : G to H$ uses the colon character rather than, for instance, the member-of sign e.g.: $varphi ∈ G to H$



What is the descriptive name of colon in this context? What is the semantic gain of this additional entity over member-of?






category-theory notation morphism







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 5




    $begingroup$
    The function $varphi$ does not "equal" $G to H$ (whatever that means). There are probably lots of functions/morphisms $G to H$. This notation says that $varphi$ is one of them.
    $endgroup$
    – Randall
    Dec 17 '18 at 20:31












  • $begingroup$
    Roughly speaking, a colon can often be replaced with the phrase "such that". For instance, $varphi:Gto H$ reads "$varphi$ such that $G$ maps to $H$".
    $endgroup$
    – Shaun
    Dec 17 '18 at 20:35






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    @Shaun: People do occasionally use $:$ to mean 'such that', for example in set-builder notation (e.g. ${ x in mathbb{R} mid x ge 0 }$) or after an existential quantifier (e.g. $exists x in mathbb{R} : x ge 0$), but in the context of a function (or morphism in a category) that is neither what the colon means nor how it is read.
    $endgroup$
    – Clive Newstead
    Dec 17 '18 at 20:41








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    I've never heard anyone read this colon as "such that."
    $endgroup$
    – Randall
    Dec 17 '18 at 20:41














1












1








1





$begingroup$


Category theoretic morphism definition syntax, e.g.: $varphi : G to H$ uses the colon character rather than, for instance, the member-of sign e.g.: $varphi ∈ G to H$



What is the descriptive name of colon in this context? What is the semantic gain of this additional entity over member-of?






category-theory notation morphism







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Category theoretic morphism definition syntax, e.g.: $varphi : G to H$ uses the colon character rather than, for instance, the member-of sign e.g.: $varphi ∈ G to H$



What is the descriptive name of colon in this context? What is the semantic gain of this additional entity over member-of?






category-theory notation morphism




category-theory notation morphism






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 19 '18 at 15:16







James Bowery

















asked Dec 17 '18 at 20:30









James BoweryJames Bowery

1587




1587








  • 5




    $begingroup$
    The function $varphi$ does not "equal" $G to H$ (whatever that means). There are probably lots of functions/morphisms $G to H$. This notation says that $varphi$ is one of them.
    $endgroup$
    – Randall
    Dec 17 '18 at 20:31












  • $begingroup$
    Roughly speaking, a colon can often be replaced with the phrase "such that". For instance, $varphi:Gto H$ reads "$varphi$ such that $G$ maps to $H$".
    $endgroup$
    – Shaun
    Dec 17 '18 at 20:35






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    @Shaun: People do occasionally use $:$ to mean 'such that', for example in set-builder notation (e.g. ${ x in mathbb{R} mid x ge 0 }$) or after an existential quantifier (e.g. $exists x in mathbb{R} : x ge 0$), but in the context of a function (or morphism in a category) that is neither what the colon means nor how it is read.
    $endgroup$
    – Clive Newstead
    Dec 17 '18 at 20:41








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    I've never heard anyone read this colon as "such that."
    $endgroup$
    – Randall
    Dec 17 '18 at 20:41














  • 5




    $begingroup$
    The function $varphi$ does not "equal" $G to H$ (whatever that means). There are probably lots of functions/morphisms $G to H$. This notation says that $varphi$ is one of them.
    $endgroup$
    – Randall
    Dec 17 '18 at 20:31












  • $begingroup$
    Roughly speaking, a colon can often be replaced with the phrase "such that". For instance, $varphi:Gto H$ reads "$varphi$ such that $G$ maps to $H$".
    $endgroup$
    – Shaun
    Dec 17 '18 at 20:35






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    @Shaun: People do occasionally use $:$ to mean 'such that', for example in set-builder notation (e.g. ${ x in mathbb{R} mid x ge 0 }$) or after an existential quantifier (e.g. $exists x in mathbb{R} : x ge 0$), but in the context of a function (or morphism in a category) that is neither what the colon means nor how it is read.
    $endgroup$
    – Clive Newstead
    Dec 17 '18 at 20:41








