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

Exercise 6 in Chapter 2 of Steve Awodey's "Category theory" asks,

Show that the epis among posets are the surjections (on elements)

The answer at the back is:

First, in the category Pos, an arrow is epi iff it is surjective: suppose that f: A -> B is surjective and let g, h: B-> C with gf = hf. In Pos, this means that g and h agree on the image of f, which by surjectivity is all of B. Hence g = h and f is epi. On the other hand, suppose f is not epi and that g, h: B -> C witness this. Since $g \neq h$, there is some $b \in B$ with $g(b) \neq h(b)$. But from this $b \notin f(A)$, and so A is not surjective.

Isn't this proof only of one direction (and then the contrapositive)? Does it remain to prove that an epimorphism in Pos is surjective?

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 1 down vote accepted

Yes, the proof does appear to be incomplete. It is certainly true that a surjective map is epic: indeed, this is true for any concrete category $\mathbf{C}$ whose underlying set functor $U : \mathbf{C} \to \textbf{Set}$ is faithful. (Exercise.)

For the converse, consider the poset $\mathbf{2}$, which has two elements $0 < 1$. Suppose $f : A \to B$ is not surjective, and let $b$ be an element of $B$ not in the image of $f$. Let $g : B \to \mathbf{2}$ be defined by $$g(y) = \begin{cases} 0 & \text{ if } b \nleq y \\ 1 & \text{ if } b \le y \end{cases}$$ and let $h : B \to \mathbf{2}$ be defined by $$g(y) = \begin{cases} 0 & \text{ if } b \nleq y \text{ or } b = y \\ 1 & \text{ if } b \lneq y \end{cases}$$ Then, by construction, $g \ne h$, but $g \circ f = h \circ f$. So $f$ is not epic.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks -- that's simpler than the proof I'd come up with (and it's good to know I wasn't just missing something with the proof from the book!) – Matt Sep 6 '11 at 13:37
Here's Awodey's errata for the text: link. I don't see anything for any exercises in chapter 2. You should email him and tell him he's proved a statement and its contrapositive, instead of statement and converse. And if the converse is not true, then don't try to prove it! – ziggurism Dec 1 '11 at 13:16

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.