Definition
Let C be a category. A congruence relation R on C is given by: for each pair of objects X, Y in C, an equivalence relation RX,Y on Hom(X,Y), such that the equivalence relations respect composition of morphisms. That is, if
are related in Hom(X, Y) and
are related in Hom(Y, Z) then g1f1 and g2f2 are related in Hom(X, Z).
Given a congruence relation R on C we can define the quotient category C/R as the category whose objects are those of C and whose morphisms are equivalence classes of morphisms in C. That is,
Composition of morphisms in C/R is well-defined since R is a congruence relation.
There is also a notion of taking the quotient of an Abelian category A by a Serre subcategory B. This is done as follows. The objects of A/B are the objects of A. Given two objects X and Y of A, we define the set of morphisms from X to Y in A/B to be where the limit is over subobjects and such that . Then A/B is an Abelian category, and there is a canonical functor . This Abelian quotient satisfies the universal property that if C is any other Abelian category, and is an exact functor such that F(b) is a zero object of C for each, then there is a unique exact functor such that . (See .)
Read more about this topic: Quotient Category
Famous quotes containing the word definition:
“Mothers often are too easily intimidated by their children’s negative reactions...When the child cries or is unhappy, the mother reads this as meaning that she is a failure. This is why it is so important for a mother to know...that the process of growing up involves by definition things that her child is not going to like. Her job is not to create a bed of roses, but to help him learn how to pick his way through the thorns.”
—Elaine Heffner (20th century)
“I’m beginning to think that the proper definition of “Man” is “an animal that writes letters.””
—Lewis Carroll [Charles Lutwidge Dodgson] (1832–1898)
“The man who knows governments most completely is he who troubles himself least about a definition which shall give their essence. Enjoying an intimate acquaintance with all their particularities in turn, he would naturally regard an abstract conception in which these were unified as a thing more misleading than enlightening.”
—William James (1842–1910)