Timeline for Word for two morphisms that are equivalent up to right-composition with isomorphism
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 13, 2021 at 17:10 | comment | added | Kevin Carlson | Regarding a counterexample, suppose the common codomain of $f$ and $g$ is a terminal object. Then if the domains admit any morphisms at all between them, those morphisms will give a right equivalence between $f$ and $g.$ | |
| Jul 13, 2021 at 14:34 | comment | added | Francesco Polizzi | It is ok, for instance, to write something as "This is a particular case of right-equivalence in the sense of Chen-Le" (I do not have a counterexample, either, to show that the latter is actually weaker). | |
| Jul 13, 2021 at 14:32 | comment | added | Francesco Polizzi | @DominiqueUnruh: Actually, I never wrote "note that this is the same as the notion of right-equivalence in Chen et al." I just claimed that your condition implies right-equivalence, as you correctly remark. | |
| Jul 13, 2021 at 14:21 | comment | added | Dominique Unruh | Right-equivalence is clearly implied by my "equivalence", but I think right-equivalence is strictly weaker. (I don't have an explicit counterexample at hand, though.) So it would be incorrect to state "note that this is the same as the notion of right-equivalence in Chen et al.". | |
| Jul 13, 2021 at 12:42 | history | edited | Francesco Polizzi | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 2 characters in body
|
| Jul 13, 2021 at 12:37 | history | answered | Francesco Polizzi | CC BY-SA 4.0 |