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

- All Categories 2.4K
- Chat 505
- Study Groups 21
- Petri Nets 9
- Epidemiology 4
- Leaf Modeling 2
- Review Sections 9
- MIT 2020: Programming with Categories 51
- MIT 2020: Lectures 20
- MIT 2020: Exercises 25
- Baez ACT 2019: Online Course 339
- Baez ACT 2019: Lectures 79
- Baez ACT 2019: Exercises 149
- Baez ACT 2019: Chat 50
- UCR ACT Seminar 4
- General 75
- Azimuth Code Project 111
- Statistical methods 4
- Drafts 10
- 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 718

Options

## Comments

`![picture](https://i.imgur.com/4kDBMhM.png)`

In your post on the 4-hop fixed point, you say:

The three-hop equivalence can be expressed this way too: \(f \circ g \circ f \cong f\) and \(g \circ f \circ g \cong g\). It's not

quiteas pretty, but it's there!`In your post on the [4-hop fixed point](https://forum.azimuthproject.org/discussion/2189/petepics-chapter-1-iterated-galois-maps-the-4-hop-fixed-point), you say: > Since these are true at every point, they can be expressed as statements about maps rather than about values The three-hop equivalence can be expressed this way too: \\(f \circ g \circ f \cong f\\) and \\(g \circ f \circ g \cong g\\). It's not _quite_ as pretty, but it's there!`