Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Is there any example showing that the composition of morphisms is not necessarily associative?

share|improve this question
Composition of morphisms is always associative. –  Qiaochu Yuan Nov 14 '12 at 22:28
In fact, it is an axiom of category that composition of morphisms is associative. –  tomasz Nov 14 '12 at 22:50
If you would like to know examples of "non-associative categories", specializing to one object these are sets with a non-associative binary operation and a unit element, which include non-associative algebras. There is a list on wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-associative_algebra –  Martin Brandenburg Nov 15 '12 at 11:46
If you meant morphisms in the sense of category theory, then (category-theory) tag would be good for this question. –  Martin Sleziak Jul 23 '13 at 18:29

1 Answer 1

I don't know how much category theory you know, but I guess you can look up any terms you don't recognize.

In a cateogry, composition is associative per definition. However, when generalizing categories to higher categories ($n$-categories), it is sometimes useful not to demand associativity, but only "weak associativity". Weak associativity is the same as associativity up to isomorphism in the layer above. That is, for any triple $f,g,h$ of morphisms where $gf$ and $hg$ are defined, there is an "isomorphism of morphisms" $F: (hg)f \rightarrow h(gf)$.

For example, if we define a path in a topological space $X$ to be a continuous function $\alpha:[0,1]\rightarrow X$, there is a well defined operation of "composition" of paths which is weakly associative, but not associative. In this case we get a 2-category where composition is associative up to homotopy.

share|improve this answer
Of course, we have to take homotopy classes of homotopies in order to have an associative composition for those... –  Zhen Lin Nov 14 '12 at 22:44
Yes, this chain goes on to infinity, and is the basis for the homotopy hypothesis, that $\infty$-groupoids are essentially the same as topological spaces. (See for example ncatlab.org/nlab/show/homotopy+hypothesis) –  espen180 Nov 14 '12 at 22:49

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.