Should the isomorphism theorems be seen as an “interface” between algebra and category theory?Motivation...

Can I interfere when another PC is about to be attacked?

Should I join an office cleaning event for free?

Is there a minimum number of transactions in a block?

How did the USSR manage to innovate in an environment characterized by government censorship and high bureaucracy?

Why was the small council so happy for Tyrion to become the Master of Coin?

The magic money tree problem

What is the command to reset a PC without deleting any files

Are white and non-white police officers equally likely to kill black suspects?

Circuitry of TV splitters

XeLaTeX and pdfLaTeX ignore hyphenation

Why are 150k or 200k jobs considered good when there are 300k+ births a month?

A Journey Through Space and Time

Why has Russell's definition of numbers using equivalence classes been finally abandoned? ( If it has actually been abandoned).

I’m planning on buying a laser printer but concerned about the life cycle of toner in the machine

Extreme, but not acceptable situation and I can't start the work tomorrow morning

Is there a familial term for apples and pears?

What defenses are there against being summoned by the Gate spell?

Example of a relative pronoun

The use of multiple foreign keys on same column in SQL Server

How do you conduct xenoanthropology after first contact?

What Brexit solution does the DUP want?

A newer friend of my brother's gave him a load of baseball cards that are supposedly extremely valuable. Is this a scam?

Can I make popcorn with any corn?

Why doesn't Newton's third law mean a person bounces back to where they started when they hit the ground?



Should the isomorphism theorems be seen as an “interface” between algebra and category theory?


Motivation and use for category theory?Quotient objects, their universal property and the isomorphism theoremsMeaning of “a mapping preserves structures/properties”What are some examples of hard theorems in category theory?What is the relationship between the second isomorphism theorem and the third one in group theory?A doubt regarding the Category Theory definition of a group.A question about the category GrpCategory-Theoretic relation between Orbit-Stabilizer and Rank-Nullity TheoremsMonomorphisms, epimorphisms and isomorphisms of groups categoryAre objects in the category Grp actually groups or isomorphism classes of groups? Is there a difference?













4












$begingroup$


My first instinct when I thought about algebra in category theory, was to try to "generalize the isomorphism theorems in category theory".



So I tried to prove the generalization of "the image of a group homomorphism is isomorphic to the quotient group generated by its kernel".



But then I found out that in category subobjects are actually defined in terms of monomorphisms, which for the category Grp is essentially implicitly using that isomorphism theorem.




  • So is it correct that I shouldn't be trying to prove the isomorphism theorems in category theory?


  • Is it correct that instead, the isomorphism theorems should be seen as justifying talking about algebraic structures (among other structuers) in terms of structure preserving morphisms? in that sense they are like the "interface" between category theoretical algebra (e.g. talking about groups in terms of group homomorphisms) and "set-theoretic" algebra (talking about groups in terms of the elements of the group, and cosets and so forth).











share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    4












    $begingroup$


    My first instinct when I thought about algebra in category theory, was to try to "generalize the isomorphism theorems in category theory".



    So I tried to prove the generalization of "the image of a group homomorphism is isomorphic to the quotient group generated by its kernel".



    But then I found out that in category subobjects are actually defined in terms of monomorphisms, which for the category Grp is essentially implicitly using that isomorphism theorem.




    • So is it correct that I shouldn't be trying to prove the isomorphism theorems in category theory?


    • Is it correct that instead, the isomorphism theorems should be seen as justifying talking about algebraic structures (among other structuers) in terms of structure preserving morphisms? in that sense they are like the "interface" between category theoretical algebra (e.g. talking about groups in terms of group homomorphisms) and "set-theoretic" algebra (talking about groups in terms of the elements of the group, and cosets and so forth).











    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      4












      4








      4


      2



      $begingroup$


      My first instinct when I thought about algebra in category theory, was to try to "generalize the isomorphism theorems in category theory".



      So I tried to prove the generalization of "the image of a group homomorphism is isomorphic to the quotient group generated by its kernel".



      But then I found out that in category subobjects are actually defined in terms of monomorphisms, which for the category Grp is essentially implicitly using that isomorphism theorem.




      • So is it correct that I shouldn't be trying to prove the isomorphism theorems in category theory?


      • Is it correct that instead, the isomorphism theorems should be seen as justifying talking about algebraic structures (among other structuers) in terms of structure preserving morphisms? in that sense they are like the "interface" between category theoretical algebra (e.g. talking about groups in terms of group homomorphisms) and "set-theoretic" algebra (talking about groups in terms of the elements of the group, and cosets and so forth).











      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      My first instinct when I thought about algebra in category theory, was to try to "generalize the isomorphism theorems in category theory".



      So I tried to prove the generalization of "the image of a group homomorphism is isomorphic to the quotient group generated by its kernel".



      But then I found out that in category subobjects are actually defined in terms of monomorphisms, which for the category Grp is essentially implicitly using that isomorphism theorem.




      • So is it correct that I shouldn't be trying to prove the isomorphism theorems in category theory?


