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

- All Categories 2.2K
- Applied Category Theory Course 355
- Applied Category Theory Seminar 4
- Exercises 149
- Discussion Groups 49
- How to Use MathJax 15
- Chat 480
- Azimuth Code Project 108
- News and Information 145
- Azimuth Blog 149
- Azimuth Forum 29
- Azimuth Project 189
- - Strategy 108
- - Conventions and Policies 21
- - Questions 43
- Azimuth Wiki 711
- - Latest Changes 701
- - - Action 14
- - - Biodiversity 8
- - - Books 2
- - - Carbon 9
- - - Computational methods 38
- - - Climate 53
- - - Earth science 23
- - - Ecology 43
- - - Energy 29
- - - Experiments 30
- - - Geoengineering 0
- - - Mathematical methods 69
- - - Meta 9
- - - Methodology 16
- - - Natural resources 7
- - - Oceans 4
- - - Organizations 34
- - - People 6
- - - Publishing 4
- - - Reports 3
- - - Software 21
- - - Statistical methods 2
- - - Sustainability 4
- - - Things to do 2
- - - Visualisation 1
- General 39

## Comments

1) The monogamous spousal function for all people, where unmarried people are treated as their own spouse.

The spouse, \(s\), of my spouse, \(z_1\) is me, \(z_0\).

2) The a mother, \(a\), of only children, \(c\), where \(g\) is the firstborn and \(h\) the last.

`1) The monogamous spousal function for all people, where unmarried people are treated as their own spouse. The spouse, \\(s\\), of my spouse, \\(z_1\\) is me, \\(z_0\\). 2) The a mother, \\(a\\), of only children, \\(c\\), where \\(g\\) is the firstborn and \\(h\\) the last.`

About 2 - it looks like the morphisms

gandhshould really be the same morphism, is there a way to show this? If we had a reverse morphism \(f^{-1}: b \to a\), such that \(f \cdot f^{-1} = id_b\) then this would follow naturally, but we don't. We just have some image ofa, \(f: a \to Im(a)\), inb. So basically we are saying that this equality holds only for a subset ofb, other entries may have different outcomes fromgandh.EDIT: got it, ifacontains mothers with a single child, andbis the set of all mothers, then \(f.g = f.h\), but in general, for other mothers, the first child and the last are not equal.`About 2 - it looks like the morphisms **g** and **h** should really be the same morphism, is there a way to show this? If we had a reverse morphism \\(f^{-1}: b \to a\\), such that \\(f \cdot f^{-1} = id_b\\) then this would follow naturally, but we don't. We just have some image of *a*, \\(f: a \to Im(a)\\), in *b*. So basically we are saying that this equality holds only for a subset of *b*, other entries may have different outcomes from **g** and **h**. **EDIT**: got it, if _a_ contains mothers with a single child, and _b_ is the set of all mothers, then \\(f.g = f.h\\), but in general, for other mothers, the first child and the last are not equal.`