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.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let $C$ be an arbitrary category, $X,Y\in Obj(C)$ and $$f:X\to Y,$$ $$g:X\to Y.$$ How to define coincidence of such morphisms?

share|cite|improve this question
Are you referring to the equalizer ( ) of $f$ and $g$? Not all categories have equalizers. – Shaun Ault Jan 4 '13 at 1:22
Equality between arrows or objects of an abstract category is a primitive notion, just as composition of compatible arrows is a primitive notion. – hardmath Jan 4 '13 at 1:35
Although I don't think this question is about equalizers, I'll try to post a working link. Yay, it worked! Just use the [name](url) syntax instead of bare URL. For other methods, see this post. – user53153 Jan 4 '13 at 1:37
Sorry, here's a working link: – Shaun Ault Jan 4 '13 at 1:41
@hardmath Copy into the answer box? – user53153 Jan 6 '13 at 3:33

If by "coincidence" is meant equality of morphisms (arrows) in an abstract category, one can only reply that this is an undefined concept, a primitive of what defines abstract categories.

That is, just as an abstract group has a primitive binary operation satisfying certain "equalities" but does not further define what constitutes "equality" of group elements, an abstract category is defined in terms of objects and morphisms (arrows) between them, without proposing any definition of equality of morphisms (or objects) beyond saying certain properties stated as equalities are satisfied.

In this context "primitive" has the connotation of basic concepts in terms of which all the other concepts may be defined. For example, equality of two functors might be expressed in terms of the equal assignments of objects and morphisms.

Added: If one wishes to be "bare bones" about the primitives, objects can be dispensed with in favor of doing everything in terms of morphisms, something that Eilenberg and MacLane noted in their original 1945 exposition.

share|cite|improve this answer

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.