      • Is it correct that instead, the isomorphism theorems should be seen as justifying talking about algebraic structures (among other structuers) in terms of structure preserving morphisms? in that sense they are like the "interface" between category theoretical algebra (e.g. talking about groups in terms of group homomorphisms) and "set-theoretic" algebra (talking about groups in terms of the elements of the group, and cosets and so forth).








      abstract-algebra category-theory group-isomorphism






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited 2 days ago







      user56834

















      asked 2 days ago









      user56834user56834

      3,27821253




      3,27821253






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          3












          $begingroup$

          Before addressing your questions I will write here my favorite version of the first isomorphism theorem. As others have commented, you need notions of quotients, images and kernels before even attempting to enunciate such a result. There's more than one way to do this (for example, additive categories). Here we are going to work with concrete categories. Recall the notion of images.




          Definition [kernel]: Let $f : X to Y$ be a function. The kernel of $f$ is the set ${(a,b) in X times X mid f(a)=f(b)}$.




          The notion of kernel as defined here is simply the kernel pair of $f$, that is, the pullback of $X xrightarrow{f} Y xleftarrow{f} X$.




          Definition [concrete quotients and congruences]: Let $(C,U)$ be a concrete category and $X$ an object of $C$. A concrete quotient of $X$ is an epimorphism $pi : X to Y$ such that $U(pi)$ is epi and for every object $Z$ of $C$ and every function $f : U(Y) to U(Z)$, the following are equivalents:




          • There exists a morphism $f' : Y to Z$ such that $U(f') = f$.

          • There exists a morphism $g : X to Z$ such that $U(g) = f circ U(pi)$.


          The set $ker(U(pi))$ is called a congruence on $X$.




          If you prefer, you can define concrete quotients as equivalence classes instead. Note that this notion of quotient coincides with topological quotients, for instance, while the usual notion of quotients (that is, epimorphisms) does not. In essence, concrete quotients allow you to complete diagrams in the base category by looking at the underlying diagrams in $Set$. A congruence on an object $X$ is essentially an equivalence relation on $U(X)$ with an associated concrete quotient of $X$. Observe, however, that congruences need not to arise only from $U(pi)$ for $pi$ a concrete quotient.




          Theorem [the First Isomorphism Theorem]: Let $(C,U)$ be a concrete category, where $C$ is complete and $U$ is continuous. Let $q : X to Z$ be a morphism in $C$ such that $ker(U(q))$ is a congruence on $X$. Then the morphism $m : X/ker(U(q)) to Z$ (such that $q = m circ pi_q$) is the image of $q$.



          Proof : First of all we must verify that $m$ is a monomorphism. Let $x,y in U(X)$ and $[x],[y]$ their equivalence classes regarding $ker(U(q))$. If $U(m)([x])=U(m)([y])$, then $(U(pi_q) circ U(m))(x)=(U(pi_q) circ U(m))(y)$, hence $U(pi_q circ m)(x)=U(pi_q circ m)(y)$, which implies $U(q)(x)=U(q)(y)$. Therefore $(x,y) in ker(U(q))$ and $[x]=[y]$. $U(m)$ is mono, hence $m$ is as well ($U$ is faithful).



          Now let $m' : Y to Z$ be a monomorphism and $h : X to Y$ be a morphism such that $q= m' circ h$. we wish to prove the existence of $f : X/ker((U(q))) to Y$ such that $m = m' circ f$. If $(x,y) in ker(U(q))$, then $U(q)(x)=U(q)(y)$, hence $U(h)(x)=U(h)(y)$ (since $U$ is continuous and $m'$ is mono, $U(m')$ is mono). By the definition of concrete quotients, there exists a morphism $f : X/ker((U(q))) to Y$ such that $h = f circ pi_q$. Since $m' circ h = q = m circ pi_q$, we have $m' circ f circ pi_q = m circ pi_q$. Since $pi_q$ is epi, we have $m' circ f = m$.




          Note that, in particular, this isomorphism theorem is valid on the category of topological spaces (with the obvious forgetful functor to $Set$)! What is the problem here? I'll leave that as an exercise.



          Now, addressing the questions:




          So is it correct that I shouldn't be trying to prove the isomorphism theorems in category theory?




          That is not correct. However, you should be aware of the fact that general categories might not always have the structure/properties you need to talk about certain concepts. In that case, however, you should still be able to consider a particular class of categories in which you can prove your desired results.




          Is it correct that instead, the isomorphism theorems are kind of like "interfaces", which justify talking about algebraic structures (among other structuers) in terms of structure preserving morphisms?




          I'm not sure if I understand this question. The fact that homomorphisms between algebraic structures satisfy the isomorphism theorems is certainly a good reason to talk about structure preserving functions (instead of non-structure preserving functions) in certain scenarios. However, in other structures, where the theorem might not be valid (topological spaces for example), it is still "better" to consider structure preserving functions than simply general functions.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$









          • 1




            $begingroup$
            I wish I had known this version of the isomorphism theorem before writing my answer, +1
            $endgroup$
            – Max
            2 days ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            For the LaTeX, writing f:Xto Y ($f:Xto Y$) as opposed to fcolon Xto Y ($fcolon Xto Y$) seems easier and renders better... (at least for me).
            $endgroup$
            – Derek Elkins
            2 days ago



















          2












          $begingroup$

          This isn't a full answer as I don't understand half of the question, and have asked for precision on the other half, but it's too long to be a comment



          No, it's not implicitly using the isomorphism theorem, it's using the fact that (in algebraic structures) the corestriction of an injective morphism to its image is an isomorphism, which is way more basic than the first isomorphism theorem.



