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

- All Categories 2.3K
- Chat 498
- Study Groups 16
- Petri Nets 7
- Epidemiology 3
- 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 65
- Azimuth Code Project 110
- Statistical methods 2
- Drafts 2
- Math Syntax Demos 15
- Wiki - Latest Changes 3
- Strategy 113
- Azimuth Project 1.1K
- - Spam 1
- News and Information 147
- Azimuth Blog 149
- - Conventions and Policies 21
- - Questions 43
- Azimuth Wiki 707

Options

Hi!

Brendan mentioned shapes could be used to probe other objects. For the Set category there is a special terminal object (the 1-point, a singleton set) that can be used to point all the elements of a set. One might use n-points instead of singletons but it turns out sets are determined completely by 1-points (since n-points can be recursively obtained from 1-points) . Also, we know this is not true for all categories: knowing about the points of an object is insufficient to count as knowing its elements (construed broadly).

I'd like to know if is possible (and how) to determine the minimal shape collection required to know a category. I haven't watched beyond lecture 2, so there might be something I am missing.

Also, would you mind giving an example of how the dual of probe ("observer") operates? Shapes in the context of generalized elements operate as imaging instruments for categories, but I am not sure about the interpretation of the dual case where what you change is the object under study and not the shape.

Thanks.

hello world×