Regarding the construction of quotient category The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InEquivalent conditions for a preabelian category to be abelianThe definition of the quotient category in abelian category.Properties of quotient categories.Why does the pushout preserve monic in an abelian category?Find limit of sequence in category of cones.Are poset-shaped limits of finite groups profinite?A technical question on the category of metric spacesderived category of quotient categoryTriangulated category associated to a subcategory of an abelian categoryComposition of morphisms in Quotient category

Finding the area between two curves with Integrate

How come people say “Would of”?

Is there a way to generate a uniformly distributed point on a sphere from a fixed amount of random real numbers?

How do I free up internal storage if I don't have any apps downloaded?

Why is the maximum length of OpenWrt’s root password 8 characters?

Mathematics of imaging the black hole

Are spiders unable to hurt humans, especially very small spiders?

If I score a critical hit on an 18 or higher, what are my chances of getting a critical hit if I roll 3d20?

Does adding complexity mean a more secure cipher?

How to translate "being like"?

What is this sharp, curved notch on my knife for?

Can withdrawing asylum be illegal?

How to type this arrow in math mode?

Why didn't the Event Horizon Telescope team mention Sagittarius A*?

Keeping a retro style to sci-fi spaceships?

What information about me do stores get via my credit card?

Kerning for subscripts of sigma?

RequirePermission not working

How can I have a shield and a way of attacking with a ranged weapon at the same time?

How to type a long/em dash `—`

writing variables above the numbers in tikz picture

Why doesn't UInt have a toDouble()?

Output the Arecibo Message

The difference between dialogue marks



Regarding the construction of quotient category



The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InEquivalent conditions for a preabelian category to be abelianThe definition of the quotient category in abelian category.Properties of quotient categories.Why does the pushout preserve monic in an abelian category?Find limit of sequence in category of cones.Are poset-shaped limits of finite groups profinite?A technical question on the category of metric spacesderived category of quotient categoryTriangulated category associated to a subcategory of an abelian categoryComposition of morphisms in Quotient category










0












$begingroup$


Let $mathcalA$ be an abelian category and $mathcalT$ be a thick subcategory (i.e., closed under taking subquotient and extensions) of $mathcalA$. Then we construct the quotient category $mathcalA/T$ with objects same as category $mathcalA$, and as for morphisms $Mor_mathcalA/T(A,B)$ we consider the set $$mathcalI=(A',B'): A' subseteq A, B' subseteq B,; ; A/A' in mathcalT,; B' in mathcal
T$$

w.r.t to the order $$(A',B')leq (A'',B'') iff A'supseteq A'',; ; B'subseteq B''.$$
Indeed, $; mathcalI; $ is a directed set w.r.t. pre-order $; leq; $. So we define a diagram $$D:mathcalIrightarrow Mor_mathcalA\
(A',B')rightarrow Mor_mathcalA(A',B/B'),$$

and then we go on to define$$Mor_mathcalA/T(A,B)= Colim_(A',B')in mathcalI Mor_mathcalA(A',B/B').$$



My first question is, how is the diagram $D$ well defined? Since the object $B/B'$ depends on the choice of the monic map $B'rightarrow B$ and we choose the fixed pair $(A',B')$ for all the monic maps $A' rightarrow A$ and $B'rightarrow B$.



Indeed, if we take $(A'rightarrow A, B'rightarrow B)$ pairs for fixed monic maps instead of $(A',B')$, the problem goes away and we have unique map $Mor_mathcalA (A',B/B')rightarrow Mor_mathcalA(A'',B/B''). $



Secondly, why is it enough to have $B''supseteq B'$, i.e., a monic map $B' rightarrow B''$? Don't we need the condition $B' rightarrow B'' rightarrow B= B' rightarrow B$ to have a map $B/B'rightarrow B/B''$?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$
















