Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision Both sides next revision
my_nice_nats [2014/11/01 18:16]
nikolaj
my_nice_nats [2014/11/02 13:45]
nikolaj
Line 9: Line 9:
 ==== Discussion ==== ==== Discussion ====
 That silly name... I made it up.  That silly name... I made it up. 
 +
 +The point is that [[my equivalence of categories]] and [[Counit-unit adjunction]] are two different important special cases of nice nats.
  
 === In words === === In words ===
-Here we have a situation ​where there are two functors, which don't really deform the category ​${\bf C}$ all that much: They are tame enough so that, by a natural transformation $\alpha:​\mathrm{nat}(FG,​1_{\bf C})$, their composite effect can be repaired back to unity.+Here we have a situation ​with a functor $G$ from a ${\bf C}$, which is tame enough so that after mapping back to ${\bf C}$ via $F$the "​deforming"​ effect can be repaired ​by a natural transformation $\alpha:​\mathrm{nat}(FG,​1_{\bf C})$. 
  
-The point is that [[my equivalence of categories]] ​and [[Counit-unit adjunction]] ​are two different important special cases of nice nats.+=== Theorems === 
 +Since $FG$ is a functor ​and there is a natural transformation,​ the structural properties "​around"​ $FGX$ and $X$ are equivalent. However, only when that nat is an isomorphisms is $F$ fully faithful and dense
  
 ==== Parents ==== ==== Parents ====
Link to graph
Log In
Improvements of the human condition