[net.math] category theory, anyone?

leichter@yale-com.UUCP (Jerry Leichter) (06/02/83)

Category theory is described in many texts.  Unfortunately, it's a rather dry
and difficult subject to get into unless you have a fairly extensive math
background - not so much because of inherent difficulty, but because it's all
based on common generalizations of ideas in different areas of math.  If you
aren't familiar with the ideas being generalized, most of the generalization
will seem pretty pointless.  (The inventors of category theory refer to it as
"abstract nonsense".)

My own math work goes back 5-6 years; I'm sure many more recent texts exist.
However, I'd recommend you try the introductions to any good, recent algebra
or algebraic topology text - Lang's "Algebra" is an example.  Often, their
first chapter is a good introduction.  A couple of other books worth trying
are Rotman's "Notes on Homological Algebra" (Van Nostrand Mathematical Study
#26, 1970 - I don't know if it's still available) and Hilton and Stammbach's
"A Course in Homological Algebra" (Springer-Verlag Graduate Text in Math #4,
1971).  I've heard that MacLane's (?) "Category Theory For the Working Mathe-
matician" is a good text, although I've never read it; I think it's in the
same Springer-Verlag series as H&S.  Beyond this...you'll have to explore.
There are - or were a couple of years ago - three main streams of category
theory:  CT for algebraic topology (fairly bounded, driven by topological
questions; described in topology texts); CT for homological algebra (much more
"CT for CT's sake"; driven by algebraic questions of a very general sort);
CT for (non-standard) logics; terms here include "Toposes" and "Universal
Algebras" (again, much "CT for CT's sake", but driven by more general kinds
of questions).

As to commutativity of diagrams:  Very simple.  Category theory considers
functions (aka maps).  Bunches of related maps are represented by drawings of
directed graphs.  Thus:

			f
		    A ---> B

means "f is a map from A to B".  Consider the following diagram, with three
"objects" - things like A and B above - and three maps:

		    f
		A ---> B
		|      |
	       g\      //h
		 \     /
		  v   v
		    C

i.e.:  f is a map from A to B; g from A to C; h from B to C.  To say this
diagram is commutative is just to say that any two paths along directions of
the arrows joining a given pair of points yield the same map; i.e. for this
simple example,

		h o f = g

where "o" is functional composition.  For this simple diagram, it would have
been just as easy to say "h o f = g"; however, the term "commutative" applies
just as well to large, complex diagrams, in which many different paths are
possible.  Commutativity in that case again means the equivalence along EVERY
pair of paths.  Thus, the commutativity of the square:

		    f
		A ---> B
		|      |
	       g|      |h
		|      |
		v      v
		C ---> D
		   i

means i o g = h o f.  Adding an extra arrow from C to B would add two new
triangles, whose commutativity would provide two new equations.
							-- Jerry
						decvax!yale-comix!leichter
							leichter@yale