          Then, for your questions :



          $bullet$ No you shouldn't try to prove the isomorphism theorem in general categories because it simply isn't true in general. First of all, you would have to have a notion of image and of kernel, which don't usually make sense in an arbitrary category, and even when they do exist, it's not true that the theorem holds. For me to make a precise statement and give counterexamples here you have to tell me what you mean by "image" in a general category, for instance are you referring to this definition ?



          $bullet$ I don't understand this question. Let me just say how I feel about the isomorphism theorem (the first one, the others are just immediate corollaries) for groups, and algebraic structures more generally, in the hope that it will shed some light on them; and perhaps you can edit your post to clarify your question.



          The first isomorphism theorem is basically a tautology : it tells you that if you have a surjective morphism and declare "$x=y$" precisely when $f(x)=f(y)$ then you get an induced map on the new structure when your declaration is true, and that this induced map is injective, and has the same image as the original one. The fact that it has the same image is obvious because there is a factorisation, so I won't mention it. The fact that you get an induced map is also obvious, because if you don't know which antecedent to choose, it doesn't matter, as they all have the same images; so just choose any antecedent.



          Finally, the fact that the induced map is injective is also obvious because you've forced it to be ! If $x,y$ have the same image in the new structure, then any antecedent of them do too, so they have been declared to be equal ! Therefore $x=y$ by the pure will of you, the new structure creator. In other words, the first isomorphism theorem is you wanting a map to be injective, and declaring "it is", and by doing so you simply create a new structure (the quotient structure), on which it is, precisely because you declared it to be.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$














            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3176023%2fshould-the-isomorphism-theorems-be-seen-as-an-interface-between-algebra-and-ca%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            3












            $begingroup$

            Before addressing your questions I will write here my favorite version of the first isomorphism theorem. As others have commented, you need notions of quotients, images and kernels before even attempting to enunciate such a result. There's more than one way to do this (for example, additive categories). Here we are going to work with concrete categories. Recall the notion of images.




            Definition [kernel]: Let $f : X to Y$ be a function. The kernel of $f$ is the set ${(a,b) in X times X mid f(a)=f(b)}$.




            The notion of kernel as defined here is simply the kernel pair of $f$, that is, the pullback of $X xrightarrow{f} Y xleftarrow{f} X$.




            Definition [concrete quotients and congruences]: Let $(C,U)$ be a concrete category and $X$ an object of $C$. A concrete quotient of $X$ is an epimorphism $pi : X to Y$ such that $U(pi)$ is epi and for every object $Z$ of $C$ and every function $f : U(Y) to U(Z)$, the following are equivalents:




            • There exists a morphism $f' : Y to Z$ such that $U(f') = f$.

            • There exists a morphism $g : X to Z$ such that $U(g) = f circ U(pi)$.


            The set $ker(U(pi))$ is called a congruence on $X$.




            If you prefer, you can define concrete quotients as equivalence classes instead. Note that this notion of quotient coincides with topological quotients, for instance, while the usual notion of quotients (that is, epimorphisms) does not. In essence, concrete quotients allow you to complete diagrams in the base category by looking at the underlying diagrams in $Set$. A congruence on an object $X$ is essentially an equivalence relation on $U(X)$ with an associated concrete quotient of $X$. Observe, however, that congruences need not to arise only from $U(pi)$ for $pi$ a concrete quotient.




            Theorem [the First Isomorphism Theorem]: Let $(C,U)$ be a concrete category, where $C$ is complete and $U$ is continuous. Let $q : X to Z$ be a morphism in $C$ such that $ker(U(q))$ is a congruence on $X$. Then the morphism $m : X/ker(U(q)) to Z$ (such that $q = m circ pi_q$) is the image of $q$.



            Proof : First of all we must verify that $m$ is a monomorphism. Let $x,y in U(X)$ and $[x],[y]$ their equivalence classes regarding $ker(U(q))$. If $U(m)([x])=U(m)([y])$, then $(U(pi_q) circ U(m))(x)=(U(pi_q) circ U(m))(y)$, hence $U(pi_q circ m)(x)=U(pi_q circ m)(y)$, which implies $U(q)(x)=U(q)(y)$. Therefore $(x,y) in ker(U(q))$ and $[x]=[y]$. $U(m)$ is mono, hence $m$ is as well ($U$ is faithful).