    0












    $begingroup$


    Let $mathcalA$ be an abelian category and $mathcalT$ be a thick subcategory (i.e., closed under taking subquotient and extensions) of $mathcalA$. Then we construct the quotient category $mathcalA/T$ with objects same as category $mathcalA$, and as for morphisms $Mor_mathcalA/T(A,B)$ we consider the set $$mathcalI=(A',B'): A' subseteq A, B' subseteq B,; ; A/A' in mathcalT,; B' in mathcal
    T$$

    w.r.t to the order $$(A',B')leq (A'',B'') iff A'supseteq A'',; ; B'subseteq B''.$$
    Indeed, $; mathcalI; $ is a directed set w.r.t. pre-order $; leq; $. So we define a diagram $$D:mathcalIrightarrow Mor_mathcalA\
    (A',B')rightarrow Mor_mathcalA(A',B/B'),$$

    and then we go on to define$$Mor_mathcalA/T(A,B)= Colim_(A',B')in mathcalI Mor_mathcalA(A',B/B').$$



    My first question is, how is the diagram $D$ well defined? Since the object $B/B'$ depends on the choice of the monic map $B'rightarrow B$ and we choose the fixed pair $(A',B')$ for all the monic maps $A' rightarrow A$ and $B'rightarrow B$.



    Indeed, if we take $(A'rightarrow A, B'rightarrow B)$ pairs for fixed monic maps instead of $(A',B')$, the problem goes away and we have unique map $Mor_mathcalA (A',B/B')rightarrow Mor_mathcalA(A'',B/B''). $



    Secondly, why is it enough to have $B''supseteq B'$, i.e., a monic map $B' rightarrow B''$? Don't we need the condition $B' rightarrow B'' rightarrow B= B' rightarrow B$ to have a map $B/B'rightarrow B/B''$?










    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$














      0












      0








      0





      $begingroup$


      Let $mathcalA$ be an abelian category and $mathcalT$ be a thick subcategory (i.e., closed under taking subquotient and extensions) of $mathcalA$. Then we construct the quotient category $mathcalA/T$ with objects same as category $mathcalA$, and as for morphisms $Mor_mathcalA/T(A,B)$ we consider the set $$mathcalI=(A',B'): A' subseteq A, B' subseteq B,; ; A/A' in mathcalT,; B' in mathcal
      T$$

      w.r.t to the order $$(A',B')leq (A'',B'') iff A'supseteq A'',; ; B'subseteq B''.$$
      Indeed, $; mathcalI; $ is a directed set w.r.t. pre-order $; leq; $. So we define a diagram $$D:mathcalIrightarrow Mor_mathcalA\
      (A',B')rightarrow Mor_mathcalA(A',B/B'),$$

      and then we go on to define$$Mor_mathcalA/T(A,B)= Colim_(A',B')in mathcalI Mor_mathcalA(A',B/B').$$



      My first question is, how is the diagram $D$ well defined? Since the object $B/B'$ depends on the choice of the monic map $B'rightarrow B$ and we choose the fixed pair $(A',B')$ for all the monic maps $A' rightarrow A$ and $B'rightarrow B$.



      Indeed, if we take $(A'rightarrow A, B'rightarrow B)$ pairs for fixed monic maps instead of $(A',B')$, the problem goes away and we have unique map $Mor_mathcalA (A',B/B')rightarrow Mor_mathcalA(A'',B/B''). $



      Secondly, why is it enough to have $B''supseteq B'$, i.e., a monic map $B' rightarrow B''$? Don't we need the condition $B' rightarrow B'' rightarrow B= B' rightarrow B$ to have a map $B/B'rightarrow B/B''$?










      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      Let $mathcalA$ be an abelian category and $mathcalT$ be a thick subcategory (i.e., closed under taking subquotient and extensions) of $mathcalA$. Then we construct the quotient category $mathcalA/T$ with objects same as category $mathcalA$, and as for morphisms $Mor_mathcalA/T(A,B)$ we consider the set $$mathcalI=(A',B'): A' subseteq A, B' subseteq B,; ; A/A' in mathcalT,; B' in mathcal
      T$$

      w.r.t to the order $$(A',B')leq (A'',B'') iff A'supseteq A'',; ; B'subseteq B''.$$
      Indeed, $; mathcalI; $ is a directed set w.r.t. pre-order $; leq; $. So we define a diagram $$D:mathcalIrightarrow Mor_mathcalA\
      (A',B')rightarrow Mor_mathcalA(A',B/B'),$$

      and then we go on to define$$Mor_mathcalA/T(A,B)= Colim_(A',B')in mathcalI Mor_mathcalA(A',B/B').$$



      My first question is, how is the diagram $D$ well defined? Since the object $B/B'$ depends on the choice of the monic map $B'rightarrow B$ and we choose the fixed pair $(A',B')$ for all the monic maps $A' rightarrow A$ and $B'rightarrow B$.



