Categories presented with Arrows only, no objects: partial monoids - MathOverflow most recent 30 from http://mathoverflow.net2013-05-24T19:46:34Zhttp://mathoverflow.net/feeds/question/76083http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/rdfhttp://mathoverflow.net/questions/76083/categories-presented-with-arrows-only-no-objects-partial-monoidsCategories presented with Arrows only, no objects: partial monoidsBen Sprott2011-09-21T21:15:34Z2011-09-22T09:08:21Z
<p>Hi,</p>
<p>I received an answer to a question a while back. The question was about how we can present a category as a collection of arrows and a large list of algebraic relations between them. One of the answers I got was about Freyd's "Categories, Alegories", and here it is:</p>
<p><a href="http://mathoverflow.net/questions/68775/products-in-a-category-without-reference-to-objects-or-sources-and-targets/68847#68847" rel="nofollow">http://mathoverflow.net/questions/68775/products-in-a-category-without-reference-to-objects-or-sources-and-targets/68847#68847</a></p>
<p>Can anyone (Wouter maybe?), give much more detail about this presentation. Can anyone give the precise definition of these "kinds" of partial monoids a la Freyd?</p>
<p>As a side note, could someone suggest a good way to define a dcpo of such partial monoids?</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/76083/categories-presented-with-arrows-only-no-objects-partial-monoids/76089#76089Answer by Giorgio Mossa for Categories presented with Arrows only, no objects: partial monoidsGiorgio Mossa2011-09-21T21:50:38Z2011-09-22T09:08:21Z<p>Of course you can define a (just-arrow) category $\mathcal C$ like a partial algebra which consist of:</p>
<p>a set $\mathcal C$ (namely the set of arrows of your category), a set $D_\mathcal{C} \subseteq \mathcal C \times \mathcal C$ (the set of pair of composable arrows) and
a map $\circ \colon D_\mathcal{C} \to \mathcal C$, which is the composition for this "category".
In this structure we call identities all the elements $f \in \mathcal C$ such that for each $g,h \in \mathcal C$ with $(g,f),(f,h) \in D_\mathcal{C}$ we have $g\circ f=g$ and $f \circ h=h$.
The composition have to satisfy the following axioms:</p>
<p>*for each triple $h,g,f \in \mathcal C$ we have that these three statements are equivalent:</p>
<p>$(g,f) \in D_\mathcal{C}$ and $(h,g\circ f) \in D_\mathcal{C}$ </p>
<p>$(h,g) \in D_\mathcal{C}$ and $(h\circ g, f) \in D_\mathcal{C}$ </p>
<p>$(h,g) \in D_\mathcal{C}$ and $(g,f) \in D_\mathcal{C}$</p>
<p>and in this case the equality $h\circ(g \circ f)=(h \circ g) \circ f$ holds;</p>
<p>*for each $f \in \mathcal C$ there are two arrows $g,h \in \mathcal C$ which are identities such that $(f,g), (h,f) \in D$ and $f \circ g=f=h \circ f$.</p>
<p>With these data you have a concept of category just-arrow.
With this definition of category a functor $F$ from the category $\mathcal C$ to the category $\mathcal D$ is just a function $F \colon \mathcal C \to \mathcal D$ between the sets of the arrows such that:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>for each pair $f,g \in \mathcal C$ if $(g,f) \in D_\mathcal{C}$ then $(\mathcal F(g),\mathcal F(f)) \in D_\mathcal{D}$ and $\mathcal F(g \circ f)= \mathcal F(g) \circ \mathcal F(f)$;</p></li>
<li><p>for each identity $f \in \mathcal C$ also $\mathcal F(f)$ is an identity.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>The category of just-arrow categories and functors between them is proven to be equivalent to $\mathbf{Cat}$, the category of (ordinary) categories and functors between them.</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/76083/categories-presented-with-arrows-only-no-objects-partial-monoids/76098#76098Answer by kow for Categories presented with Arrows only, no objects: partial monoidskow2011-09-22T01:11:08Z2011-09-22T01:11:08Z<p>One reference that might be of interest to you is C. Ehresmann's <em>Catégories et structures</em> (Dunod, 1965). It starts Chapter 1 with the following definition (my translation)</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Let $C$ be a class; a (partially defined) <em>law of composition</em> on $C$ is a
function $\kappa$ from some subclass $K$ of the product class $C\times C$
into $C$; the class $K$ is called the <em>class of composables</em>; if $(g,f)\in K$,
we call $\kappa(g,f)$ the <em>composite</em> of $g$ and $f$. The pair $(C,\kappa)$
of a class $C$ and a law of composition on $C$ is called a <em>multiplicative class</em>.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>By page 5, we've reached the definition of a category, as a multiplicative class satisfying four further axioms, being (paraphrased)</p>
<ol>
<li>Existence of identities (at notional source and target)</li>
<li>Proper domains and codomains of composites (in terms of identities)</li>
<li>Associativity</li>
<li>`Enough composites', that is, if $\mathrm{dom}\ g = \mathrm{cod}\ f$, then $g$ and $f$ are composable.</li>
</ol>
<p>The book goes on to cover most of basic category theory, as far as I can tell.</p>