Skip to main content
6 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Dec 8, 2018 at 0:12 comment added Qiaochu Yuan ...conceptually distinct even though they happen to agree as universal constructions in $\text{Set}$. Said another way, I'm either talking about your state of knowledge before you learn that $\text{coim}(f) \to \text{im}(f)$ is an isomorphism in $\text{Set}$, or I'm reserving the right to replace $\text{Set}$ with another category in which that's false. If you really want to stick to $\text{Set}$ then Andrej's answer is probably more relevant than mine.
Dec 8, 2018 at 0:10 comment added Qiaochu Yuan @Kevin: yes, I'm eliding some philosophical points here that I think Andrej's answer tackles better, at least in $\text{Set}$. In particular I am really referring to a particular construction of the image and coimage rather than to anything which satisfies their universal properties, which is a sin I don't normally indulge in. My excuse is that I never just isolate myself to $\text{Set}$ if I can help it; morally the coimage is "the image as seen from $X$" and the image is "the image as seen from $Y$," as I think the example of $\text{Top}$ makes vividly clear, and so I think of them as...
Dec 8, 2018 at 0:06 comment added Kevin Buzzard But these things like im and coim are I believe defined by category-theoretic properties and are hence only defined up to unique isomorphism. Aren't I trying to do something better than isolating the object up to unique isomorphism? I'm wondering if in Set there is some sort of canonical representative (and am still not sure about if there is one).
Dec 7, 2018 at 22:42 history edited Qiaochu Yuan CC BY-SA 4.0
added 15 characters in body
Dec 7, 2018 at 22:36 history edited Qiaochu Yuan CC BY-SA 4.0
added 214 characters in body
Dec 7, 2018 at 22:29 history answered Qiaochu Yuan CC BY-SA 4.0