Commutative diagram question












7














enter image description here



Suppose outer square in above diagram is comutative i.e., $ccirc qcirc p=scirc rcirc a$



Further, suppose right side square is commutative i.e., $ccirc q=scirc b$?



Does it imply left side square is commutative i.e., $bcirc p=rcirc a$??



If $s$ has an inverse, it follows trivially. Are there other conditions that confirm this?










share|cite|improve this question





























    7














    enter image description here



    Suppose outer square in above diagram is comutative i.e., $ccirc qcirc p=scirc rcirc a$



    Further, suppose right side square is commutative i.e., $ccirc q=scirc b$?



    Does it imply left side square is commutative i.e., $bcirc p=rcirc a$??



    If $s$ has an inverse, it follows trivially. Are there other conditions that confirm this?










    share|cite|improve this question



























      7












      7








      7


      1





      enter image description here



      Suppose outer square in above diagram is comutative i.e., $ccirc qcirc p=scirc rcirc a$



      Further, suppose right side square is commutative i.e., $ccirc q=scirc b$?



      Does it imply left side square is commutative i.e., $bcirc p=rcirc a$??



      If $s$ has an inverse, it follows trivially. Are there other conditions that confirm this?










      share|cite|improve this question















      enter image description here



      Suppose outer square in above diagram is comutative i.e., $ccirc qcirc p=scirc rcirc a$



      Further, suppose right side square is commutative i.e., $ccirc q=scirc b$?



      Does it imply left side square is commutative i.e., $bcirc p=rcirc a$??



      If $s$ has an inverse, it follows trivially. Are there other conditions that confirm this?







      category-theory






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited yesterday

























      asked yesterday









      Praphulla Koushik

      23716




      23716






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          8














          In general, no. If $F$ is a terminal object, then the whole diagram and the right square commute automatically (since all composites to $F$ are the unique morphism to the terminal object), and then the left-hand square can be anything at all, commutative or otherwise.



          If $s$ is monic, then the left-hand square commutes, since
          $$s circ r circ a = c circ q circ p = s circ b circ p quad Rightarrow quad r circ a = b circ p$$



          In fact, $s$ being monic is, in a sense, equivalent to the condition in your question. Indeed, suppose $s$ is fixed and, for all such diagrams with $s$ in the bottom-right, commutativity of the outer and right squares implies commutativity of the left-hand square. We prove that $s$ is monic.



          So let $f,g : B to E$ and suppose $s circ f = s circ g$. Form the diagram with $a=p=q=mathrm{id}_B$, $b=f$, $r=g$ and $c = s circ f$. Then the right-hand square commutes trivially and the outer square commutes since $s circ f = s circ g$. Hence the left-hand square commutes, and so $f=g$. So $s$ is monic.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • :) If $s$ is monic, it follows trivially just because of the definition.. I should have added this along with "If $s$ is invertible, it follows immediately"...Thanks anyways :)
            – Praphulla Koushik
            yesterday










          • @PraphullaKoushik: The condition that $s$ is monic does not imply that $s$ is invertible (or even that $s$ has a left-inverse—that's split monic). I've updated my answer to prove that, relative to fixed $s$, the condition in your question is equivalent to the assertion that $s$ is monic.
            – Clive Newstead
            yesterday












          • I dont know whats split monic.. I only know monic and that means it has left inverse.. So, I said for monic it follows... what is monic for you if not left invertible arrow?
            – Praphulla Koushik
            yesterday






          • 1




            @PraphullaKoushik: Having a left inverse implies monic, but being monic does not imply having a left inverse. See monic versus split monic on nLab, and also on Wikipedia. In some categories (e.g. the category of sets) all monomorphisms are split, but that is not the case in all categories. I don't know of any credible source on category theory that defines 'monomorphism' to mean 'has a left inverse'.
            – Clive Newstead
            yesterday












          • Ok Ok... An arrow $g$ is monic if $gcirc f=gcirc h$ implies $f=h$... An arrow $g$ is called split monic if there exists an arrow $t$ such that $tcirc g=1$... Suppose $g$ is split monic and $gcirc f=gcirc h$.. We have $tcirc gcirc f=tcirc gcirc h$.. As $tcirc g=1$, we have $f=h$... YOu are only using monic in your answer... Though this is not what I expected, this is interesting :) :) Thanks, I learned some new terminology.. :) In some sense, having a section of $s$ confirms what I asked.. :)
            – Praphulla Koushik
            yesterday













          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3062839%2fcommutative-diagram-question%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          8














          In general, no. If $F$ is a terminal object, then the whole diagram and the right square commute automatically (since all composites to $F$ are the unique morphism to the terminal object), and then the left-hand square can be anything at all, commutative or otherwise.