            Now let $m' : Y to Z$ be a monomorphism and $h : X to Y$ be a morphism such that $q= m' circ h$. we wish to prove the existence of $f : X/ker((U(q))) to Y$ such that $m = m' circ f$. If $(x,y) in ker(U(q))$, then $U(q)(x)=U(q)(y)$, hence $U(h)(x)=U(h)(y)$ (since $U$ is continuous and $m'$ is mono, $U(m')$ is mono). By the definition of concrete quotients, there exists a morphism $f : X/ker((U(q))) to Y$ such that $h = f circ pi_q$. Since $m' circ h = q = m circ pi_q$, we have $m' circ f circ pi_q = m circ pi_q$. Since $pi_q$ is epi, we have $m' circ f = m$.




            Note that, in particular, this isomorphism theorem is valid on the category of topological spaces (with the obvious forgetful functor to $Set$)! What is the problem here? I'll leave that as an exercise.



            Now, addressing the questions:




            So is it correct that I shouldn't be trying to prove the isomorphism theorems in category theory?




            That is not correct. However, you should be aware of the fact that general categories might not always have the structure/properties you need to talk about certain concepts. In that case, however, you should still be able to consider a particular class of categories in which you can prove your desired results.




            Is it correct that instead, the isomorphism theorems are kind of like "interfaces", which justify talking about algebraic structures (among other structuers) in terms of structure preserving morphisms?




            I'm not sure if I understand this question. The fact that homomorphisms between algebraic structures satisfy the isomorphism theorems is certainly a good reason to talk about structure preserving functions (instead of non-structure preserving functions) in certain scenarios. However, in other structures, where the theorem might not be valid (topological spaces for example), it is still "better" to consider structure preserving functions than simply general functions.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$









            • 1




              $begingroup$
              I wish I had known this version of the isomorphism theorem before writing my answer, +1
              $endgroup$
              – Max
              2 days ago






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              For the LaTeX, writing f:Xto Y ($f:Xto Y$) as opposed to fcolon Xto Y ($fcolon Xto Y$) seems easier and renders better... (at least for me).
              $endgroup$
              – Derek Elkins
              2 days ago
















            3












            $begingroup$

            Before addressing your questions I will write here my favorite version of the first isomorphism theorem. As others have commented, you need notions of quotients, images and kernels before even attempting to enunciate such a result. There's more than one way to do this (for example, additive categories). Here we are going to work with concrete categories. Recall the notion of images.




            Definition [kernel]: Let $f : X to Y$ be a function. The kernel of $f$ is the set ${(a,b) in X times X mid f(a)=f(b)}$.




            The notion of kernel as defined here is simply the kernel pair of $f$, that is, the pullback of $X xrightarrow{f} Y xleftarrow{f} X$.




            Definition [concrete quotients and congruences]: Let $(C,U)$ be a concrete category and $X$ an object of $C$. A concrete quotient of $X$ is an epimorphism $pi : X to Y$ such that $U(pi)$ is epi and for every object $Z$ of $C$ and every function $f : U(Y) to U(Z)$, the following are equivalents:




            • There exists a morphism $f' : Y to Z$ such that $U(f') = f$.

            • There exists a morphism $g : X to Z$ such that $U(g) = f circ U(pi)$.


            The set $ker(U(pi))$ is called a congruence on $X$.




            If you prefer, you can define concrete quotients as equivalence classes instead. Note that this notion of quotient coincides with topological quotients, for instance, while the usual notion of quotients (that is, epimorphisms) does not. In essence, concrete quotients allow you to complete diagrams in the base category by looking at the underlying diagrams in $Set$. A congruence on an object $X$ is essentially an equivalence relation on $U(X)$ with an associated concrete quotient of $X$. Observe, however, that congruences need not to arise only from $U(pi)$ for $pi$ a concrete quotient.




            Theorem [the First Isomorphism Theorem]: Let $(C,U)$ be a concrete category, where $C$ is complete and $U$ is continuous. Let $q : X to Z$ be a morphism in $C$ such that $ker(U(q))$ is a congruence on $X$. Then the morphism $m : X/ker(U(q)) to Z$ (such that $q = m circ pi_q$) is the image of $q$.



            Proof : First of all we must verify that $m$ is a monomorphism. Let $x,y in U(X)$ and $[x],[y]$ their equivalence classes regarding $ker(U(q))$. If $U(m)([x])=U(m)([y])$, then $(U(pi_q) circ U(m))(x)=(U(pi_q) circ U(m))(y)$, hence $U(pi_q circ m)(x)=U(pi_q circ m)(y)$, which implies $U(q)(x)=U(q)(y)$. Therefore $(x,y) in ker(U(q))$ and $[x]=[y]$. $U(m)$ is mono, hence $m$ is as well ($U$ is faithful).



            Now let $m' : Y to Z$ be a monomorphism and $h : X to Y$ be a morphism such that $q= m' circ h$. we wish to prove the existence of $f : X/ker((U(q))) to Y$ such that $m = m' circ f$. If $(x,y) in ker(U(q))$, then $U(q)(x)=U(q)(y)$, hence $U(h)(x)=U(h)(y)$ (since $U$ is continuous and $m'$ is mono, $U(m')$ is mono). By the definition of concrete quotients, there exists a morphism $f : X/ker((U(q))) to Y$ such that $h = f circ pi_q$. Since $m' circ h = q = m circ pi_q$, we have $m' circ f circ pi_q = m circ pi_q$. Since $pi_q$ is epi, we have $m' circ f = m$.




