Timeline for Why is Set, and not Rel, so ubiquitous in mathematics?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 29, 2014 at 16:39 | comment | added | Lehs | @Qfwfq: See math.stackexchange.com/questions/912396/… about commutative diagrams for relations. | |
| Aug 28, 2014 at 17:04 | history | edited | Lehs | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 289 characters in body
|
| Aug 23, 2014 at 16:11 | comment | added | Lehs | @Qfwfq: Sorry, I forgot to mark that the answer was to you. | |
| Aug 23, 2014 at 15:34 | comment | added | Lehs | The diagrams are the morphisms and the big diagram with implications has to be true. I spent a long time trying to prove that for commutativity, until I constructed a counter-example. The notion used is very canonic, essentially the morphisms for directed grafs. And it is transitive. You can also read a little about this on mathoverflow.net/questions/98810/… As far as I know there is nothing published of the kind. | |
| Aug 23, 2014 at 15:08 | comment | added | Qfwfq | 2. Could you also give some reference to the literature on this topic (if there is any) | |
| Aug 23, 2014 at 15:07 | comment | added | Qfwfq | 1. Why is not the usul notion of composition od reltions enough do define "commutativity" of digrams in Rel? | |
| Aug 19, 2014 at 11:20 | history | edited | Lehs | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| S Aug 19, 2014 at 10:28 | review | Late answers | |||
| Aug 19, 2014 at 10:31 | |||||
| S Aug 19, 2014 at 10:28 | review | First posts | |||
| Aug 19, 2014 at 10:57 | |||||
| S Aug 19, 2014 at 8:29 | history | answered | Lehs | CC BY-SA 3.0 | |
| S Aug 19, 2014 at 8:29 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Lehs |