          If $s$ is monic, then the left-hand square commutes, since
          $$s circ r circ a = c circ q circ p = s circ b circ p quad Rightarrow quad r circ a = b circ p$$



          In fact, $s$ being monic is, in a sense, equivalent to the condition in your question. Indeed, suppose $s$ is fixed and, for all such diagrams with $s$ in the bottom-right, commutativity of the outer and right squares implies commutativity of the left-hand square. We prove that $s$ is monic.



          So let $f,g : B to E$ and suppose $s circ f = s circ g$. Form the diagram with $a=p=q=mathrm{id}_B$, $b=f$, $r=g$ and $c = s circ f$. Then the right-hand square commutes trivially and the outer square commutes since $s circ f = s circ g$. Hence the left-hand square commutes, and so $f=g$. So $s$ is monic.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • :) If $s$ is monic, it follows trivially just because of the definition.. I should have added this along with "If $s$ is invertible, it follows immediately"...Thanks anyways :)
            – Praphulla Koushik
            yesterday










          • @PraphullaKoushik: The condition that $s$ is monic does not imply that $s$ is invertible (or even that $s$ has a left-inverse—that's split monic). I've updated my answer to prove that, relative to fixed $s$, the condition in your question is equivalent to the assertion that $s$ is monic.
            – Clive Newstead
            yesterday












          • I dont know whats split monic.. I only know monic and that means it has left inverse.. So, I said for monic it follows... what is monic for you if not left invertible arrow?
            – Praphulla Koushik
            yesterday






          • 1




            @PraphullaKoushik: Having a left inverse implies monic, but being monic does not imply having a left inverse. See monic versus split monic on nLab, and also on Wikipedia. In some categories (e.g. the category of sets) all monomorphisms are split, but that is not the case in all categories. I don't know of any credible source on category theory that defines 'monomorphism' to mean 'has a left inverse'.
            – Clive Newstead
            yesterday












          • Ok Ok... An arrow $g$ is monic if $gcirc f=gcirc h$ implies $f=h$... An arrow $g$ is called split monic if there exists an arrow $t$ such that $tcirc g=1$... Suppose $g$ is split monic and $gcirc f=gcirc h$.. We have $tcirc gcirc f=tcirc gcirc h$.. As $tcirc g=1$, we have $f=h$... YOu are only using monic in your answer... Though this is not what I expected, this is interesting :) :) Thanks, I learned some new terminology.. :) In some sense, having a section of $s$ confirms what I asked.. :)
            – Praphulla Koushik
            yesterday


















          8














          In general, no. If $F$ is a terminal object, then the whole diagram and the right square commute automatically (since all composites to $F$ are the unique morphism to the terminal object), and then the left-hand square can be anything at all, commutative or otherwise.



          If $s$ is monic, then the left-hand square commutes, since
          $$s circ r circ a = c circ q circ p = s circ b circ p quad Rightarrow quad r circ a = b circ p$$



          In fact, $s$ being monic is, in a sense, equivalent to the condition in your question. Indeed, suppose $s$ is fixed and, for all such diagrams with $s$ in the bottom-right, commutativity of the outer and right squares implies commutativity of the left-hand square. We prove that $s$ is monic.



          So let $f,g : B to E$ and suppose $s circ f = s circ g$. Form the diagram with $a=p=q=mathrm{id}_B$, $b=f$, $r=g$ and $c = s circ f$. Then the right-hand square commutes trivially and the outer square commutes since $s circ f = s circ g$. Hence the left-hand square commutes, and so $f=g$. So $s$ is monic.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • :) If $s$ is monic, it follows trivially just because of the definition.. I should have added this along with "If $s$ is invertible, it follows immediately"...Thanks anyways :)
            – Praphulla Koushik
            yesterday










          • @PraphullaKoushik: The condition that $s$ is monic does not imply that $s$ is invertible (or even that $s$ has a left-inverse—that's split monic). I've updated my answer to prove that, relative to fixed $s$, the condition in your question is equivalent to the assertion that $s$ is monic.
            – Clive Newstead
            yesterday












          • I dont know whats split monic.. I only know monic and that means it has left inverse.. So, I said for monic it follows... what is monic for you if not left invertible arrow?
            – Praphulla Koushik
            yesterday






          • 1




            @PraphullaKoushik: Having a left inverse implies monic, but being monic does not imply having a left inverse. See monic versus split monic on nLab, and also on Wikipedia. In some categories (e.g. the category of sets) all monomorphisms are split, but that is not the case in all categories. I don't know of any credible source on category theory that defines 'monomorphism' to mean 'has a left inverse'.
            – Clive Newstead
            yesterday












          • Ok Ok... An arrow $g$ is monic if $gcirc f=gcirc h$ implies $f=h$... An arrow $g$ is called split monic if there exists an arrow $t$ such that $tcirc g=1$... Suppose $g$ is split monic and $gcirc f=gcirc h$.. We have $tcirc gcirc f=tcirc gcirc h$.. As $tcirc g=1$, we have $f=h$... YOu are only using monic in your answer... Though this is not what I expected, this is interesting :) :) Thanks, I learned some new terminology.. :) In some sense, having a section of $s$ confirms what I asked.. :)
            – Praphulla Koushik
            yesterday
















          8












          8








          8






          In general, no. If $F$ is a terminal object, then the whole diagram and the right square commute automatically (since all composites to $F$ are the unique morphism to the terminal object), and then the left-hand square can be anything at all, commutative or otherwise.



