Category Theory
Zulip Server
Archive

You're reading the public-facing archive of the Category Theory Zulip server.
To join the server you need an invite. Anybody can get an invite by contacting Matteo Capucci at name dot surname at gmail dot com.
For all things related to this archive refer to the same person.


Stream: learning: questions

Topic: Question about a proof from 'Non-Canonical Isomorphisms'


view this post on Zulip Nayan Rajesh (May 28 2025 at 14:17):

In Lack's Non-Canonical Isomorphisms, there is a claim that any category with finite products and finite coproducts and any natural family of isomorphisms, Y+ZY×ZY+Z \cong Y\times Z becomes semi-additive. This is part of the proof:

image.png

The isomorphism ψY,0\psi_{Y,0} goes from Y+0Y+0 to Y×0Y\times 0, so I presume that the square on the left is shorthand for

image.png

This seems to assume that the square on the top commutes which I'm not able to derive from the rest of the assumptions. I have a similar problem with the square on the right in the first screenshot.

I'd appreciate any help with this: either I've decomposed the diagram incorrectly, or I'm missing something that makes the square on top of the second diagram commute. Thanks!

view this post on Zulip John Baez (May 28 2025 at 14:31):

If we know that 00 is both the initial and terminal object then I think we can prove the top square commutes. Are we allowed to know that at this point in the argument?

view this post on Zulip Ralph Sarkis (May 28 2025 at 14:36):

Put Y=0Y = 0 and Z=1Z = 1 in the natural isomorphism above:
10+10×101 \cong 0 + 1 \cong 0 \times 1 \cong 0
Oh, that is already in the first screenshot. (Pointed means initial and terminal object coincide.)

view this post on Zulip Nayan Rajesh (May 28 2025 at 14:40):

Thanks @Ralph Sarkis! In this case, I don't think we have 0×100\times 1\cong 0, but just the projection 0×1π00\times 1\xrightarrow{\pi} 0 , which gives a map 101\to 0, which forces 101\cong 0

view this post on Zulip Ralph Sarkis (May 28 2025 at 14:45):

The terminal object is always the unit of the product: X×1XX \times 1 \cong X for any XX. Dually, the initial object is always the unit of the coproduct: X+0AX + 0 \cong A for any XX. The first sentence of the proof in the screenshot seems to make this more complicated than it is.

view this post on Zulip Nayan Rajesh (May 28 2025 at 14:51):

You're right, sorry. For some reason I skipped the 11 in 0×10\times 1 and thought that was using 0×X00\times X \cong 0