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    I've never heard anyone read this colon as "such that."
    $endgroup$
    – Randall
    Dec 17 '18 at 20:41








5




5




$begingroup$
The function $varphi$ does not "equal" $G to H$ (whatever that means). There are probably lots of functions/morphisms $G to H$. This notation says that $varphi$ is one of them.
$endgroup$
– Randall
Dec 17 '18 at 20:31






$begingroup$
The function $varphi$ does not "equal" $G to H$ (whatever that means). There are probably lots of functions/morphisms $G to H$. This notation says that $varphi$ is one of them.
$endgroup$
– Randall
Dec 17 '18 at 20:31














$begingroup$
Roughly speaking, a colon can often be replaced with the phrase "such that". For instance, $varphi:Gto H$ reads "$varphi$ such that $G$ maps to $H$".
$endgroup$
– Shaun
Dec 17 '18 at 20:35




$begingroup$
Roughly speaking, a colon can often be replaced with the phrase "such that". For instance, $varphi:Gto H$ reads "$varphi$ such that $G$ maps to $H$".
$endgroup$
– Shaun
Dec 17 '18 at 20:35




5




5




$begingroup$
@Shaun: People do occasionally use $:$ to mean 'such that', for example in set-builder notation (e.g. ${ x in mathbb{R} mid x ge 0 }$) or after an existential quantifier (e.g. $exists x in mathbb{R} : x ge 0$), but in the context of a function (or morphism in a category) that is neither what the colon means nor how it is read.
$endgroup$
– Clive Newstead
Dec 17 '18 at 20:41






$begingroup$
@Shaun: People do occasionally use $:$ to mean 'such that', for example in set-builder notation (e.g. ${ x in mathbb{R} mid x ge 0 }$) or after an existential quantifier (e.g. $exists x in mathbb{R} : x ge 0$), but in the context of a function (or morphism in a category) that is neither what the colon means nor how it is read.
$endgroup$
– Clive Newstead
Dec 17 '18 at 20:41






3




3




$begingroup$
I've never heard anyone read this colon as "such that."
$endgroup$
– Randall
Dec 17 '18 at 20:41




$begingroup$
I've never heard anyone read this colon as "such that."
$endgroup$
– Randall
Dec 17 '18 at 20:41










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















5












$begingroup$

The colon is a typing symbol and does not represent equality.



The assertion $varphi : G to H$ asserts that $varphi$ is a morphism from the object $G$ to the object $H$. There may be many different morphisms from $G$ to $H$, so replacing $:$ by $=$ would not make much sense.



There are instances when a morphism is understood from context, when you might write an $=$ sign. For example, if you see something like:




...blah blah blah... and so we see trivially that $f = A to 1$.




What is probably meant is that $1$ is a terminal object in a category $mathcal{C}$ and $f$ is the unique morphism from $A$ to $1$ in $mathcal{C}$.



Related note: in the branch of type theory, the colon is used more widely; the notation $a : A$ represents the assertion that a term $a$ has type $A$. In type theory, the notation $A to B$ represents a function type, and then a function $f : A to B$ truly is a term $f$ of type $A to B$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 2




    $begingroup$
    It's probably worth mentioning that with set-theoretic foundations, the notation $f:Ato B$ would typically be viewed as shorthand for $finmathsf{Hom}(A,B)$. The OP's question would have made a lot more sense if they'd contrasted to $in$ rather than $=$. There's probably a decent and not completely superficial discussion on why type theory uses $:$ over $in$ that could be had, but that's another question...
    $endgroup$
    – Derek Elkins
    Dec 17 '18 at 23:32










  • $begingroup$
    @DerekElkins: Good point. (For what it's worth, I have seen some presentations of type theory that use $in$ instead of $:$.)
    $endgroup$
    – Clive Newstead
    Dec 18 '18 at 2:12










  • $begingroup$
    I've corrected my question to use ∈ as the counter-example. Thanks for the feedback.
    $endgroup$
    – James Bowery
    Dec 19 '18 at 15:16



















1












$begingroup$


The colon “:” generally abbreviates a pair of equalities.




