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.

Let $\mathcal{C}$ denote a category. Then for every wide subcategory $\mathcal{D}$ of $\mathcal{C}$, there is an associated pre-order $\leq_\mathcal{D}$ on the objects of $\mathcal{C}$ defined by asserting that $X \leq_\mathcal{D} Y$ iff there exists $f \in \mathrm{Arr}(\mathcal{D})$ such that $f : X \rightarrow Y$.

Does this observation go anywhere?

I'm especially interested in the case where we're given a category $\mathcal{C}$, and we let $\mathcal{M}$ and $\mathcal{E}$ denote the wide subcategories whose arrows are the monomorphisms and epimorphisms of $\mathcal{C}$ respectively. Note that if $\mathcal{C}$ is $\mathrm{Set}$ and $\mathcal{M}$ and $\mathcal{E}$ are defined in this way, then for all objects $X$ and $Y$, it holds that $X \leq_\mathcal{M} Y$ iff $Y \leq_\mathcal{E} X$.

share|improve this question
    
Where would you want it to go? –  Qiaochu Yuan Apr 23 '13 at 3:16
    
@QiaochuYuan, Well I'm trying to understand these new ideas in category theory using ideas I'm familiar with, like pre-orders. So for instance, if a terminal object is precisely a maximum element in an induced pre-order, this would clarify things for me. –  goblin Apr 23 '13 at 3:19
2  
I think you should think of statements about categories as specializing to statements about preorders rather than reducing to statements about preorders (so the notion of a terminal object specializes to, but is more general than, the notion of a maximum element). Some categories just don't look much like a preorder, e.g. in the category of abelian groups there's a morphism between any pair of objects. –  Qiaochu Yuan Apr 23 '13 at 4:01
    
@QiaochuYuan, thank you for your advice. I still wait and see if I receive answers to this question though, because I like seeing the connections between things, and then may be more going on than just a specialization/generalization relationship. –  goblin Apr 23 '13 at 5:02
add comment

1 Answer 1

If you like preorders and monomorphisms, you'll like subobjects. For any object $c$ of a category $C$, we can consider the category of all monomorphisms $b \to c$ into $c$, and this forms a preorder in which all of the morphisms themselves come from monomorphisms in $C$. When $c$ is an object in a familiar category this usually ends up being equivalent to the poset of subobjects of $c$ in the usual sense (e.g. when $c$ is a set or a group).

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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.