2
$\begingroup$

A sequence $A\to B \to C$ is exact if $\operatorname{im} f = \ker g$, where $ f:A\to B$ and $g:B\to C$.

Why is there not a symbol to denote such a sequence? Which one would you suggest?

$\endgroup$
7
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What is f? What is g? $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 19, 2018 at 21:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ also please consider using MathJax $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 19, 2018 at 21:45
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Because nobody thought it necessary. $\endgroup$
    – egreg
    Commented Sep 19, 2018 at 22:02
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I just write $(ex)$ at the beginning/end of the exact row/column.. $\endgroup$
    – Berci
    Commented Sep 19, 2018 at 22:22
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I prefer using the words "is exact" after the diagram. Or "the exact sequence" before the diagram. $\endgroup$
    – GEdgar
    Commented Sep 20, 2018 at 0:16

2 Answers 2

2
$\begingroup$

@egreg's comment is totally right — because there's no need in such symbol.

Also, there are at least two reasons to not introduce it. First one is that heavily symbolized mathematical writing is usually unreadable. Second is high probability of ambiguity in case when diagram is somewhat complicated.

So I would suggest to just write «this sequence is exact at $B$», or that «pair of morphisms $f, g$ is exact» (which is better, in my opinion).

$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ "...heavily symbolized mathematical writing is usually unreadable." I would upvote this a dozen times if I could. $\endgroup$
    – Randall
    Commented Sep 20, 2018 at 14:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Not to rant, but I HATE seeing arguments written out in logical symbols. "Oh, the proof is clear. Just note that $\neg((\nexists x \in P \forall y \in Z \ni x \notin W(\alpha) \vee y) \Rightarrow (J \Leftrightarrow K \wedge Q)$." $\endgroup$
    – Randall
    Commented Sep 20, 2018 at 14:56
-2
$\begingroup$

Here are three ideas. I prefer the last one.

enter image description here

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ These seem to indicate more about the individual maps themselves and not the sequence as a whole. At least one is ambiguous (what if we have zigzags?) and the others are already in use for different things. $\endgroup$
    – Randall
    Commented Sep 20, 2018 at 4:29

You must log in to answer this question.

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