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.
If it turns out that for two fixed objects , exists, does that mean we should just “forget about and ”? It sounds like we can make our category simpler by getting rid of and .
No, you should not forget about and . For example, the 6-element set is the product of and . But this does not mean we should forget about those other sets.
All this is a fancy way of saying "just because , that doesn't mean you should get rid of and ". For one thing, if you did, you couldn't say anymore! For another, I really like the numbers and .
Awesome, thx
Part of the definition of a category theoretic product is the data of and , since one needs them to define the morphisms from to and and then to assert the universal property that this span is the terminal span to and .
I think John's example doesn't convey the sense of violence of removing sets from the category. If one removed _all_ two-element sets and all three-element sets (which is the only thing that would make a material difference, not just removing one such pair), then your category suddenly is much poorer for structure. Certain colimits would fail to exist, I think. Moreover, if you did this with one-element sets, since every set is isomorphic to the product of itself with a one-element set, you would lose terminal objects, and in fact you could accidentally throw out all the objects!
I see, thank you.