A category is generally defined as consisting of things called ‘objects’ and
‘morphisms’ --as well as other things--
such that:
Each morphism $f$ has an associated “source” object and an associated “target” object.



To avoid being verbose, a syntactic construct is introduced:
$$
f : A → B qquad≡qquad mathsf{source},f ,=, A ;;land;; mathsf{target},f ,=, B
$$



Hope that helps :-)






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    This is extremely pedantic but technically simply knowing that $mathsf{source}(f)=A$ and $mathsf{target}(f)=B$ does not ensure that $f$ is a morphism of the category. You'd need an additional constraint like $finmathsf{Arr}(mathcal C)$.
    $endgroup$
    – Derek Elkins
    Dec 19 '18 at 2:13






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I've corrected my question to use ∈ as the counter example. The syntactic sugar approach appeals to me but it leaves me a bit dissatisfied as it doesn't suggest a nice verbal translation e.g. "f morphs the category A to the category B" or something like that.
    $endgroup$
    – James Bowery
    Dec 19 '18 at 15:21










  • $begingroup$
    $mathsf{source,target}$ are usual set-functions from the arrows of a category to its objects...
    $endgroup$
    – Musa Al-hassy
    Dec 19 '18 at 20:36











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3044406%2fwhat-is-the-colon-called-in-category-theory-morphism-definitions%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









5












$begingroup$

The colon is a typing symbol and does not represent equality.



The assertion $varphi : G to H$ asserts that $varphi$ is a morphism from the object $G$ to the object $H$. There may be many different morphisms from $G$ to $H$, so replacing $:$ by $=$ would not make much sense.



There are instances when a morphism is understood from context, when you might write an $=$ sign. For example, if you see something like:




...blah blah blah... and so we see trivially that $f = A to 1$.




What is probably meant is that $1$ is a terminal object in a category $mathcal{C}$ and $f$ is the unique morphism from $A$ to $1$ in $mathcal{C}$.



Related note: in the branch of type theory, the colon is used more widely; the notation $a : A$ represents the assertion that a term $a$ has type $A$. In type theory, the notation $A to B$ represents a function type, and then a function $f : A to B$ truly is a term $f$ of type $A to B$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 2




    $begingroup$
    It's probably worth mentioning that with set-theoretic foundations, the notation $f:Ato B$ would typically be viewed as shorthand for $finmathsf{Hom}(A,B)$. The OP's question would have made a lot more sense if they'd contrasted to $in$ rather than $=$. There's probably a decent and not completely superficial discussion on why type theory uses $:$ over $in$ that could be had, but that's another question...
    $endgroup$
    – Derek Elkins
    Dec 17 '18 at 23:32










  • $begingroup$
    @DerekElkins: Good point. (For what it's worth, I have seen some presentations of type theory that use $in$ instead of $:$.)
    $endgroup$
    – Clive Newstead
    Dec 18 '18 at 2:12










  • $begingroup$
    I've corrected my question to use ∈ as the counter-example. Thanks for the feedback.
    $endgroup$
    – James Bowery
    Dec 19 '18 at 15:16
















5












$begingroup$

The colon is a typing symbol and does not represent equality.



The assertion $varphi : G to H$ asserts that $varphi$ is a morphism from the object $G$ to the object $H$. There may be many different morphisms from $G$ to $H$, so replacing $:$ by $=$ would not make much sense.



There are instances when a morphism is understood from context, when you might write an $=$ sign. For example, if you see something like:




...blah blah blah... and so we see trivially that $f = A to 1$.




