Universal Property - Formal Definition

Formal Definition

Suppose that U: DC is a functor from a category D to a category C, and let X be an object of C. Consider the following dual (opposite) notions:

An initial morphism from X to U is an initial object in the category of morphisms from X to U. In other words, it consists of a pair (A, φ) where A is an object of D and φ: XU(A) is a morphism in C, such that the following initial property is satisfied:

  • Whenever Y is an object of D and f: XU(Y) is a morphism in C, then there exists a unique morphism g: AY such that the following diagram commutes:

A terminal morphism from U to X is a terminal object in the comma category of morphisms from U to X. In other words, it consists of a pair (A, φ) where A is an object of D and φ: U(A) → X is a morphism in C, such that the following terminal property is satisfied:

  • Whenever Y is an object of D and f: U(Y) → X is a morphism in C, then there exists a unique morphism g: YA such that the following diagram commutes:

The term universal morphism refers either to an initial morphism or a terminal morphism, and the term universal property refers either to an initial property or a terminal property. In each definition, the existence of the morphism g intuitively expresses the fact that (A, φ) is "general enough", while the uniqueness of the morphism ensures that (A, φ) is "not too general".

Read more about this topic:  Universal Property

Famous quotes containing the words formal and/or definition:

    The spiritual kinship between Lincoln and Whitman was founded upon their Americanism, their essential Westernism. Whitman had grown up without much formal education; Lincoln had scarcely any education. One had become the notable poet of the day; one the orator of the Gettsyburg Address. It was inevitable that Whitman as a poet should turn with a feeling of kinship to Lincoln, and even without any association or contact feel that Lincoln was his.
    Edgar Lee Masters (1869–1950)

    Beauty, like all other qualities presented to human experience, is relative; and the definition of it becomes unmeaning and useless in proportion to its abstractness. To define beauty not in the most abstract, but in the most concrete terms possible, not to find a universal formula for it, but the formula which expresses most adequately this or that special manifestation of it, is the aim of the true student of aesthetics.
    Walter Pater (1839–1894)