Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

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

I am new to category theory so I apologize if this is a silly question.

We say that $f : X \rightarrow Y$ is a mono iff for all $g,g' : W \rightarrow X$ it holds that $f \circ g = f \circ g' \Rightarrow g=g'$.

Now define that $f : X \rightarrow Y$ is a mono* iff for all $h : X \rightarrow Z$ there exists $h' : Y \rightarrow Z$ such that $h' \circ f = h$.

Is there any connection between these two definitions? My intuition says that, at least in $\mathsf{Set}$, they're equivalent; but, I could be completely wrong.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 5 down vote accepted

The first one is the standard definition. The second one is the definition of a split monomorphism. Indeed, take $h = \textrm{id}_X$, then your definition implies there is $h' : Y \to X$ such that $h' \circ f = \textrm{id}_X$; conversely, if there is $r : Y \to X$ such that $r \circ f = \textrm{id}_X$, then for any $h : X \to Z$, for $h' = h \circ r$, we have $h' \circ f = h \circ r \circ f = h$.

In particular, the two definitions are not equivalent even in $\textbf{Set}$: the unique map $\emptyset \to Y$ is always injective but splits if and only if $Y = \emptyset$. It is, however, true in the category of vector spaces over a field.

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.