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

Strong monics are defined as: A monic $m$ is strong iff every commutative square $mu=ve$, in $E$ with $e$ epi, has a diagonal i.e. there is a morphism $t$ such that $u=te$ and $v=mt$ in $E$. (where $E$ represents the category)

The problem is:
Why are they taking this definition of strong monics, like why the commutative square and the diagonal, which makes it so strong (There is one other equivalent definition given in the book and also in nLab using orthoginality that I haven't gone through).

In SET strong monics are same as monics (which is true for any topos), so nothing can be deduced by looking there. In a non trivial poset (or a Heyting algebra, which is a quasitopos and not a topos) $P$, any morphism is monic but only the identity morphisms are strong monic. I am still unable to get much motivation of giving such a definition of strong monic.

share|cite|improve this question
Orthogonality is quite useful. For instance, you can prove that (in any category) a morphism that is both strong monic and epic is an isomorphism. – Zhen Lin Jun 12 '14 at 12:31

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.