## Categories

Like groups, rings, modules, and other algebraic constructs, we define a category by laying out what’s in it, and how those things relate to each other.

The first difference that gives some people pause is that we don’t start with a set, but a class. Classes are pretty much like sets, but they can be “bigger”. In particular, we sometimes run into technical problems with sets containing other sets, so we introduce classes as things that can hold any sort of sets with no problem. Of course we’ve only pushed back the problem to when we might want to collect classes together, but we’ll burn that bridge when we come to it.

Anyhow, there’s really nothing that bad about basing an algebraic structure on a class. There are perfectly good reasons (we’ll see) for putting a ring structure on a class. In this case we call the result a “large ring”. On the other hand, when every class involved in a category is a set, we call it a “small category”. Seriously, it’s not as big a deal as people seem to think.

Okay, that out of the way; a category consists of two classes: the “objects” and the “morphisms”, or sometimes “points” and “arrows”. These are denoted and , respectively.

Every morphism has a “source” and a “target” object: and . If a morphism has source and target we often write . The class of all morphisms in with source and target is written , or just if the category is understood. If all these “hom-classes” are actually sets, we say the category is “locally small”. Most of the categories we consider will be locally small, and I’ll just use this assumption without mentioning it explicitly.

Given any three objects , , and , we have an operation of “composition”: . We think of this as taking an arrow from to and one from to and joining them tip-to-tail to make an arrow from to . This composition must be associative — the following diagram commutes:

Also, every object has an “identity” morphism so that for all and for all .

We can see that this looks a lot like the definition of a monoid, and for good reason: a monoid is “just” a (small) category with a single object. Walk through the definitions and say that there’s only one object. You’ll see that every morphism has the same source and target, so they can all be composed with each other. Then we’ve got a set of morphisms equipped with an associative composition with an identity element — a monoid!

The most commonly seen use of categories is to describe other algebraic structures. The standard example here (which will motivate much of our later definitions) is : the category of sets. This has as objects the class of all sets (which can’t itself be a set). The morphisms are all functions .

Similarly, we have the categories — groups — — rings with identity — — left -modules — and so on. Each of these categories has as objects the class of all the apropriate algebraic structures, and as morphisms all homomorphisms of those structures.

As a more concrete example, consider a ring with unit. We construct a small category as follows: take as objects the set of natural numbers. The morphisms are all matrices with entries in . The composition is regular matrix multiplication, and the identity on the object is the identity matrix.

Another great example of a category is a preorder. Given a preorder we take the set of elements as the objects of our category. Then we say that there is a single morphism in if and no morphisms in the hom-set otherwise. Reflexivity tells us that there is a morphism in for every object which can serve as an identity, and transitivity tells us that if there’s a morphism in and one in , then there’s one in which can serve as their composite.

For a good while we’ll be giving a *lot* of definitions of concepts in the language of categories, usually motivated from the category of sets. Category theory gets a bad rap as involving a lot of definitions, but the language really does streamline a lot of thought about mathematics, so it’s worth picking up a basic fluency. Everything I’ll define in this first series I’ve actually already given good examples of in special cases, so the motivation should be apparent. We’ll see them coming up again and again in later work, which (I hope) will help lead to a comprehension of later mathematical concepts by analogy from the simpler concepts in algebra.

Yay! Now we’re talking!

Are you going to cover derived categories and model categories too soonish? Or is it the wrong track? 😉

Comment by Mikael Johansson | May 22, 2007 |

Not for quiiiiite a while yet. I want to build up a good categorical vocabulary before I tackle topology.

Yes, you heard right. I want

category theoryunder my belt as a prereqisite totopology.Comment by John Armstrong | May 22, 2007 |

[…] Transformations and Functor Categories So we know about categories and functors describing transformations between categories. Now we come to transformations between […]

Pingback by Natural Transformations and Functor Categories « The Unapologetic Mathematician | May 26, 2007 |

[…] this, the post is going to get long, so I’ll put it behind a jump. Let’s consider the category of finite sets and functions between them. We’ve identified various kinds of functions that […]

Pingback by Categorification « The Unapologetic Mathematician | June 27, 2007 |

Has anyone ever written an idiot’s guide to the safe use of proper classes? cartesian products and `large functions’ such as source and target for arrows are OK, exponentials are not, but I’ve never seen it all laid out for beginners or lazy people. Quine’s book on the logic of set theory and Paul Taylor’s practical foundations book look to me like they might be useful sources, but I haven’t managed to muster up the time and determination to slog through them.

Comment by Avery Andrews | September 26, 2007 |

Hi John!

Any chance that you stuff all the category theory material on your site in one old-fashioned pdf file?

thanks

Comment by Christian Hollersen | October 13, 2007 |

Christian, I may eventually put these together into an old-fashioned PDF, or an older-fashioned book, even. But first I’m trying to get some original work out so I don’t mark myself as an expositor before I get my research program started.

Comment by John Armstrong | October 13, 2007 |

That’s unfortunately all too realistic a concern! Actually I think there’s something to be said for the ‘small chunk at a time’ format here, tho it would be nice if there were an easier way to print them out without the comment-addition facility (what I do is use pdf creator to print the whole thing to pdf, then prinout out the useful stuff from that).

These course notes by Barr and Wells are pretty decent (and their book with 600 solved exercises is certainly worth the modest price, it seems to me).

Comment by MathOutsider | October 13, 2007 |

[…] Category Representations We’ve seen how group representations are special kinds of algebra representations. But even more general than that is the representation of a category. […]

Pingback by Category Representations « The Unapologetic Mathematician | October 27, 2008 |

[…] to mention a topic I thought I’d hit back when we talked about adjoint functors. We know that every poset is a category, with the elements as objects and a single arrow from to if . Functors between such categories […]

Pingback by Galois Connections « The Unapologetic Mathematician | May 18, 2009 |

[…] Category of Root Systems As with so many of the objects we study, root systems form a category. If is a root system in the inner product space , and is a root system in the inner product space […]

Pingback by The Category of Root Systems « The Unapologetic Mathematician | January 22, 2010 |

[…] mapping for every natural number . That is, we have a functor from the natural numbers as an order category to the power set considered as one. And the colimit of this functor is the countable […]

Pingback by Algebras of Sets « The Unapologetic Mathematician | March 15, 2010 |

[…] containment of open subsets of a topological space constitutes a partial order, and thus defines a category . The objects are the open sets themselves, and there is a unique arrow from to if . If we look […]

Pingback by Presheaves « The Unapologetic Mathematician | March 16, 2011 |

[…] can think of homotopies between maps as morphisms in a category that has the maps as objects. In terms of the movie analogy, the composition is obvious: run the […]

Pingback by Homotopies as Morphisms « The Unapologetic Mathematician | November 29, 2011 |