Timeline for Equalizer objects in Set.
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 1, 2010 at 8:46 | comment | added | Doctor Gibarian | Thank you again (will I define the things properly one day?). | |
| Jan 31, 2010 at 19:49 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | Thank you Martin - this is precisely what I was trying to get at. It only makes sense to speak of the equalizer of a parallel pair; in particular, the "for every" in the first sentence of the original post is incorrect | |
| Jan 31, 2010 at 18:00 | vote | accept | Doctor Gibarian | ||
| Jan 31, 2010 at 13:08 | comment | added | Martin Brandenburg | it is still incorrect. $f e = g e$ cannot be provided for all $f,g$. rather, $f,g$ are fixed. | |
| Jan 31, 2010 at 12:47 | answer | added | Chandan Singh Dalawat | timeline score: 5 | |
| Jan 31, 2010 at 12:01 | comment | added | Doctor Gibarian |
Mh...yes, thank you. I translated from spanish and I missed something important: morphism $m$ should also satisfy $f\circ m=g\circ m$. Sorry. Anything new then?
|
|
| Jan 31, 2010 at 10:55 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | Your phrasing of the definition is not quite right, or rather the word-ordering is not clear. In your initial sentence some of the quantifiers and ordering seem to be the wrong way round. Could you please check again that this is what you want to say? (For what it's worth, equalizers in many categories tend to have the flavour of being the "largest subobjects" on which two morphisms "agree", and are hence maximal rather than minimal in spirit. | |
| Jan 31, 2010 at 10:49 | history | asked | Doctor Gibarian | CC BY-SA 2.5 |