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

- All Categories 2.3K
- Chat 495
- Study Groups 6
- Biological Models 1
- Categorical Network Theory 1
- Programming with Categories 4
- Review Sections 6
- MIT 2020: Programming with Categories 53
- 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 0
- Strategy 111
- Azimuth Project 1.1K
- - Spam 1
- News and Information 147
- Azimuth Blog 149
- - Conventions and Policies 21
- - Questions 43
- Azimuth Wiki 708

Options

*Preorders.*

A preorder is a category such that, for every two objects \(a,b \), there is at most one morphism \(a \to b \). That is, there either is or is not a morphism from \(a \) to \(b \), but there are never two morphisms \(a \) to \(b \). If there is a morphism \(a \to b \), we write \(a \leq b \); if there is not a morphism \(a \to b \), we don’t. For example, there is a preorder \(P \) whose objects are the positive integers \(Ob(P) = \mathbb{N}_{≥1} \) and whose hom-sets are given by \(P(a,b) := \{x \in N | x∗a = b \} \) This is a preorder because either \(P(a,b) \) is empty (if \(b \) is not divisible by \(a \)) or contains exactly one element.

--

(a) What is the identity on 12?

(b) Show that if \(x : a \to b \) and \(y : b \to c \) are morphisms, then there is a morphism \(y◦x \) to serve as their composite.

(c) Would it have worked just as well to take \(P \) to have all of \(\mathbb{N} \) as objects, rather than just the positive integers?

## Comments

a) 1 (1*12 = 12)

b) x

a = b and yb = c, thus yxa = cc) no, we would have more than one morphism from

`0 -> 0`

`a) 1 (1*12 = 12) b) x*a = b and y*b = c, thus y*x*a = c c) no, we would have more than one morphism from `0 -> 0``

If a =2 and b = 3 what is x?

`If a =2 and b = 3 what is x?`

@JimStuttard there is no x, so there is no morphism from 2 to 3

`@JimStuttard there is no x, so there is no morphism from 2 to 3`

@FabricioOlivetti Duh. Tnx. My bad, somehow missed the divisibility part of the definition.

`@FabricioOlivetti Duh. Tnx. My bad, somehow missed the divisibility part of the definition.`