Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 2.3K
- Chat 496
- Study Groups 10
- Epidemiology 5
- Network Theory 2
- Leaf Modeling 1
- Review Sections 9
- MIT 2020: Programming with Categories 52
- MIT 2020: Lectures 21
- 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 64
- Azimuth Code Project 110
- Statistical methods 2
- Drafts 1
- Math Syntax Demos 15
- Wiki - Latest Changes 2
- Strategy 111
- Azimuth Project 1.1K
- - Spam 1
- News and Information 147
- Azimuth Blog 149
- - Conventions and Policies 21
- - Questions 43
- Azimuth Wiki 707
Options
Is there a difference between the Quotient category and a categorical schema?
In Seven sketches, categorical schemas are talked about a lot. They're given by a graph and a path equivalence relation on that graph. It seems very much like the construction of the quotient category (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotient_category), which identifies sets of morphisms as well.
Is there perhaps a subtle difference between these two? Seven sketches doesn't seem to mention quotient categories at any point
Comments
There is also a phrase "finitely-presented category" mentioned in Seven sketches, which seems like a very similar thing. I'm wondering if there are any subtle differences
There is also a phrase "finitely-presented category" mentioned in Seven sketches, which seems like a very similar thing. I'm wondering if there are any subtle differences"formally" word in wikepedia points a difference in my opinion..
"formally" word in wikepedia points a difference in my opinion..https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/quotient+category
strict localization...
https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/quotient+category strict localization...Do you mean the "Formally, it is a quotient object in the category of (small) categories, analogous to a quotient group or quotient space, but in the categorical setting." sentence? Doesn't a path equivalence relation on Free(G) exactly the congruence R they talk about on the Wikipedia page? Can't we define the quotient category Free(G)/~ in very much the same way, such that there's a quotient functor Q which equates certain paths?
Do you mean the "Formally, it is a quotient object in the category of (small) categories, analogous to a quotient group or quotient space, but in the categorical setting." sentence? Doesn't a path equivalence relation on Free(G) exactly the congruence R they talk about on the Wikipedia page? Can't we define the quotient category Free(G)/~ in very much the same way, such that there's a quotient functor Q which equates certain paths?yes this "formally"...regarding Free(G) i dont know if you are right or not..
yes this "formally"...regarding Free(G) i dont know if you are right or not..