Definition
Group-like structures | |||||
Totality* | Associativity | Identity | Inverses | Commutativity | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Magma | Yes | No | No | No | No |
Semigroup | Yes | Yes | No | No | No |
Monoid | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No |
Group | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
Abelian Group | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Loop | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No |
Quasigroup | Yes | No | No | Yes | No |
Groupoid | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
Category | No | Yes | Yes | No | No |
Semicategory | No | Yes | No | No | No |
There are many equivalent definitions of a category. One commonly used definition is as follows. A category C consists of
- a class ob(C) of objects
- a class hom(C) of morphisms, or arrows, or maps, between the objects. Each morphism f has a unique source object a and target object b where a and b are in ob(C). We write f: a → b, and we say "f is a morphism from a to b". We write hom(a, b) (or homC(a, b) when there may be confusion about to which category hom(a, b) refers) to denote the hom-class of all morphisms from a to b. (Some authors write Mor(a, b) or simply C(a, b) instead.)
- for every three objects a, b and c, a binary operation hom(a, b) × hom(b, c) → hom(a, c) called composition of morphisms; the composition of f : a → b and g : b → c is written as g ∘ f or gf. (Some authors use "diagrammatic order", writing f;g or fg.)
such that the following axioms hold:
- (associativity) if f : a → b, g : b → c and h : c → d then h ∘ (g ∘ f) = (h ∘ g) ∘ f, and
- (identity) for every object x, there exists a morphism 1x : x → x (some authors write idx) called the identity morphism for x, such that for every morphism f : a → b, we have 1b ∘ f = f = f ∘ 1a.
From these axioms, one can prove that there is exactly one identity morphism for every object. Some authors use a slight variation of the definition in which each object is identified with the corresponding identity morphism.
Read more about this topic: Category (mathematics)
Famous quotes containing the word definition:
“Was man made stupid to see his own stupidity?
Is God by definition indifferent, beyond us all?
Is the eternal truth mans fighting soul
Wherein the Beast ravens in its own avidity?”
—Richard Eberhart (b. 1904)
“Scientific method is the way to truth, but it affords, even in
principle, no unique definition of truth. Any so-called pragmatic
definition of truth is doomed to failure equally.”
—Willard Van Orman Quine (b. 1908)
“The very definition of the real becomes: that of which it is possible to give an equivalent reproduction.... The real is not only what can be reproduced, but that which is always already reproduced. The hyperreal.”
—Jean Baudrillard (b. 1929)