Timeline for A slick definition of the Kan extension?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 24, 2010 at 21:22 | comment | added | Finn Lawler | @Harry: see the second paragraph of Kelly ch. 1.10. | |
| Jul 24, 2010 at 20:40 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | @Finn: What's the difference between a universal arrow and a representation in enriched category theory? | |
| Jul 24, 2010 at 16:44 | vote | accept | Harry Gindi | ||
| Jul 24, 2010 at 15:23 | comment | added | Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine | Yes — as Finn says, any adjunction can be re-written in your style: for a fixed $x$, saying that $\hom(Fx,y) \cong \hom(x,Gy)$ (naturally in y) is exactly the same as saying that $Fx$ represents the functor $\hom(x,G−)$. If you're happy with Yoneda-style definitions, then adjunction definitions are surely just as nice? ☺ | |
| Jul 24, 2010 at 15:16 | history | answered | Finn Lawler | CC BY-SA 2.5 |