            Note that, in particular, this isomorphism theorem is valid on the category of topological spaces (with the obvious forgetful functor to $Set$)! What is the problem here? I'll leave that as an exercise.



            Now, addressing the questions:




            So is it correct that I shouldn't be trying to prove the isomorphism theorems in category theory?




            That is not correct. However, you should be aware of the fact that general categories might not always have the structure/properties you need to talk about certain concepts. In that case, however, you should still be able to consider a particular class of categories in which you can prove your desired results.




            Is it correct that instead, the isomorphism theorems are kind of like "interfaces", which justify talking about algebraic structures (among other structuers) in terms of structure preserving morphisms?




            I'm not sure if I understand this question. The fact that homomorphisms between algebraic structures satisfy the isomorphism theorems is certainly a good reason to talk about structure preserving functions (instead of non-structure preserving functions) in certain scenarios. However, in other structures, where the theorem might not be valid (topological spaces for example), it is still "better" to consider structure preserving functions than simply general functions.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$









            • 1




              $begingroup$
              I wish I had known this version of the isomorphism theorem before writing my answer, +1
              $endgroup$
              – Max
              2 days ago






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              For the LaTeX, writing f:Xto Y ($f:Xto Y$) as opposed to fcolon Xto Y ($fcolon Xto Y$) seems easier and renders better... (at least for me).
              $endgroup$
              – Derek Elkins
              2 days ago














            3












            3








            3





            $begingroup$

            Before addressing your questions I will write here my favorite version of the first isomorphism theorem. As others have commented, you need notions of quotients, images and kernels before even attempting to enunciate such a result. There's more than one way to do this (for example, additive categories). Here we are going to work with concrete categories. Recall the notion of images.




            Definition [kernel]: Let $f : X to Y$ be a function. The kernel of $f$ is the set ${(a,b) in X times X mid f(a)=f(b)}$.




            The notion of kernel as defined here is simply the kernel pair of $f$, that is, the pullback of $X xrightarrow{f} Y xleftarrow{f} X$.




            Definition [concrete quotients and congruences]: Let $(C,U)$ be a concrete category and $X$ an object of $C$. A concrete quotient of $X$ is an epimorphism $pi : X to Y$ such that $U(pi)$ is epi and for every object $Z$ of $C$ and every function $f : U(Y) to U(Z)$, the following are equivalents:




            • There exists a morphism $f' : Y to Z$ such that $U(f') = f$.

            • There exists a morphism $g : X to Z$ such that $U(g) = f circ U(pi)$.


            The set $ker(U(pi))$ is called a congruence on $X$.




            If you prefer, you can define concrete quotients as equivalence classes instead. Note that this notion of quotient coincides with topological quotients, for instance, while the usual notion of quotients (that is, epimorphisms) does not. In essence, concrete quotients allow you to complete diagrams in the base category by looking at the underlying diagrams in $Set$. A congruence on an object $X$ is essentially an equivalence relation on $U(X)$ with an associated concrete quotient of $X$. Observe, however, that congruences need not to arise only from $U(pi)$ for $pi$ a concrete quotient.




            Theorem [the First Isomorphism Theorem]: Let $(C,U)$ be a concrete category, where $C$ is complete and $U$ is continuous. Let $q : X to Z$ be a morphism in $C$ such that $ker(U(q))$ is a congruence on $X$. Then the morphism $m : X/ker(U(q)) to Z$ (such that $q = m circ pi_q$) is the image of $q$.



            Proof : First of all we must verify that $m$ is a monomorphism. Let $x,y in U(X)$ and $[x],[y]$ their equivalence classes regarding $ker(U(q))$. If $U(m)([x])=U(m)([y])$, then $(U(pi_q) circ U(m))(x)=(U(pi_q) circ U(m))(y)$, hence $U(pi_q circ m)(x)=U(pi_q circ m)(y)$, which implies $U(q)(x)=U(q)(y)$. Therefore $(x,y) in ker(U(q))$ and $[x]=[y]$. $U(m)$ is mono, hence $m$ is as well ($U$ is faithful).



            Now let $m' : Y to Z$ be a monomorphism and $h : X to Y$ be a morphism such that $q= m' circ h$. we wish to prove the existence of $f : X/ker((U(q))) to Y$ such that $m = m' circ f$. If $(x,y) in ker(U(q))$, then $U(q)(x)=U(q)(y)$, hence $U(h)(x)=U(h)(y)$ (since $U$ is continuous and $m'$ is mono, $U(m')$ is mono). By the definition of concrete quotients, there exists a morphism $f : X/ker((U(q))) to Y$ such that $h = f circ pi_q$. Since $m' circ h = q = m circ pi_q$, we have $m' circ f circ pi_q = m circ pi_q$. Since $pi_q$ is epi, we have $m' circ f = m$.