      Indeed, if we take $(A'rightarrow A, B'rightarrow B)$ pairs for fixed monic maps instead of $(A',B')$, the problem goes away and we have unique map $Mor_mathcalA (A',B/B')rightarrow Mor_mathcalA(A'',B/B''). $



      Secondly, why is it enough to have $B''supseteq B'$, i.e., a monic map $B' rightarrow B''$? Don't we need the condition $B' rightarrow B'' rightarrow B= B' rightarrow B$ to have a map $B/B'rightarrow B/B''$?







      category-theory homological-algebra abelian-categories






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Mar 24 at 9:12









      Later

      634




      634










      asked Mar 24 at 6:54









      solgaleosolgaleo

      8712




      8712




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          0












          $begingroup$

          1) $A' subseteq A, ; B' subseteq B$ are treated as subobjects, so I would say that your reformulation (fixing the whole monomorphisms rather than just domains) seems to be the intended meaning (and the one that makes sense).



          2) Similarly, the comparison of objects ``$A'' subseteq A'$ '' seems to be meant as comparison in the category of subobjects of $A$, i.e. the monomorphism should be compatible with those to $A$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            );
            );
            , "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function()
            var channelOptions =
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            ;
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
            createEditor();
            );

            else
            createEditor();

            );

            function createEditor()
            StackExchange.prepareEditor(
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader:
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            ,
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            );



            );













            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3160215%2fregarding-the-construction-of-quotient-category%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            0












            $begingroup$

            1) $A' subseteq A, ; B' subseteq B$ are treated as subobjects, so I would say that your reformulation (fixing the whole monomorphisms rather than just domains) seems to be the intended meaning (and the one that makes sense).



            2) Similarly, the comparison of objects ``$A'' subseteq A'$ '' seems to be meant as comparison in the category of subobjects of $A$, i.e. the monomorphism should be compatible with those to $A$.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$

















              0












              $begingroup$

              1) $A' subseteq A, ; B' subseteq B$ are treated as subobjects, so I would say that your reformulation (fixing the whole monomorphisms rather than just domains) seems to be the intended meaning (and the one that makes sense).



              2) Similarly, the comparison of objects ``$A'' subseteq A'$ '' seems to be meant as comparison in the category of subobjects of $A$, i.e. the monomorphism should be compatible with those to $A$.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$















                0












                0








                0





                $begingroup$

                1) $A' subseteq A, ; B' subseteq B$ are treated as subobjects, so I would say that your reformulation (fixing the whole monomorphisms rather than just domains) seems to be the intended meaning (and the one that makes sense).



                2) Similarly, the comparison of objects ``$A'' subseteq A'$ '' seems to be meant as comparison in the category of subobjects of $A$, i.e. the monomorphism should be compatible with those to $A$.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$



                1) $A' subseteq A, ; B' subseteq B$ are treated as subobjects, so I would say that your reformulation (fixing the whole monomorphisms rather than just domains) seems to be the intended meaning (and the one that makes sense).



                2) Similarly, the comparison of objects ``$A'' subseteq A'$ '' seems to be meant as comparison in the category of subobjects of $A$, i.e. the monomorphism should be compatible with those to $A$.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Mar 26 at 5:03









                Pavel ČoupekPavel Čoupek

                4,57611126




                4,57611126



























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded
















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid


                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function ()
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3160215%2fregarding-the-construction-of-quotient-category%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Moe incest case Sentencing See also References Navigation menu"'Australian Josef Fritzl' fathered four children by daughter""Small town recoils in horror at 'Australian Fritzl' incest case""Victorian rape allegations echo Fritzl case - Just In (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)""Incest father jailed for 22 years""'Australian Fritzl' sentenced to 22 years in prison for abusing daughter for three decades""RSJ v The Queen"

                    John Burke, 9th Earl of Clanricarde References Navigation menuA General and heraldic dictionary of the peerage and baronetage of the British EmpireLeigh Rayment's Peerage Pages

                    Football at the 1986 Brunei Merdeka Games Contents Teams Group stage Knockout stage References Navigation menu"Brunei Merdeka Games 1986".