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 $\mathcal{D}$ be a small category and let $A=A\left(\mathcal{D}\right)$ be its set of arrows. Define $P$ on $A$ by: $fPg\Leftrightarrow\left[f\text{ and }g\text{ are parallel}\right]$ and let $R\subseteq P$.

Now have a look at equivalence relations $C$ on $A$. Let's say that:

  • $C\in\mathcal{C}_{s}$ iff $R\subseteq C\subseteq P$ and $fCg\Rightarrow\left(h\circ f\circ k\right)C\left(h\circ g\circ k\right)$ whenever these compositions are defined;
  • $C\in\mathcal{C}_{w}$ iff $R\subseteq C\subseteq P$ but now combined with $fCg\wedge f'Cg'\Rightarrow\left(f\circ f'\right)C\left(g\circ g'\right)$ whenever these compositions are defined.

Then $P\in\mathcal{C}_{s}$ and $P\in\mathcal{C}_{w}$ so both are not empty. For $C_{s}:=\cap\mathcal{C}_{s}$ and $C_{w}:=\cap\mathcal{C}_{w}$ it is easy to verify that $C_{s}\in\mathcal{C}_{s}$ and $C_{w}\in\mathcal{C}_{w}$.


My question is:

Do we have $C_{w}=C_{s}$ here?

It is in fact the question whether two different definitions of 'congruences' both result in the same smallest 'congruence' that contains relation $R\subseteq P$. I ask it here for small categories so that I can conveniently speak of 'relations' (small sets), but for large categories I have the same question.

Mac Lane works in CWM with $C_{s}$, but is $C_{w}$ also an option?

share|improve this question
1  
I didn't realise until after editing how much the introduction of some spacing and other formatting can improve clarity and readability. I hope you agree and will take this into consideration for future questions. Cheers and welcome to Math.SE! –  Lord_Farin May 16 '13 at 11:00

1 Answer 1

up vote 2 down vote accepted

They are identical. I will suppress the composition symbol for brevity and convenience.

Suppose first that $C \in \mathcal C_w$, and that $f C g$. Since $h C h$ and $k C k$, we have $f C g$ implies $hf C hg$, which in turn implies $hfk C hgk$. Thus $C \in \mathcal C_s$.

Suppose now that $C \in \mathcal C_s$, and that $f C g, f' C g'$. Then we have $ff' C gf'$ (take $h = \operatorname{id}, k = f'$) and $gf'Cgg'$ (take $h = g, k = \operatorname{id}$). By transitivity, $ff'Cgg'$. Thus $C \in \mathcal C_w$.

Therefore, $\mathcal C_s = \mathcal C_w$, and we conclude $C_s = C_w$.

share|improve this answer
    
Thank you very much for helping me out! It is much simpler than I thought. –  drhab May 16 '13 at 17:42

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.