            Note that, in particular, this isomorphism theorem is valid on the category of topological spaces (with the obvious forgetful functor to $Set$)! What is the problem here? I'll leave that as an exercise.



            Now, addressing the questions:




            So is it correct that I shouldn't be trying to prove the isomorphism theorems in category theory?




            That is not correct. However, you should be aware of the fact that general categories might not always have the structure/properties you need to talk about certain concepts. In that case, however, you should still be able to consider a particular class of categories in which you can prove your desired results.




            Is it correct that instead, the isomorphism theorems are kind of like "interfaces", which justify talking about algebraic structures (among other structuers) in terms of structure preserving morphisms?




            I'm not sure if I understand this question. The fact that homomorphisms between algebraic structures satisfy the isomorphism theorems is certainly a good reason to talk about structure preserving functions (instead of non-structure preserving functions) in certain scenarios. However, in other structures, where the theorem might not be valid (topological spaces for example), it is still "better" to consider structure preserving functions than simply general functions.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$



            Before addressing your questions I will write here my favorite version of the first isomorphism theorem. As others have commented, you need notions of quotients, images and kernels before even attempting to enunciate such a result. There's more than one way to do this (for example, additive categories). Here we are going to work with concrete categories. Recall the notion of images.




            Definition [kernel]: Let $f : X to Y$ be a function. The kernel of $f$ is the set ${(a,b) in X times X mid f(a)=f(b)}$.




            The notion of kernel as defined here is simply the kernel pair of $f$, that is, the pullback of $X xrightarrow{f} Y xleftarrow{f} X$.




            Definition [concrete quotients and congruences]: Let $(C,U)$ be a concrete category and $X$ an object of $C$. A concrete quotient of $X$ is an epimorphism $pi : X to Y$ such that $U(pi)$ is epi and for every object $Z$ of $C$ and every function $f : U(Y) to U(Z)$, the following are equivalents:




            • There exists a morphism $f' : Y to Z$ such that $U(f') = f$.

            • There exists a morphism $g : X to Z$ such that $U(g) = f circ U(pi)$.


            The set $ker(U(pi))$ is called a congruence on $X$.




            If you prefer, you can define concrete quotients as equivalence classes instead. Note that this notion of quotient coincides with topological quotients, for instance, while the usual notion of quotients (that is, epimorphisms) does not. In essence, concrete quotients allow you to complete diagrams in the base category by looking at the underlying diagrams in $Set$. A congruence on an object $X$ is essentially an equivalence relation on $U(X)$ with an associated concrete quotient of $X$. Observe, however, that congruences need not to arise only from $U(pi)$ for $pi$ a concrete quotient.




            Theorem [the First Isomorphism Theorem]: Let $(C,U)$ be a concrete category, where $C$ is complete and $U$ is continuous. Let $q : X to Z$ be a morphism in $C$ such that $ker(U(q))$ is a congruence on $X$. Then the morphism $m : X/ker(U(q)) to Z$ (such that $q = m circ pi_q$) is the image of $q$.



            Proof : First of all we must verify that $m$ is a monomorphism. Let $x,y in U(X)$ and $[x],[y]$ their equivalence classes regarding $ker(U(q))$. If $U(m)([x])=U(m)([y])$, then $(U(pi_q) circ U(m))(x)=(U(pi_q) circ U(m))(y)$, hence $U(pi_q circ m)(x)=U(pi_q circ m)(y)$, which implies $U(q)(x)=U(q)(y)$. Therefore $(x,y) in ker(U(q))$ and $[x]=[y]$. $U(m)$ is mono, hence $m$ is as well ($U$ is faithful).



            Now let $m' : Y to Z$ be a monomorphism and $h : X to Y$ be a morphism such that $q= m' circ h$. we wish to prove the existence of $f : X/ker((U(q))) to Y$ such that $m = m' circ f$. If $(x,y) in ker(U(q))$, then $U(q)(x)=U(q)(y)$, hence $U(h)(x)=U(h)(y)$ (since $U$ is continuous and $m'$ is mono, $U(m')$ is mono). By the definition of concrete quotients, there exists a morphism $f : X/ker((U(q))) to Y$ such that $h = f circ pi_q$. Since $m' circ h = q = m circ pi_q$, we have $m' circ f circ pi_q = m circ pi_q$. Since $pi_q$ is epi, we have $m' circ f = m$.




            Note that, in particular, this isomorphism theorem is valid on the category of topological spaces (with the obvious forgetful functor to $Set$)! What is the problem here? I'll leave that as an exercise.



            Now, addressing the questions:




            So is it correct that I shouldn't be trying to prove the isomorphism theorems in category theory?




            That is not correct. However, you should be aware of the fact that general categories might not always have the structure/properties you need to talk about certain concepts. In that case, however, you should still be able to consider a particular class of categories in which you can prove your desired results.




            Is it correct that instead, the isomorphism theorems are kind of like "interfaces", which justify talking about algebraic structures (among other structuers) in terms of structure preserving morphisms?




