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

In writing these proofs, I found it quite convenient to have given names to the 1-hop, 2-hop etc. formulas in my earlier posts.

References to earlier posts: 1-hop constraint, 2-hop inequality, 3-hop equivalence, 4-hop fixed point.

## Comments

`![picture](https://i.imgur.com/1eoPGy4.png)`

I think most of this can be generalized to adjoint functors.

`I think most of this can be generalized to adjoint functors.`

Hi Christopher, thanks for the note. I'm just getting to Chapter 3 now, so I look forward to learning how all this stuff fits into the larger scheme of things!

`Hi Christopher, thanks for the note. I'm just getting to Chapter 3 now, so I look forward to learning how all this stuff fits into the larger scheme of things!`