User:Lord Farin/Sandbox

This page exists for me to be able to test out features I am developing. Also, incomplete proofs may appear here.

Feel free to comment.

Over time, stuff may move to User:Lord_Farin/Sandbox/Archive.

= Equivalent def'n 1 for metacategory =

Theorem
Let $\mathbf C_0$ and $\mathbf C_1$ be collections of objects.

Let $\operatorname{cod}$ and $\operatorname{dom}$ associate to every element of $\mathbf C_1$ an element of $\mathbf C_0$.

Let $\operatorname{id}$ associate to every element of $\mathbf C_0$ an element of $\mathbf C_1$.

Denote with $\mathbf C_2$ the collection of pairs $\left({f, g}\right)$ of elements of $\mathbf C_1$ satisfying:


 * $\operatorname{dom} g = \operatorname{cod} f$

Let $\circ$ associate to every such pair an element of $\mathbf C_1$.

Then $\mathbf C_0, \mathbf C_1, \operatorname{cod}, \operatorname{dom}, \operatorname{id}$ and $\circ$ together determine a metacategory $\mathbf C$ iff the following seven axioms are satisfied:

with $A$ and $f,g,h$ arbitrary elements of $\mathbf C_0$ and $\mathbf C_1$, respectively.

Proof
Proof postponed until comments appear on proposed structure of the page.

Improvement of Sequence of Implications of Connectedness Properties
For brevity, let us introduce the following acronyms:


 * $\mathrm{AC}$: Arc-Connected
 * $\mathrm{UC}$: Ultraconnected
 * $\mathrm{PC}$: Path-Connected
 * $\mathrm{HC}$: Hyperconnected
 * $\mathrm C$:  Connected

Then the following sequence of implications holds:


 * $\begin{xy}

<-3em,3em>*+{\mathrm{AC}} = "AC", <3em,3em>*+{\mathrm{UC}} = "UC", <0em,0em>*+{\mathrm{PC}} = "PC", <6em,0em>*+{\mathrm{HC}} = "HC", <3em,-3em>*+{\mathrm C}  = "C",

"AC";"PC" **@2{-} ?><>(1.2)*@2{>}, "UC";"PC" **@2{-} ?><>(1.2)*@2{>}, "PC";"C" **@2{-} ?><>(1.2)*@2{>}, "HC";"C" **@2{-} ?><>(1.2)*@2{>}, \end{xy}$

What do you think? Now that I have created the moulds, it will be easy to adapt to the other 'Sequences of Implication'. --Lord_Farin (talk) 10:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC) It be noted that it will forever be impossible to endow diagrams (and indeed, any TeX rendered with MathJax) with internal links; sorry. --Lord_Farin (talk) 10:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No response? :( --Lord_Farin (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It's very nice! I don't know the first thing about what it meant, though :) --GFauxPas (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, only just noticed it. Very nice - one caveat: you need to refer to the key to (a) work out what the codes mean, and (b) to get to the link explaining them. The somewhat clumsier page from which the original of this came does have the full map as one self-contained unit. Might be interesting to put the two presentations up on the same page as alternative renditions. --prime mover (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)