Here is a brief background: Awodey first defines a monomorphism $m:M \to X$ to be a subobject of an object $X$ in a category $\mathcal C$. By such a definition, the category $\operatorname{Sub} _{\mathcal C} (X)$ of subobjects of $X$ then becomes a preorder category (whose arrows come from the slice category $\mathcal C\mathbin/X$). Then he defines a relation $ \subseteq $ between subobjects $m_1\colon M_1 \to X$ and $m_2\colon M_2 \subseteq \ X$ such that:

$m_1 \subseteq m_2$ iff there is a morphism $f\colon m_1 \to m_2$.

Now, a mutual inclusion would conclude an equivalence relation $\equiv$ by which he re-defines the notion of a subobject of $X$, say, as the equivalence class of monos under mutual inclusion, and by which, he makes $\operatorname{Sub}_{\mathcal C} (X)$ a poset.

Then it turns to prove that $\operatorname{Sub}_{\mathbf{Set}}(X) \cong \mathcal P(X)$ in the category of sets (as the re-defining of sub-objects was seemingly supposed to enable us doing this). So we want to establish an iso between two posets.

My question would be then, HOW to make the isomorphism?

I can establish a good morphism (one that is a well-defined monotone) from $\mathcal P(X)$ to $\operatorname{Sub}_{\mathbf{Set}}(X)$ by carrying $S \subseteq X$ to the class $[i: S \to X]$ here $i$ is the inclusion function. But the other direction I can not make a well-defined one whose composition with the first, make identity (i.e. is an iso.)

Any suggestions?


Hint: the inverse monotonic function $\text{Sub}_{\mathbf{Set}}(X)\to\mathcal{P}(X)$ maps every equivalence class of monics to the image of any its representative.

Lemma (not necessary, but useful). Let $C$ be a category, $a,b,c\in Ob(C)$ be its objects, $m\colon a\to c$, $n\colon b\to c$ be monics, such that $m\simeq n$. Then there exists an isomorphism $f\colon a\to b$, such that $n\circ f=m$.

Proof of the lemma. Indeed, let $k\colon a\to b$ and $h\colon b\to a$ be such morphisms, that $m\circ h=n$ and $n\circ k=m$. Then $h$ and $k$ are mutually inverse isomorphisms, because $m\circ h\circ k=m$ and $n\circ k\circ h=n$.

This lemma shows that "objects" of two equivalent "subobjects" in a category are necessarily isomorphic.

Proof of the main statement. Let $X$ be a set. Step 1. Define the monotonic function $f\colon\mathcal{P}(X)\to\text{Sub}_{\mathbf{Set}}(X)$ in the following way: for every subset $Y\subset X$ let $f(Y)=[i_Y]$, where $i_Y\colon Y\to X$ is the inclusion mapping. It is monotonic, because if $Z\subset Y$, then $i_Z\le i_Y$, because of the inclusion $i_{Z,Y}\colon Z\to Y$. Step 2. Define also the monotonic function $g\colon\text{Sub}_{\mathbf{Set}}(X)\to\mathcal{P}(X)$ in the following way: for every monic $m\colon Y\to X$ let $g([m])=m(Y)$, where $m(Y)$ is the image of $Y$ by $m$. It's not hard to see, that $g$ is well-defined: indeed, for every monic $n\colon Z\to X$, such that there exists an isomorphism $k\colon Y\to Z$, we have $n(Z)=m(Y)$ (Proof: 1. Let $x\in n(Z)$. Then $x=m(k^{-1}(n^{-1}(z)))$. 2. Let $x\in m(Y)$. Then $x=n(k(m^{-1}(x))))$. Also, $g$ is monotonic (Proof: let $m\colon Y\to X$ and $n\colon Z\to X$ be monics, such that there exists such $l\colon Z\to Y$, that $m\circ l=n$ - then $n(Z)\subset m(Y)$, because $n(Z)=m(l(Z))$). Step 3. $g\circ f=id$, because $i_Y(Y)=Y$ for every $Y\subset X$, and $f\circ g=id$, because $i_{m(Y)}\simeq m$ for every monic $m\colon Y\to X$, because $m(Y)\cong Y$ (because $m$ is an injection).

  • $\begingroup$ That is $[m: M \to X]$ goes to $m(M)$? Is that even well-defined? And does its composition with the original monotone function make identity? $\endgroup$ – Amir.H Kiani Feb 18 '16 at 6:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Amir.HKiani Yes, of course. I will edit the proof in. $\endgroup$ – Oskar Feb 18 '16 at 6:25
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you I'll be waiting. $\endgroup$ – Amir.H Kiani Feb 18 '16 at 6:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Amir.HKiani It's done. Please, tell me if something is not clear in it. $\endgroup$ – Oskar Feb 18 '16 at 7:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Amir.HKiani The relation $\le$ makes $Sub_C$ a poset. The definition is following: $[n]\le[m]$ iff $n\le m$. $\endgroup$ – Oskar Feb 18 '16 at 8:12

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.