Question about proper notation for an exercise concerning functor for metric space in Arbib and Manes

52 Views Asked by At

The following question is taken from "Arrows, Structures and Functors the categorical imperative" by Arbib and Manes

$\color{Green}{Background:}$

$\textbf{(1a)}$ $\textbf{Definition:}$ A functor $H$ from a category $\textbf{K}$ to a category $\textbf{L}$ is a function which maps $\text{Obj}\textbf{(K)}\to \text{Obj}\textbf{(L)}:A\mapsto HA,$ and which for each pair $A,B$ of objects $\textbf{K}$ maps $\textbf{K}(A,B)\to \textbf{L}(HA, HB):f\mapsto Hf,$ while satisfying the two conditions:

$$H(\text{id}_A)=\text{id}_{HA}\quad\text{ for every }A\in\text{Obj}\textbf{(K)}$$ $$H(g\cdot f)=Hg\cdot Hf \quad\text{ whenever }g\cdot f\text{ is defined in }\textbf{K}.$$

We say that $H$ is an $\textbf{isomorphism}$ if $A\mapsto HA$ and each $\textbf{K}(A,B)\to \textbf{L}(HA, HB)$ are bijections.

$\textbf{(1b)}$ $\textit{The Category}$ $\textbf{Met}.$ Let $(X,d), (Y,e)$ be metric spaces. A $\textbf{contraction}$ from $(X,d)$ $\textit{to}$ $(Y,e)$ is a function $f:X\to Y$ satisfying $e(fx_1,fx_2)\leq d(x_1,x_2)$ It is clear that a contraction is Lipschitz (take $\lambda=1$). By adapting the proof for Lipschitz maps above it is clear that $g\cdot f$ is a contraction when $f$ and $g$ are and, of course, $\text{id}_X:(X,d)\to (X,d)$ is a contraction. We obtain the category $\textbf{Met}$ of metric spaces and contractions.

$\textbf{(2) Exercise:}$ Let $(X,d)$ be a metric space. Define a category $\textbf{K}$ as follows. An object is an element $x$ of $X.$ $\textbf{A}$ morphism $x\to y$ is $\lambda\in \textbf{R},$ such that $\lambda\geq d(x,y).$ If $\lambda:x\to y,$ $\mu:y\to z,$ $\mu\cdot \lambda:x\to z$ is defined to be $\mu+\lambda.$ Show that $\textbf{K}$ is a category.

Solution: To show that this is a category, first, the identity morphism: $0:x\to x$ is $\lambda=0=d(x,x),$ For composition of morphisms, let $\lambda:x\to y,$ $\mu:y\to z,$ be defined respectively as $\lambda\geq d(x,y)$ and $\mu\geq d(y,z)$, then $\lambda\cdot\mu:x\to z$ is defined aS $\lambda+\mu\geq d(x,y)+d(y,z)\geq d(x,z),$ by the triangle inequality. Hence for associativity of morphisms, suppose $p$ is another morphism $z\to w$ defined as $p\geq d(z,w).$ Then $p\cdot(\lambda\cdot \mu)$ is defined as $p+(\lambda+\mu)\geq d(x,y)+(d(y,z))+d(z,w))\geq d(x,y)+d(y,w)\geq d(x,w).$ Similarly for $(p\cdot\lambda)\cdot \mu,$ is define as $(p+\lambda)+\mu\geq (d(x,y)+d(y,z))+d(z,w)\geq d(x,z)+d(z,w)\geq d(x,w).$ Hence composition axiom for a category is satisfied.

$\textbf{(3) Exercise:}$ Let $f:(X,d)\to (Y,e)$ in $\textbf{Met,}$ and let $(X,d), (Y,e)$ be regarded as categories as in exercise (2). Show that $x\to fx, \lambda\mapsto \lambda$ makes $f$ a functor.

Solution: Let $K=(X,d),$ $K'=(Y,e)$ to be subcategories of $\textbf{Met},$ The objects in $K$ and $K'$ are respectively any elements $x\in X$ and $fx\in Y.$ Hence by $\textbf{(1a) Definition},$ we can define a functor $f$ from a category $K$ to a category $K'$ which maps $\text{Obj K}\to \text{Obj K'}:x\mapsto fx,$ and for each pair of objects $x,x'$ of $K,$ maps $K(x,x')\to K'(fx, fx'):\lambda\mapsto f\lambda.$ By (2) Exercise above, morphisms in $K$ and $K'$ are respectively $\lambda\geq d(x,x')$ and $\lambda\geq e(fx,fx').$ Hence we have $(\lambda\geq d(x,x')\xrightarrow{f(\lambda)} (\lambda\geq e(fx,fx')).$ For the case of functor for composition of morphisms. If $\lambda_1$ is another morphism in $K,$ with objects $x', x''\in K,$ then $\lambda_1\geq d(x', x'')$ and $\lambda_1\geq e(fx',fx'').$ are morphisms respectively in $K$ and $K'.$ Hence $(\lambda+\lambda_1\geq d(x,x')+d(x',x''))\xrightarrow{f(\lambda\cdot\lambda_1)} (\lambda+\lambda_1\geq e(fx,fx')+e(fx',fx''))=((\lambda\geq d(x,x')\xrightarrow{f(\lambda)} (\lambda\geq e(fx,fx')))((\lambda_1\geq d(x',x'')\xrightarrow{f(\lambda_1)} (\lambda_1\geq e(fx',fx''))).$

$\color{Red}{Questions:}$

For (3) Exercise solution above, I want to know if I show the functor for morphism and for composition of morphisms correctly. The exercise stated that for functor on morphism, it is $\lambda\mapsto \lambda.$ Should it not be written instead as $\lambda\geq d\xrightarrow{f(\lambda)} \lambda\geq e:\lambda\stackrel{f(\lambda)}{\mapsto} \lambda?$

Thank you in advance.