What is probably meant is that $1$ is a terminal object in a category $mathcal{C}$ and $f$ is the unique morphism from $A$ to $1$ in $mathcal{C}$.



Related note: in the branch of type theory, the colon is used more widely; the notation $a : A$ represents the assertion that a term $a$ has type $A$. In type theory, the notation $A to B$ represents a function type, and then a function $f : A to B$ truly is a term $f$ of type $A to B$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 2




    $begingroup$
    It's probably worth mentioning that with set-theoretic foundations, the notation $f:Ato B$ would typically be viewed as shorthand for $finmathsf{Hom}(A,B)$. The OP's question would have made a lot more sense if they'd contrasted to $in$ rather than $=$. There's probably a decent and not completely superficial discussion on why type theory uses $:$ over $in$ that could be had, but that's another question...
    $endgroup$
    – Derek Elkins
    Dec 17 '18 at 23:32










  • $begingroup$
    @DerekElkins: Good point. (For what it's worth, I have seen some presentations of type theory that use $in$ instead of $:$.)
    $endgroup$
    – Clive Newstead
    Dec 18 '18 at 2:12










  • $begingroup$
    I've corrected my question to use ∈ as the counter-example. Thanks for the feedback.
    $endgroup$
    – James Bowery
    Dec 19 '18 at 15:16














5












5








5





$begingroup$

The colon is a typing symbol and does not represent equality.



The assertion $varphi : G to H$ asserts that $varphi$ is a morphism from the object $G$ to the object $H$. There may be many different morphisms from $G$ to $H$, so replacing $:$ by $=$ would not make much sense.



There are instances when a morphism is understood from context, when you might write an $=$ sign. For example, if you see something like:




...blah blah blah... and so we see trivially that $f = A to 1$.




What is probably meant is that $1$ is a terminal object in a category $mathcal{C}$ and $f$ is the unique morphism from $A$ to $1$ in $mathcal{C}$.



Related note: in the branch of type theory, the colon is used more widely; the notation $a : A$ represents the assertion that a term $a$ has type $A$. In type theory, the notation $A to B$ represents a function type, and then a function $f : A to B$ truly is a term $f$ of type $A to B$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



The colon is a typing symbol and does not represent equality.



The assertion $varphi : G to H$ asserts that $varphi$ is a morphism from the object $G$ to the object $H$. There may be many different morphisms from $G$ to $H$, so replacing $:$ by $=$ would not make much sense.



There are instances when a morphism is understood from context, when you might write an $=$ sign. For example, if you see something like:




...blah blah blah... and so we see trivially that $f = A to 1$.




What is probably meant is that $1$ is a terminal object in a category $mathcal{C}$ and $f$ is the unique morphism from $A$ to $1$ in $mathcal{C}$.



Related note: in the branch of type theory, the colon is used more widely; the notation $a : A$ represents the assertion that a term $a$ has type $A$. In type theory, the notation $A to B$ represents a function type, and then a function $f : A to B$ truly is a term $f$ of type $A to B$.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Dec 17 '18 at 20:37









Clive NewsteadClive Newstead

51.8k474136




51.8k474136








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    It's probably worth mentioning that with set-theoretic foundations, the notation $f:Ato B$ would typically be viewed as shorthand for $finmathsf{Hom}(A,B)$. The OP's question would have made a lot more sense if they'd contrasted to $in$ rather than $=$. There's probably a decent and not completely superficial discussion on why type theory uses $:$ over $in$ that could be had, but that's another question...
    $endgroup$
    – Derek Elkins
    Dec 17 '18 at 23:32










  • $begingroup$
    @DerekElkins: Good point. (For what it's worth, I have seen some presentations of type theory that use $in$ instead of $:$.)
    $endgroup$
    – Clive Newstead
    Dec 18 '18 at 2:12










  • $begingroup$
    I've corrected my question to use ∈ as the counter-example. Thanks for the feedback.
    $endgroup$
    – James Bowery
    Dec 19 '18 at 15:16














