2
$\begingroup$

I am new to both category & set theory. From what I have learned of set theory so far:

  • Products between two(+) sets, A×B, create a "grid" of elements which completely covers all combinations of elements a ∈ A & b ∈ B (a,b) or (b,a) depending on which way round they were composed.
  • Co-products between two(+) sets, A∪B, are essentially disjoint unions. Aka, all elements of sets A and B are put into a single set, C, and paired with a discriminator such that any overlaps (e.g. a=b) are still kept and distinguished.
  • (Bi)nary Relations are generalisations of products and co-products in that they represent distinct pairs. However, they do not guarantee every element pair, like products do, nor even that all elements in a given parent set will be used, like co-products.

Now, my question is that products and co-products have their respective symbolic representations in category theory (A×B & A∪B respectively), but I have yet to see how to define a generic (bi)nary relation in notation beyond calling it some arbitrary name (as with any other generic set).

How do I correctly denote a set as being a binary relation between two sets, A & B, in both set theory and category theory?

Thanks in advance.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Given that there are lots of different relations between any two sets, how could you expect to refer to a generic one other than by calling it some arbitrary name? $\endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Jul 12, 2017 at 20:17
  • $\begingroup$ @EricWofsey For instance via the use of subscripts and possibly some symbol I have yet to learn about? As it feels like a prevalent type of set I figured I've just been looking in the wrong places for it. $\endgroup$
    – user3303504
    Jul 12, 2017 at 20:32
  • $\begingroup$ I wouldn't call them generalizations of products/coproducts by any stretch; a random relation need not be any kind of universal or weakly universal structure. They have a categorical description as subobjects of products, or as the morphisms of an allegory; but not as this purported generalization. $\endgroup$
    – Malice Vidrine
    Jul 13, 2017 at 5:27
  • $\begingroup$ @MaliceVidrine Hmm, not heard of allegories before, shall be the next topic on my to-learn list. Thanks for correcting me about the generalisations statement. Without looking into the category of allegories, I am assuming that there isn't any special notation used defining such binary relations? If not then I'll select an answer saying as much. Thanks for your help. $\endgroup$
    – user3303504
    Jul 13, 2017 at 15:16
  • $\begingroup$ @user3303504 - Actually, now that I've had time to think about it, I think I have seen special notation for the morphisms of an allegory (or at least, morphisms in $\mathbf{Rel}$) before; I don't think it's standardized, but let me see if I can dig it up... $\endgroup$
    – Malice Vidrine
    Jul 13, 2017 at 16:29

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1
$\begingroup$

I have not seen a special notation for relations as objects/jointly monic spans, but I have run across a couple of notations for relations as morphisms in an allegory. P.T. Johnstone uses $A \looparrowright B$ in parts of Sketches of an Elephant (writing things like $\phi:A\looparrowright B$ to indicate that $\phi$ is some relation on $A,B$), and Paul Taylor has similarly used a symbol that is like $A\rightleftharpoons B$, except that there was no gap; the harpoons shared the same horizontal line. The latter doesn't seem to be a standard Latex symbol, though.

Neither of these are really standard, at the moment, so if you run across them in other contexts it's a good idea to check what the author intends.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks for the answer, I shall have fun looking into allegories later =) $\endgroup$
    – user3303504
    Jul 14, 2017 at 13:36
  • $\begingroup$ They're pretty neat! The relevant chapter of The Elephant is pretty interesting, especially if you have an interest in topos theory at all. $\endgroup$
    – Malice Vidrine
    Jul 14, 2017 at 20:13

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .