bio | website | |
---|---|---|
location | ||
age | ||
visits | member for | 3 years |
seen | 2 days ago | |
stats | profile views | 520 |
Aug
30 |
awarded | Yearling |
Aug
23 |
comment |
Generalizing disjointness
@DominicvanderZypen, thanks for the kind words :) |
Aug
22 |
revised |
Does this notion of “$\mathcal{F}$-digraph” appear in the literature?
added 1 character in body |
Aug
22 |
revised |
Does this notion of “$\mathcal{F}$-digraph” appear in the literature?
added 6 characters in body |
Aug
22 |
revised |
Does this notion of “$\mathcal{F}$-digraph” appear in the literature?
edited body |
Aug
22 |
asked | Does this notion of “$\mathcal{F}$-digraph” appear in the literature? |
Aug
19 |
awarded | Inquisitive |
Aug
18 |
comment |
What other axioms for set theory can be written in the form: “If mathematical structures $X$ and $Y$ are equipotent, then they're isomorphic”?
@JoelDavidHamkins, perhaps the axiom "every model has a saturated elementary extension" can be recast into the desired form. |
Aug
18 |
asked | What other axioms for set theory can be written in the form: “If mathematical structures $X$ and $Y$ are equipotent, then they're isomorphic”? |
Aug
16 |
revised |
Generalizing disjointness
added 16 characters in body |
Aug
16 |
revised |
Generalizing disjointness
added 148 characters in body; edited tags |
Aug
16 |
asked | Generalizing disjointness |
Aug
8 |
awarded | Nice Question |
Aug
1 |
comment |
In what sense are fields an algebraic theory?
@DinakarMuthiah, you can try: "the object $F$ is a field iff every morphism out either has codomain equal to the terminal object, or else its a monomorphism." Note that in the category of rings, the "fields" in this sense are precisely the simple rings, so they're more general than division rings. |
Jul
28 |
comment |
Does every Lawvere theory arise in this way?
@GiorgioMossa, is that clearer? We require it to be a full subcategory, if that helps. |
Jul
28 |
revised |
Does every Lawvere theory arise in this way?
added 64 characters in body |
Jul
28 |
comment |
Does every Lawvere theory arise in this way?
@ZhenLin, that's okay; sets are the models of the initial Lawvere theory. |
Jul
28 |
revised |
Does every Lawvere theory arise in this way?
added 217 characters in body |
Jul
28 |
comment |
Does every Lawvere theory arise in this way?
@ZhenLin, interesting! |
Jul
28 |
comment |
Does every Lawvere theory arise in this way?
@DavidRoberts, thank you, yes. I bounce between $\mathbb{F}$ and $\mathbb{K}$ for my fields haha... |