Talk:Initial and terminal objects: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:51, 29 August 2021

Latest revision as of 01:22, 9 March 2024

(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{VitalWikiProject articlebanner shell|class=Start|levelvital=5yes|topic1=Mathematics}}

{{mathsWikiProject rating|class=startMathematics|priority=Mid|field=foundations}}

}}

{{archives|auto=short|search=yes}}

==Rename to universal object?==

What do people think about renaming this page to '''[[universal object]]'''? The primary advantage is that this name treats initial and terminal objects on equal footing. After all, this article is just as much about terminal objects (and zero objects) as it is initial objects. The primary disadvantage is that the name ''universal object'' is not nearly as common as initial or terminal object. It is, however, used in this sense—see, for example, Lang's ''Algebra'' or Hungerford's ''Algebra''. Numerous other instances can be found (excepting, notably, Mac Lane's monograph).

I would still suggest we use the terminology ''initial object'' and ''terminal object'' in the article itself. Which of these should be universal and which should be couniversal is surely going to vary from author to author. Hungerford, for example, calls initial objects ''universal'' and terminal ones ''couniversal'', but this is at odds with the usage of [[limit (category theory)|limits and colimits]]. Lang calls initial objects ''universal repelling'' and terminal objects ''universally attracting'' which is slightly more descriptive. -- [[User:Fropuff|Fropuff]] ([[User talk:Fropuff|talk]]) 19:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

== zero group ==

why is the empty set initial in set, but not in group?

:Because there is no empty group. [[User talk:Algebraist|Algebraist]] 01:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

== something foul about example ==

Z is initial in unital rings, unit preserving homomorphisms, and 0=1 is terminal. I guess 0 doesn't inject into Z, since that would give 2 morphisms Z -> Z, (and in a sense not be unit preserving). Is this right? It seems weird. [[Special:Contributions/74.71.239.188|74.71.239.188]] ([[User talk:74.71.239.188|talk]]) 18:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

0 doesn't inject into Z. 0 must map to 0, but as a unital homomorphism, 0 must also map to 1. So in the rings with unity, 0 can't be homomorphically mapped into Z. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/158.121.231.73|158.121.231.73]] ([[User talk:158.121.231.73|talk]]) 22:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Shall we not avoid to talk about "Category of semi-groups" or "Category of non-empty Sets" ==