It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

- All Categories 2.3K
- Chat 499
- Study Groups 19
- Petri Nets 9
- Epidemiology 4
- Leaf Modeling 1
- Review Sections 9
- MIT 2020: Programming with Categories 51
- MIT 2020: Lectures 20
- MIT 2020: Exercises 25
- MIT 2019: Applied Category Theory 339
- MIT 2019: Lectures 79
- MIT 2019: Exercises 149
- MIT 2019: Chat 50
- UCR ACT Seminar 4
- General 69
- Azimuth Code Project 110
- Statistical methods 4
- Drafts 2
- Math Syntax Demos 15
- Wiki - Latest Changes 3
- Strategy 113
- Azimuth Project 1.1K
- - Spam 1
- News and Information 148
- Azimuth Blog 149
- - Conventions and Policies 21
- - Questions 43
- Azimuth Wiki 713

Options

Again taking the divisibility order \( ( \mathbb{N} , | ) \). Someone proposes 0 as the monoidal unit and + as the monoidal product.

Does that proposal satisfy the conditions of Definition 2.2?

Why or why not?

**divisibility order:** We write \( m|n \) to mean that m divides into n without remainder.

## Comments

Consider \( x_1 = 2, x_2 = 3, y_1 = 4, y_2 = 9 \). Clearly \( x_1 | y_1 \) and \( x_2 | y_2 \) .

Does \( 2 + 3 | 4 + 9 \)?

`Consider \\( x_1 = 2, x_2 = 3, y_1 = 4, y_2 = 9 \\). Clearly \\( x_1 | y_1 \\) and \\( x_2 | y_2 \\) . Does \\( 2 + 3 | 4 + 9 \\)?`

Fredrick: That's the same counterexample I settled on. Amusingly, my "pick a random set of numbers" approach kept finding ones that worked! (2|4, 3|6 => 5 | 10, for example).

This is one demonstration of why just finding a few small examples to satisfy ourselves an assertion is true isn't sufficient. It's easy to mislead yourself into thinking you've stumbled upon a relation that doesn't actually exist.

`Fredrick: That's the same counterexample I settled on. Amusingly, my "pick a random set of numbers" approach kept finding ones that worked! (2|4, 3|6 => 5 | 10, for example). This is one demonstration of why just finding a few small examples to satisfy ourselves an assertion is true isn't sufficient. It's easy to mislead yourself into thinking you've stumbled upon a relation that doesn't actually exist.`

@JaredSummers My intuition told me to pick right hand values that are relatively prime. Does that have any relevance or did I just get lucky. In your example 4 and 6 share a common factor, 2, and so that gets rejected. The pairs \( 2|4 , 5|15 \rightarrow 2 + 5 | 4 + 15 = 7 | 19 \) seems to support the intuition as does \( 2|4 , 3|3 \rightarrow 2+3 | 4+3 = 5|7 \).

`@JaredSummers My intuition told me to pick right hand values that are relatively prime. Does that have any relevance or did I just get lucky. In your example 4 and 6 share a common factor, 2, and so that gets rejected. The pairs \\( 2|4 , 5|15 \rightarrow 2 + 5 | 4 + 15 = 7 | 19 \\) seems to support the intuition as does \\( 2|4 , 3|3 \rightarrow 2+3 | 4+3 = 5|7 \\).`