            I'm not sure if I understand this question. The fact that homomorphisms between algebraic structures satisfy the isomorphism theorems is certainly a good reason to talk about structure preserving functions (instead of non-structure preserving functions) in certain scenarios. However, in other structures, where the theorem might not be valid (topological spaces for example), it is still "better" to consider structure preserving functions than simply general functions.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited yesterday

























            answered 2 days ago









            Hilario FernandesHilario Fernandes

            430410




            430410








            • 1




              $begingroup$
              I wish I had known this version of the isomorphism theorem before writing my answer, +1
              $endgroup$
              – Max
              2 days ago






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              For the LaTeX, writing f:Xto Y ($f:Xto Y$) as opposed to fcolon Xto Y ($fcolon Xto Y$) seems easier and renders better... (at least for me).
              $endgroup$
              – Derek Elkins
              2 days ago














            • 1




              $begingroup$
              I wish I had known this version of the isomorphism theorem before writing my answer, +1
              $endgroup$
              – Max
              2 days ago






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              For the LaTeX, writing f:Xto Y ($f:Xto Y$) as opposed to fcolon Xto Y ($fcolon Xto Y$) seems easier and renders better... (at least for me).
              $endgroup$
              – Derek Elkins
              2 days ago








            1




            1




            $begingroup$
            I wish I had known this version of the isomorphism theorem before writing my answer, +1
            $endgroup$
            – Max
            2 days ago




            $begingroup$
            I wish I had known this version of the isomorphism theorem before writing my answer, +1
            $endgroup$
            – Max
            2 days ago




            1




            1




            $begingroup$
            For the LaTeX, writing f:Xto Y ($f:Xto Y$) as opposed to fcolon Xto Y ($fcolon Xto Y$) seems easier and renders better... (at least for me).
            $endgroup$
            – Derek Elkins
            2 days ago




            $begingroup$
            For the LaTeX, writing f:Xto Y ($f:Xto Y$) as opposed to fcolon Xto Y ($fcolon Xto Y$) seems easier and renders better... (at least for me).
            $endgroup$
            – Derek Elkins
            2 days ago











            2












            $begingroup$

            This isn't a full answer as I don't understand half of the question, and have asked for precision on the other half, but it's too long to be a comment



            No, it's not implicitly using the isomorphism theorem, it's using the fact that (in algebraic structures) the corestriction of an injective morphism to its image is an isomorphism, which is way more basic than the first isomorphism theorem.



            Then, for your questions :



            $bullet$ No you shouldn't try to prove the isomorphism theorem in general categories because it simply isn't true in general. First of all, you would have to have a notion of image and of kernel, which don't usually make sense in an arbitrary category, and even when they do exist, it's not true that the theorem holds. For me to make a precise statement and give counterexamples here you have to tell me what you mean by "image" in a general category, for instance are you referring to this definition ?



            $bullet$ I don't understand this question. Let me just say how I feel about the isomorphism theorem (the first one, the others are just immediate corollaries) for groups, and algebraic structures more generally, in the hope that it will shed some light on them; and perhaps you can edit your post to clarify your question.



            The first isomorphism theorem is basically a tautology : it tells you that if you have a surjective morphism and declare "$x=y$" precisely when $f(x)=f(y)$ then you get an induced map on the new structure when your declaration is true, and that this induced map is injective, and has the same image as the original one. The fact that it has the same image is obvious because there is a factorisation, so I won't mention it. The fact that you get an induced map is also obvious, because if you don't know which antecedent to choose, it doesn't matter, as they all have the same images; so just choose any antecedent.



            Finally, the fact that the induced map is injective is also obvious because you've forced it to be ! If $x,y$ have the same image in the new structure, then any antecedent of them do too, so they have been declared to be equal ! Therefore $x=y$ by the pure will of you, the new structure creator. In other words, the first isomorphism theorem is you wanting a map to be injective, and declaring "it is", and by doing so you simply create a new structure (the quotient structure), on which it is, precisely because you declared it to be.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$


















              2












              $begingroup$

              This isn't a full answer as I don't understand half of the question, and have asked for precision on the other half, but it's too long to be a comment



              No, it's not implicitly using the isomorphism theorem, it's using the fact that (in algebraic structures) the corestriction of an injective morphism to its image is an isomorphism, which is way more basic than the first isomorphism theorem.



              Then, for your questions :



              $bullet$ No you shouldn't try to prove the isomorphism theorem in general categories because it simply isn't true in general. First of all, you would have to have a notion of image and of kernel, which don't usually make sense in an arbitrary category, and even when they do exist, it's not true that the theorem holds. For me to make a precise statement and give counterexamples here you have to tell me what you mean by "image" in a general category, for instance are you referring to this definition ?



              $bullet$ I don't understand this question. Let me just say how I feel about the isomorphism theorem (the first one, the others are just immediate corollaries) for groups, and algebraic structures more generally, in the hope that it will shed some light on them; and perhaps you can edit your post to clarify your question.