  • 2




    $begingroup$
    It's probably worth mentioning that with set-theoretic foundations, the notation $f:Ato B$ would typically be viewed as shorthand for $finmathsf{Hom}(A,B)$. The OP's question would have made a lot more sense if they'd contrasted to $in$ rather than $=$. There's probably a decent and not completely superficial discussion on why type theory uses $:$ over $in$ that could be had, but that's another question...
    $endgroup$
    – Derek Elkins
    Dec 17 '18 at 23:32










  • $begingroup$
    @DerekElkins: Good point. (For what it's worth, I have seen some presentations of type theory that use $in$ instead of $:$.)
    $endgroup$
    – Clive Newstead
    Dec 18 '18 at 2:12










  • $begingroup$
    I've corrected my question to use ∈ as the counter-example. Thanks for the feedback.
    $endgroup$
    – James Bowery
    Dec 19 '18 at 15:16








2




2




$begingroup$
It's probably worth mentioning that with set-theoretic foundations, the notation $f:Ato B$ would typically be viewed as shorthand for $finmathsf{Hom}(A,B)$. The OP's question would have made a lot more sense if they'd contrasted to $in$ rather than $=$. There's probably a decent and not completely superficial discussion on why type theory uses $:$ over $in$ that could be had, but that's another question...
$endgroup$
– Derek Elkins
Dec 17 '18 at 23:32




$begingroup$
It's probably worth mentioning that with set-theoretic foundations, the notation $f:Ato B$ would typically be viewed as shorthand for $finmathsf{Hom}(A,B)$. The OP's question would have made a lot more sense if they'd contrasted to $in$ rather than $=$. There's probably a decent and not completely superficial discussion on why type theory uses $:$ over $in$ that could be had, but that's another question...
$endgroup$
– Derek Elkins
Dec 17 '18 at 23:32












$begingroup$
@DerekElkins: Good point. (For what it's worth, I have seen some presentations of type theory that use $in$ instead of $:$.)
$endgroup$
– Clive Newstead
Dec 18 '18 at 2:12




$begingroup$
@DerekElkins: Good point. (For what it's worth, I have seen some presentations of type theory that use $in$ instead of $:$.)
$endgroup$
– Clive Newstead
Dec 18 '18 at 2:12












$begingroup$
I've corrected my question to use ∈ as the counter-example. Thanks for the feedback.
$endgroup$
– James Bowery
Dec 19 '18 at 15:16




$begingroup$
I've corrected my question to use ∈ as the counter-example. Thanks for the feedback.
$endgroup$
– James Bowery
Dec 19 '18 at 15:16











1












$begingroup$


The colon “:” generally abbreviates a pair of equalities.




A category is generally defined as consisting of things called ‘objects’ and
‘morphisms’ --as well as other things--
such that:
Each morphism $f$ has an associated “source” object and an associated “target” object.



To avoid being verbose, a syntactic construct is introduced:
$$
f : A → B qquad≡qquad mathsf{source},f ,=, A ;;land;; mathsf{target},f ,=, B
$$



Hope that helps :-)






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    This is extremely pedantic but technically simply knowing that $mathsf{source}(f)=A$ and $mathsf{target}(f)=B$ does not ensure that $f$ is a morphism of the category. You'd need an additional constraint like $finmathsf{Arr}(mathcal C)$.
    $endgroup$
    – Derek Elkins
    Dec 19 '18 at 2:13






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I've corrected my question to use ∈ as the counter example. The syntactic sugar approach appeals to me but it leaves me a bit dissatisfied as it doesn't suggest a nice verbal translation e.g. "f morphs the category A to the category B" or something like that.
    $endgroup$
    – James Bowery
    Dec 19 '18 at 15:21










  • $begingroup$
    $mathsf{source,target}$ are usual set-functions from the arrows of a category to its objects...
    $endgroup$
    – Musa Al-hassy
    Dec 19 '18 at 20:36
















1












$begingroup$


The colon “:” generally abbreviates a pair of equalities.