          If $s$ is monic, then the left-hand square commutes, since
          $$s circ r circ a = c circ q circ p = s circ b circ p quad Rightarrow quad r circ a = b circ p$$



          In fact, $s$ being monic is, in a sense, equivalent to the condition in your question. Indeed, suppose $s$ is fixed and, for all such diagrams with $s$ in the bottom-right, commutativity of the outer and right squares implies commutativity of the left-hand square. We prove that $s$ is monic.



          So let $f,g : B to E$ and suppose $s circ f = s circ g$. Form the diagram with $a=p=q=mathrm{id}_B$, $b=f$, $r=g$ and $c = s circ f$. Then the right-hand square commutes trivially and the outer square commutes since $s circ f = s circ g$. Hence the left-hand square commutes, and so $f=g$. So $s$ is monic.






          share|cite|improve this answer














          In general, no. If $F$ is a terminal object, then the whole diagram and the right square commute automatically (since all composites to $F$ are the unique morphism to the terminal object), and then the left-hand square can be anything at all, commutative or otherwise.



          If $s$ is monic, then the left-hand square commutes, since
          $$s circ r circ a = c circ q circ p = s circ b circ p quad Rightarrow quad r circ a = b circ p$$



          In fact, $s$ being monic is, in a sense, equivalent to the condition in your question. Indeed, suppose $s$ is fixed and, for all such diagrams with $s$ in the bottom-right, commutativity of the outer and right squares implies commutativity of the left-hand square. We prove that $s$ is monic.



          So let $f,g : B to E$ and suppose $s circ f = s circ g$. Form the diagram with $a=p=q=mathrm{id}_B$, $b=f$, $r=g$ and $c = s circ f$. Then the right-hand square commutes trivially and the outer square commutes since $s circ f = s circ g$. Hence the left-hand square commutes, and so $f=g$. So $s$ is monic.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited yesterday

























          answered yesterday









          Clive Newstead

          50.7k474133




          50.7k474133












          • :) If $s$ is monic, it follows trivially just because of the definition.. I should have added this along with "If $s$ is invertible, it follows immediately"...Thanks anyways :)
            – Praphulla Koushik
            yesterday










          • @PraphullaKoushik: The condition that $s$ is monic does not imply that $s$ is invertible (or even that $s$ has a left-inverse—that's split monic). I've updated my answer to prove that, relative to fixed $s$, the condition in your question is equivalent to the assertion that $s$ is monic.
            – Clive Newstead
            yesterday












          • I dont know whats split monic.. I only know monic and that means it has left inverse.. So, I said for monic it follows... what is monic for you if not left invertible arrow?
            – Praphulla Koushik
            yesterday






          • 1




            @PraphullaKoushik: Having a left inverse implies monic, but being monic does not imply having a left inverse. See monic versus split monic on nLab, and also on Wikipedia. In some categories (e.g. the category of sets) all monomorphisms are split, but that is not the case in all categories. I don't know of any credible source on category theory that defines 'monomorphism' to mean 'has a left inverse'.
            – Clive Newstead
            yesterday












          • Ok Ok... An arrow $g$ is monic if $gcirc f=gcirc h$ implies $f=h$... An arrow $g$ is called split monic if there exists an arrow $t$ such that $tcirc g=1$... Suppose $g$ is split monic and $gcirc f=gcirc h$.. We have $tcirc gcirc f=tcirc gcirc h$.. As $tcirc g=1$, we have $f=h$... YOu are only using monic in your answer... Though this is not what I expected, this is interesting :) :) Thanks, I learned some new terminology.. :) In some sense, having a section of $s$ confirms what I asked.. :)
            – Praphulla Koushik
            yesterday




















          • :) If $s$ is monic, it follows trivially just because of the definition.. I should have added this along with "If $s$ is invertible, it follows immediately"...Thanks anyways :)
            – Praphulla Koushik
            yesterday










          • @PraphullaKoushik: The condition that $s$ is monic does not imply that $s$ is invertible (or even that $s$ has a left-inverse—that's split monic). I've updated my answer to prove that, relative to fixed $s$, the condition in your question is equivalent to the assertion that $s$ is monic.
            – Clive Newstead
            yesterday












