I have come to the conclusion that a lot of mathematical structure on sets (e.g. constructs) can be defined through (combinations of) relations
(1)quadSFXsubsetF(X)timesXI
for some underlying set X, some functor F: Rel rightarrow Rel and some set I.
Examples:
- Magmas (monoids, groups,...) are defined through functions SsubsetX2timesX.
- Graphs are defined through relations SsubsetXtimesX.
- Metric spaces could be defined through relations Ssubset(mathbbRtimesX)timesX, where ((r,x),x′)inSLeftrightarrowd(x,x′)=r. Or better: through d(x,x′)ler, since the category Met have retractions as morphisms.
- Topological spaces could be defined by Ssubset2XtimesX, where (M,x)inSLeftrightarrowxinMintau or by the closure xinoverlineM.
- Uniform spaces could be defined through relations Ssubset2XtimesXtimesX2, where (U,(x,y))inSLeftrightarrow(x,y) is U-close. (Wikipedia)
(See Can any construct be characterized as a relation?)
This works for any construct I know and there even seems to be a general rule to generate the morphisms between the constructs, showed by the (in general not commuting, if the relations not are functions) diagram of sets and relations:
requireAMScd
begin{CD}
F(X) @>F(f)>> F(Y)\
@V S_X^F V V(2) @VV S_Y^F V\
X^{I} @>>f^{I}> Y^{I}
end{CD}
(2)quad(phiX,phiY)inF(f)Rightarrow[(phiX,(xi)I)inSFXRightarrow(phiY,((f(xi))I)inSFY].
Example: If I=1, F is the (contravariant) functor defined as 2Xoverset2flongrightarrow2Y, where
(M,M′)in2fLeftrightarrowM=f−1(M′) and
SFX is defined as (M,x)inSFXLeftrightarrowxinoverlineM.
Then due to (2):
M=f−1(M′)Rightarrow(xinoverlineMRightarrowf(x)inoverlineM,′), so xinoverlinef−1(M,′)Rightarrowf(x)inoverlineM,′. (Continuity).
In case of matroids (X,mathcalI) I can see two possibilities that fits into my scheme:
- (A,x)inSLeftrightarrowxinAinmathcalI, that gives a condition for morphisms f−1(A′)inmathcalIRightarrowA′inmathcalI′;
- (A,x)inSLeftrightarrowxincl(A), that gives the condition r(f−1(A′))=r(f−1(A′)cupx)Rightarrowr(A′)=r(A′cupf(x)), where cl(A)=xinX|r(A)=r(Acupx) and r is the rank function.
It seems to me as the former definition of a morphism is more natural, given the scheme, since the exchange axiom doesn't have to affect the form of the morphism more than associativity affect the form of the group homomorphism. So my primary candidate is:
A function f:XrightarrowX′, where (X,mathcalI) and
(X′,mathcalI′) are matroids, is a morphism if it holds for any set
A′subseteqX′ that f−1(A′)inmathcalIRightarrowA′inmathcalI′.
I don't claim that this is the answer and I can't evaluate the result because of lack of experience of matroids, but this is what I got from the empirical scheme.
No comments:
Post a Comment