A category is generally defined as consisting of things called ‘objects’ and
‘morphisms’ --as well as other things--
such that:
Each morphism $f$ has an associated “source” object and an associated “target” object.



To avoid being verbose, a syntactic construct is introduced:
$$
f : A → B qquad≡qquad mathsf{source},f ,=, A ;;land;; mathsf{target},f ,=, B
$$



Hope that helps :-)






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    This is extremely pedantic but technically simply knowing that $mathsf{source}(f)=A$ and $mathsf{target}(f)=B$ does not ensure that $f$ is a morphism of the category. You'd need an additional constraint like $finmathsf{Arr}(mathcal C)$.
    $endgroup$
    – Derek Elkins
    Dec 19 '18 at 2:13






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I've corrected my question to use ∈ as the counter example. The syntactic sugar approach appeals to me but it leaves me a bit dissatisfied as it doesn't suggest a nice verbal translation e.g. "f morphs the category A to the category B" or something like that.
    $endgroup$
    – James Bowery
    Dec 19 '18 at 15:21










  • $begingroup$
    $mathsf{source,target}$ are usual set-functions from the arrows of a category to its objects...
    $endgroup$
    – Musa Al-hassy
    Dec 19 '18 at 20:36














1












1








1





$begingroup$


The colon “:” generally abbreviates a pair of equalities.




A category is generally defined as consisting of things called ‘objects’ and
‘morphisms’ --as well as other things--
such that:
Each morphism $f$ has an associated “source” object and an associated “target” object.



To avoid being verbose, a syntactic construct is introduced:
$$
f : A → B qquad≡qquad mathsf{source},f ,=, A ;;land;; mathsf{target},f ,=, B
$$



Hope that helps :-)






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$




The colon “:” generally abbreviates a pair of equalities.




A category is generally defined as consisting of things called ‘objects’ and
‘morphisms’ --as well as other things--
such that:
Each morphism $f$ has an associated “source” object and an associated “target” object.



To avoid being verbose, a syntactic construct is introduced:
$$
f : A → B qquad≡qquad mathsf{source},f ,=, A ;;land;; mathsf{target},f ,=, B
$$



Hope that helps :-)







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Dec 18 '18 at 21:16









Musa Al-hassyMusa Al-hassy

1,3331711




1,3331711








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    This is extremely pedantic but technically simply knowing that $mathsf{source}(f)=A$ and $mathsf{target}(f)=B$ does not ensure that $f$ is a morphism of the category. You'd need an additional constraint like $finmathsf{Arr}(mathcal C)$.
    $endgroup$
    – Derek Elkins
    Dec 19 '18 at 2:13






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I've corrected my question to use ∈ as the counter example. The syntactic sugar approach appeals to me but it leaves me a bit dissatisfied as it doesn't suggest a nice verbal translation e.g. "f morphs the category A to the category B" or something like that.
    $endgroup$
    – James Bowery
    Dec 19 '18 at 15:21










  • $begingroup$
    $mathsf{source,target}$ are usual set-functions from the arrows of a category to its objects...
    $endgroup$
    – Musa Al-hassy
    Dec 19 '18 at 20:36














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    This is extremely pedantic but technically simply knowing that $mathsf{source}(f)=A$ and $mathsf{target}(f)=B$ does not ensure that $f$ is a morphism of the category. You'd need an additional constraint like $finmathsf{Arr}(mathcal C)$.
    $endgroup$
    – Derek Elkins
    Dec 19 '18 at 2:13






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I've corrected my question to use ∈ as the counter example. The syntactic sugar approach appeals to me but it leaves me a bit dissatisfied as it doesn't suggest a nice verbal translation e.g. "f morphs the category A to the category B" or something like that.
    $endgroup$
    – James Bowery
    Dec 19 '18 at 15:21