          • I dont know whats split monic.. I only know monic and that means it has left inverse.. So, I said for monic it follows... what is monic for you if not left invertible arrow?
            – Praphulla Koushik
            yesterday






          • 1




            @PraphullaKoushik: Having a left inverse implies monic, but being monic does not imply having a left inverse. See monic versus split monic on nLab, and also on Wikipedia. In some categories (e.g. the category of sets) all monomorphisms are split, but that is not the case in all categories. I don't know of any credible source on category theory that defines 'monomorphism' to mean 'has a left inverse'.
            – Clive Newstead
            yesterday












          • Ok Ok... An arrow $g$ is monic if $gcirc f=gcirc h$ implies $f=h$... An arrow $g$ is called split monic if there exists an arrow $t$ such that $tcirc g=1$... Suppose $g$ is split monic and $gcirc f=gcirc h$.. We have $tcirc gcirc f=tcirc gcirc h$.. As $tcirc g=1$, we have $f=h$... YOu are only using monic in your answer... Though this is not what I expected, this is interesting :) :) Thanks, I learned some new terminology.. :) In some sense, having a section of $s$ confirms what I asked.. :)
            – Praphulla Koushik
            yesterday


















          :) If $s$ is monic, it follows trivially just because of the definition.. I should have added this along with "If $s$ is invertible, it follows immediately"...Thanks anyways :)
          – Praphulla Koushik
          yesterday




          :) If $s$ is monic, it follows trivially just because of the definition.. I should have added this along with "If $s$ is invertible, it follows immediately"...Thanks anyways :)
          – Praphulla Koushik
          yesterday












          @PraphullaKoushik: The condition that $s$ is monic does not imply that $s$ is invertible (or even that $s$ has a left-inverse—that's split monic). I've updated my answer to prove that, relative to fixed $s$, the condition in your question is equivalent to the assertion that $s$ is monic.
          – Clive Newstead
          yesterday






          @PraphullaKoushik: The condition that $s$ is monic does not imply that $s$ is invertible (or even that $s$ has a left-inverse—that's split monic). I've updated my answer to prove that, relative to fixed $s$, the condition in your question is equivalent to the assertion that $s$ is monic.
          – Clive Newstead
          yesterday














          I dont know whats split monic.. I only know monic and that means it has left inverse.. So, I said for monic it follows... what is monic for you if not left invertible arrow?
          – Praphulla Koushik
          yesterday




          I dont know whats split monic.. I only know monic and that means it has left inverse.. So, I said for monic it follows... what is monic for you if not left invertible arrow?
          – Praphulla Koushik
          yesterday




          1




          1




          @PraphullaKoushik: Having a left inverse implies monic, but being monic does not imply having a left inverse. See monic versus split monic on nLab, and also on Wikipedia. In some categories (e.g. the category of sets) all monomorphisms are split, but that is not the case in all categories. I don't know of any credible source on category theory that defines 'monomorphism' to mean 'has a left inverse'.
          – Clive Newstead
          yesterday






          @PraphullaKoushik: Having a left inverse implies monic, but being monic does not imply having a left inverse. See monic versus split monic on nLab, and also on Wikipedia. In some categories (e.g. the category of sets) all monomorphisms are split, but that is not the case in all categories. I don't know of any credible source on category theory that defines 'monomorphism' to mean 'has a left inverse'.
          – Clive Newstead
          yesterday














          Ok Ok... An arrow $g$ is monic if $gcirc f=gcirc h$ implies $f=h$... An arrow $g$ is called split monic if there exists an arrow $t$ such that $tcirc g=1$... Suppose $g$ is split monic and $gcirc f=gcirc h$.. We have $tcirc gcirc f=tcirc gcirc h$.. As $tcirc g=1$, we have $f=h$... YOu are only using monic in your answer... Though this is not what I expected, this is interesting :) :) Thanks, I learned some new terminology.. :) In some sense, having a section of $s$ confirms what I asked.. :)
          – Praphulla Koushik
          yesterday






          Ok Ok... An arrow $g$ is monic if $gcirc f=gcirc h$ implies $f=h$... An arrow $g$ is called split monic if there exists an arrow $t$ such that $tcirc g=1$... Suppose $g$ is split monic and $gcirc f=gcirc h$.. We have $tcirc gcirc f=tcirc gcirc h$.. As $tcirc g=1$, we have $f=h$... YOu are only using monic in your answer... Though this is not what I expected, this is interesting :) :) Thanks, I learned some new terminology.. :) In some sense, having a section of $s$ confirms what I asked.. :)
          – Praphulla Koushik
          yesterday




















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





          Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


          Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3062839%2fcommutative-diagram-question%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          1300-talet

          1300-talet

          Display a custom attribute below product name in the front-end Magento 1.9.3.8