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.

Trying to understand Example 2.6.2.2. on page 50 of David I. Spivak's book "Category Theory for Scientists," Spivak gives $X$ as the interval $[0..1]=\{x\in\mathbb{R}|\,0\le x\le 1\}$, $Y$ as the interval $[1..2]=\{x\in\mathbb{R}|\,1\le x\le 2\}$, and $W$ as the singleton set $\{1\}$. He then states that the pushout $X\overset{f}{\longleftarrow}W\overset{g}{\longrightarrow}$, where $f$ and $g$ are the "obvious" maps $(1_W\mapsto 1_X)$ and $(1_W\mapsto 1_Y)$, is $[0..2]=\{x\in\mathbb{R}|\,0\le x\le 2\}$, "as expected." But it looks to me like the pushout is supposed to be the quotient of $X\sqcup W\sqcup Y$ by an equivalence relation generated by the "obvious" functions, which would make the pushout a set with two elements, each of which is an equivalence class in $X\sqcup W\sqcup Y$; the first equivalence class being $1_W$, $1_X$, $1_Y$ and the second equivalence class being $[0..1)\cup(1..2]=\{x\in\mathbb{R}|\,0\le x\lt 1\}\cup\{x\in\mathbb{R}|\,1\lt x\le 2\}$. Where am I going wrong? Details of my reasoning follow.

I read the pushout as any set isomorphic to the fiber sum, which is the quotient set of the triple disjoint union $X\sqcup W\sqcup Y$ by the equivalence relation generated by the equivalences $w\, {\raise.17ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\mathtt{\sim}$}}f(w)$ and $w\, {\raise.17ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\mathtt{\sim}$}}g(w)$ (quoting loosely from the book, Definition 2.6.2.1, page 50). The equivalences, here, seem to need some interpretation.

Because equivalences are defined only in the cartesian product of a set with itself (definition 2.6.1.1, page 47), I interpret the ${\raise.17ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\mathtt{\sim}$}}$ relation to actually be in the cartesian product set $(X\sqcup W\sqcup Y)\times (X\sqcup W\sqcup Y)$; and the notation $w\, {\raise.17ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\mathtt{\sim}$}}f(w)$ to actually mean $w_W\, {\raise.17ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\mathtt{\sim}$}}f(w)_X$, where $w_W$ is the element $w$ in the disjoint union $X\sqcup W\sqcup Y$ that "remembers" it was included from set $W$, and $f(w)_X$ is the element $f(w)$ in the disjoint union $X\sqcup W\sqcup Y$ that "remembers" it was included from set $X$, both by the canonical inclusion maps from $W$ and $X$ into the disjoint union. Ditto for $w\, {\raise.17ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\mathtt{\sim}$}}g(w)$, which I take to actually mean $w_W\, {\raise.17ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\mathtt{\sim}$}}g(w)_Y$.

Under that interpretation (the only reasonable one I can see for the relation), I find that the three elements $1_W$, $1_X$, $1_Y$ form one equivalence class in $X\sqcup W\sqcup Y$, and that all other points, namely $[0..1)_X\cup(1..2]_Y=\{x_X|\,x\in\mathbb{R}|\,0\le x\lt 1\}\cup\{y_Y|\,y\in\mathbb{R},1\lt y\le 2\}$ form another equivalence class. Therefore, I see two elements in the fiber sum, i.e., the pushout. I can't find a way to make Spivak's claimed pushout $[0..2]=\{x\in\mathbb{R}|\,0\le x\le 2\}$ isomorphic to the fiber sum because the fiber sum puts $1$ in one equivalence class and all other points in another equivalence class.

What have I missed?

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

In the example in your question, the two "obvious" functions each contain one pair, so the relevant equivalence relation is generated by those two pairs, namely $(1_W,1_X)$ and $(1_W,1_Y)$, where I've used subscripts to indicate which of the three sets the element comes from. The equivalence relation thus consists of these two pairs, the pair $(1_X,1_Y)$, the three pairs obtained from these by reversing the order of components, and all pairs of the form $(a,a)$ for $a\in X\sqcup Y\sqcup W$. When you form the quotient by this equivalence relation, you identify the $1$'s of the three given sets, but there are no further identifications. In particular, distinct elements in the $[0..1)$ in $X$ and the $(1..2]$ in $Y$ remain distinct in the pushout.

share|improve this answer
    
I see. My mistake was in calculating the equivalence relation. Although the equivalence relation is a subset of the cartesian product, the reflexive, symmetric, and transitive properties must be tested against every element of the host set. –  Reb.Cabin Jul 31 '13 at 16:54

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.