  • $begingroup$
    $mathsf{source,target}$ are usual set-functions from the arrows of a category to its objects...
    $endgroup$
    – Musa Al-hassy
    Dec 19 '18 at 20:36








1




1




$begingroup$
This is extremely pedantic but technically simply knowing that $mathsf{source}(f)=A$ and $mathsf{target}(f)=B$ does not ensure that $f$ is a morphism of the category. You'd need an additional constraint like $finmathsf{Arr}(mathcal C)$.
$endgroup$
– Derek Elkins
Dec 19 '18 at 2:13




$begingroup$
This is extremely pedantic but technically simply knowing that $mathsf{source}(f)=A$ and $mathsf{target}(f)=B$ does not ensure that $f$ is a morphism of the category. You'd need an additional constraint like $finmathsf{Arr}(mathcal C)$.
$endgroup$
– Derek Elkins
Dec 19 '18 at 2:13




1




1




$begingroup$
I've corrected my question to use ∈ as the counter example. The syntactic sugar approach appeals to me but it leaves me a bit dissatisfied as it doesn't suggest a nice verbal translation e.g. "f morphs the category A to the category B" or something like that.
$endgroup$
– James Bowery
Dec 19 '18 at 15:21




$begingroup$
I've corrected my question to use ∈ as the counter example. The syntactic sugar approach appeals to me but it leaves me a bit dissatisfied as it doesn't suggest a nice verbal translation e.g. "f morphs the category A to the category B" or something like that.
$endgroup$
– James Bowery
Dec 19 '18 at 15:21












$begingroup$
$mathsf{source,target}$ are usual set-functions from the arrows of a category to its objects...
$endgroup$
– Musa Al-hassy
Dec 19 '18 at 20:36




$begingroup$
$mathsf{source,target}$ are usual set-functions from the arrows of a category to its objects...
$endgroup$
– Musa Al-hassy
Dec 19 '18 at 20:36


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3044406%2fwhat-is-the-colon-called-in-category-theory-morphism-definitions%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

Popular posts from this blog

Probability when a professor distributes a quiz and homework assignment to a class of n students.

Image
0 0 $begingroup$ Need help with this problem. Suppose our lazy professor collects a quiz and a homework assignment from a class of n students one day, then distributes both the quizzes and the homework assignments back to the class in a random fashion for grading. Each student receives one quiz and one homework assignment to grade. (a) What is the probability that every student receives someone else's quiz to grade, and someone else's homework to grade? (b) What is the probability that no student receives both their own quiz and their own homework assignment to grade? In this case, some students may receive their own quiz, and others may receive their own homework assignment. (c) Compute the limiting probability as n approaches infinity in each case. ...
Read more

Aardman Animations

Image
Aardman Animations, Ltd. Aardman Animations Tipo privada Atividade Animação em stop-motion , Animação em CGI Fundação 1972 Fundador(es) Peter Lord David Sproxton Sede Bristol, Inglaterra  Reino Unido Proprietário(s) Dreamworks Pessoas-chave Peter Lord David Sproxton Nick Park Divisões Aardman Features Aardman Digital Aardman Commercials Aardman Broadcast Aardman International Aardman Rights Aardman Effects Aardman 3-D Systems Aardman Nathan Love AardBoiled Website oficial aardman.com ...
Read more

Are they similar matrix

Image
0 $begingroup$ Do $begin{bmatrix} 0&i&0\0&0&1\0&0&0 end{bmatrix} $ and $begin{bmatrix} 0&0&0\-i&0&0\0&1&0 end{bmatrix} $ are similar.Is this True/false Clearly both are nilpotent and one is conjucate transpose of other but how to know if they are similar.i'm stuck. Please help me linear-algebra vector-spaces eigenvalues-eigenvectors generalizedeigenvector share | cite | improve this question edited Dec 10 '18 at 6:38 Vasanth Kris asked Dec 10 '18 at 6:19 ...
Read more