              The first isomorphism theorem is basically a tautology : it tells you that if you have a surjective morphism and declare "$x=y$" precisely when $f(x)=f(y)$ then you get an induced map on the new structure when your declaration is true, and that this induced map is injective, and has the same image as the original one. The fact that it has the same image is obvious because there is a factorisation, so I won't mention it. The fact that you get an induced map is also obvious, because if you don't know which antecedent to choose, it doesn't matter, as they all have the same images; so just choose any antecedent.



              Finally, the fact that the induced map is injective is also obvious because you've forced it to be ! If $x,y$ have the same image in the new structure, then any antecedent of them do too, so they have been declared to be equal ! Therefore $x=y$ by the pure will of you, the new structure creator. In other words, the first isomorphism theorem is you wanting a map to be injective, and declaring "it is", and by doing so you simply create a new structure (the quotient structure), on which it is, precisely because you declared it to be.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$
















                2












                2








                2





                $begingroup$

                This isn't a full answer as I don't understand half of the question, and have asked for precision on the other half, but it's too long to be a comment



                No, it's not implicitly using the isomorphism theorem, it's using the fact that (in algebraic structures) the corestriction of an injective morphism to its image is an isomorphism, which is way more basic than the first isomorphism theorem.



                Then, for your questions :



                $bullet$ No you shouldn't try to prove the isomorphism theorem in general categories because it simply isn't true in general. First of all, you would have to have a notion of image and of kernel, which don't usually make sense in an arbitrary category, and even when they do exist, it's not true that the theorem holds. For me to make a precise statement and give counterexamples here you have to tell me what you mean by "image" in a general category, for instance are you referring to this definition ?



                $bullet$ I don't understand this question. Let me just say how I feel about the isomorphism theorem (the first one, the others are just immediate corollaries) for groups, and algebraic structures more generally, in the hope that it will shed some light on them; and perhaps you can edit your post to clarify your question.



                The first isomorphism theorem is basically a tautology : it tells you that if you have a surjective morphism and declare "$x=y$" precisely when $f(x)=f(y)$ then you get an induced map on the new structure when your declaration is true, and that this induced map is injective, and has the same image as the original one. The fact that it has the same image is obvious because there is a factorisation, so I won't mention it. The fact that you get an induced map is also obvious, because if you don't know which antecedent to choose, it doesn't matter, as they all have the same images; so just choose any antecedent.



                Finally, the fact that the induced map is injective is also obvious because you've forced it to be ! If $x,y$ have the same image in the new structure, then any antecedent of them do too, so they have been declared to be equal ! Therefore $x=y$ by the pure will of you, the new structure creator. In other words, the first isomorphism theorem is you wanting a map to be injective, and declaring "it is", and by doing so you simply create a new structure (the quotient structure), on which it is, precisely because you declared it to be.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$



                This isn't a full answer as I don't understand half of the question, and have asked for precision on the other half, but it's too long to be a comment



                No, it's not implicitly using the isomorphism theorem, it's using the fact that (in algebraic structures) the corestriction of an injective morphism to its image is an isomorphism, which is way more basic than the first isomorphism theorem.



                Then, for your questions :



                $bullet$ No you shouldn't try to prove the isomorphism theorem in general categories because it simply isn't true in general. First of all, you would have to have a notion of image and of kernel, which don't usually make sense in an arbitrary category, and even when they do exist, it's not true that the theorem holds. For me to make a precise statement and give counterexamples here you have to tell me what you mean by "image" in a general category, for instance are you referring to this definition ?



                $bullet$ I don't understand this question. Let me just say how I feel about the isomorphism theorem (the first one, the others are just immediate corollaries) for groups, and algebraic structures more generally, in the hope that it will shed some light on them; and perhaps you can edit your post to clarify your question.



                The first isomorphism theorem is basically a tautology : it tells you that if you have a surjective morphism and declare "$x=y$" precisely when $f(x)=f(y)$ then you get an induced map on the new structure when your declaration is true, and that this induced map is injective, and has the same image as the original one. The fact that it has the same image is obvious because there is a factorisation, so I won't mention it. The fact that you get an induced map is also obvious, because if you don't know which antecedent to choose, it doesn't matter, as they all have the same images; so just choose any antecedent.



                Finally, the fact that the induced map is injective is also obvious because you've forced it to be ! If $x,y$ have the same image in the new structure, then any antecedent of them do too, so they have been declared to be equal ! Therefore $x=y$ by the pure will of you, the new structure creator. In other words, the first isomorphism theorem is you wanting a map to be injective, and declaring "it is", and by doing so you simply create a new structure (the quotient structure), on which it is, precisely because you declared it to be.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered 2 days ago









                MaxMax

                16.1k11144




                16.1k11144






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3176023%2fshould-the-isomorphism-theorems-be-seen-as-an-interface-between-algebra-and-ca%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Why not use the yoke to control yaw, as well as pitch and roll? Announcing the arrival of...

                    Couldn't open a raw socket. Error: Permission denied (13) (nmap)Is it possible to run networking commands...

                    VNC viewer RFB protocol error: bad desktop size 0x0I Cannot Type the Key 'd' (lowercase) in VNC Viewer...