3
$\begingroup$

A discrete category is one whose only morphisms are identity morphisms.

The category of discrete categories would have as objects the discrete categories and as morphisms the functors between those discrete categories.

A functor from one discrete category A to another one B can map any object from A to any object from B, since there are no arrows in either category to restrict a mapping.

But that is exactly the same when mapping objects between sets.

$\endgroup$
5
$\begingroup$

Almost. The category of small discrete categories (i.e. discrete categories whose class of objects is a set) would be equivalent (actually isomorphic) to the class of sets. The functor in question would be the forgetful one (send each category to its underlying set of objects, "forgetting" that the morphisms are there).

$\endgroup$
1
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ When using the "objects and arrows" definition of a category, the functor you mention is not an isomorphism; to each underlying set of objects, there are many different choices of one-element sets to use for the various $\hom(x,x)$. I suppose your functor would give an isomorphism for the "arrows only" definition of a category. (assuming composition is defined in terms of a specific product functor on hom-sets) $\endgroup$ – user14972 Oct 14 '17 at 21:06

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.