Definition talk:Morphism

Don't know if it'd be better to have definition pages for the domain, codomain, identity morphism and composition in category theory, or incorporate the category theoretic stuff into existing pages. --Linus44 09:26, 13 May 2011 (CDT)

Propose what's there now:
 * Mention domain and codomain in the existing pages
 * Identity and composition have redirect pages, since they're axioms, and there's no single page for mappings + relations to add them to --Linus44 10:11, 13 May 2011 (CDT)


 * Hmm... We might want to rename the page, or extract the axiom-related stuff to a separate page or pages, so that it's in the Axioms namespace. Apart from that the approach looks fine to me. Probably best to keep them in separate pages rather than try to merge with existing definitions. Then we can always cross-link as appropriate if interested. --prime mover 12:27, 13 May 2011 (CDT)

Moved the properties of morphisms to Definition:Metacategory. It's a little more standard, and covers metagraphs as well in one fell swoop. --Linus44 22:42, 15 June 2011 (CDT)