A category-like structure without composition?Is there a free digraph associated to a graph?Can the inner structure of an object be systematically deduced from its position in the category?Do non-associative objects have a natural notion of representation?Why does Hom need an identity in the definition of the category?Sets = structured sets without structureWhat is the composition in SesquiAlg?What kind of category is a cyclically ordered set?random category theoryA model category of abelian categories?Cartesian liftings in double categories

A category-like structure without composition?


Is there a free digraph associated to a graph?Can the inner structure of an object be systematically deduced from its position in the category?Do non-associative objects have a natural notion of representation?Why does Hom need an identity in the definition of the category?Sets = structured sets without structureWhat is the composition in SesquiAlg?What kind of category is a cyclically ordered set?random category theoryA model category of abelian categories?Cartesian liftings in double categories













3












$begingroup$


Is there a name for the 'category-like' structure which satisfies the axioms for a category except for composition, i.e. identities exist for every object, if $fin Hom(A,B)$ and $g in Hom(B,C)$ then $gcirc f$ may not exist in $Hom(A,C)$, but when the relevant compositions do exist, then composition is associative. 'Category-like' structures derived from directed graphs with at most one edge in each direction, where the vertices are the objects and the edges are the morphisms, provide plentiful examples, as do (equivalently) not-necessarily-transitive relations on a set $X$. Could anyone provide references which discuss this from a categorical perspective? Thanks in advance!










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 5




    $begingroup$
    Shouldn't this be equivalent to a category enriched over pointed sets?
    $endgroup$
    – Qiaochu Yuan
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    In that case, you still necessarily have compositions, or am I misunderstanding something?
    $endgroup$
    – APR
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    There's an $infty$-categorical version: 2-Segal spaces in the sense of Dyckerhoff-Kapranov
    $endgroup$
    – Tim Campion
    2 hours ago















3












$begingroup$


Is there a name for the 'category-like' structure which satisfies the axioms for a category except for composition, i.e. identities exist for every object, if $fin Hom(A,B)$ and $g in Hom(B,C)$ then $gcirc f$ may not exist in $Hom(A,C)$, but when the relevant compositions do exist, then composition is associative. 'Category-like' structures derived from directed graphs with at most one edge in each direction, where the vertices are the objects and the edges are the morphisms, provide plentiful examples, as do (equivalently) not-necessarily-transitive relations on a set $X$. Could anyone provide references which discuss this from a categorical perspective? Thanks in advance!










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 5




    $begingroup$
    Shouldn't this be equivalent to a category enriched over pointed sets?
    $endgroup$
    – Qiaochu Yuan
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    In that case, you still necessarily have compositions, or am I misunderstanding something?
    $endgroup$
    – APR
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    There's an $infty$-categorical version: 2-Segal spaces in the sense of Dyckerhoff-Kapranov
    $endgroup$
    – Tim Campion
    2 hours ago













3












3








3





$begingroup$


Is there a name for the 'category-like' structure which satisfies the axioms for a category except for composition, i.e. identities exist for every object, if $fin Hom(A,B)$ and $g in Hom(B,C)$ then $gcirc f$ may not exist in $Hom(A,C)$, but when the relevant compositions do exist, then composition is associative. 'Category-like' structures derived from directed graphs with at most one edge in each direction, where the vertices are the objects and the edges are the morphisms, provide plentiful examples, as do (equivalently) not-necessarily-transitive relations on a set $X$. Could anyone provide references which discuss this from a categorical perspective? Thanks in advance!










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Is there a name for the 'category-like' structure which satisfies the axioms for a category except for composition, i.e. identities exist for every object, if $fin Hom(A,B)$ and $g in Hom(B,C)$ then $gcirc f$ may not exist in $Hom(A,C)$, but when the relevant compositions do exist, then composition is associative. 'Category-like' structures derived from directed graphs with at most one edge in each direction, where the vertices are the objects and the edges are the morphisms, provide plentiful examples, as do (equivalently) not-necessarily-transitive relations on a set $X$. Could anyone provide references which discuss this from a categorical perspective? Thanks in advance!







reference-request ct.category-theory






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 3 hours ago







APR

















asked 4 hours ago









APRAPR

724




724







  • 5




    $begingroup$
    Shouldn't this be equivalent to a category enriched over pointed sets?
    $endgroup$
    – Qiaochu Yuan
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    In that case, you still necessarily have compositions, or am I misunderstanding something?
    $endgroup$
    – APR
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    There's an $infty$-categorical version: 2-Segal spaces in the sense of Dyckerhoff-Kapranov
    $endgroup$
    – Tim Campion
    2 hours ago












  • 5




    $begingroup$
    Shouldn't this be equivalent to a category enriched over pointed sets?
    $endgroup$
    – Qiaochu Yuan
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    In that case, you still necessarily have compositions, or am I misunderstanding something?
    $endgroup$
    – APR
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    There's an $infty$-categorical version: 2-Segal spaces in the sense of Dyckerhoff-Kapranov
    $endgroup$
    – Tim Campion
    2 hours ago







5




5




$begingroup$
Shouldn't this be equivalent to a category enriched over pointed sets?
$endgroup$
– Qiaochu Yuan
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
Shouldn't this be equivalent to a category enriched over pointed sets?
$endgroup$
– Qiaochu Yuan
3 hours ago












$begingroup$
In that case, you still necessarily have compositions, or am I misunderstanding something?
$endgroup$
– APR
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
In that case, you still necessarily have compositions, or am I misunderstanding something?
$endgroup$
– APR
3 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
There's an $infty$-categorical version: 2-Segal spaces in the sense of Dyckerhoff-Kapranov
$endgroup$
– Tim Campion
2 hours ago




$begingroup$
There's an $infty$-categorical version: 2-Segal spaces in the sense of Dyckerhoff-Kapranov
$endgroup$
– Tim Campion
2 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















5












$begingroup$

As Qiaochu says, one way to talk about categories with partially defined composition is to talk about categories enriched over the monoidal category $Par$ of sets and partial functions with the cartesian product (that is, the cartesian product in $Set$, which is not the cartesian product in $Par$). Since $Par$ is equivalent to the category of pointed sets with its monoidal smash product, where the basepoint in a pointed set is a formal way to represent "not defined", it is equivalent to talk about categories enriched over the latter.



A different notion of "category with partially defined composition" is called a paracategory. This has $n$-ary partial composition functions for all $n$, which are associative insofar as defined in an "unbiased" way. It was apparently defined by Peter Freyd in unpublished work, and studied further by Hermida and Mateus; see the references at the link.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$




















    0












    $begingroup$

    Jørgen Ellegaard Andersen calls this a "categroid". I'm not particularly fond of that term.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













      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: "504"
      ;
      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%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f327093%2fa-category-like-structure-without-composition%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      5












      $begingroup$

      As Qiaochu says, one way to talk about categories with partially defined composition is to talk about categories enriched over the monoidal category $Par$ of sets and partial functions with the cartesian product (that is, the cartesian product in $Set$, which is not the cartesian product in $Par$). Since $Par$ is equivalent to the category of pointed sets with its monoidal smash product, where the basepoint in a pointed set is a formal way to represent "not defined", it is equivalent to talk about categories enriched over the latter.



      A different notion of "category with partially defined composition" is called a paracategory. This has $n$-ary partial composition functions for all $n$, which are associative insofar as defined in an "unbiased" way. It was apparently defined by Peter Freyd in unpublished work, and studied further by Hermida and Mateus; see the references at the link.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$

















        5












        $begingroup$

        As Qiaochu says, one way to talk about categories with partially defined composition is to talk about categories enriched over the monoidal category $Par$ of sets and partial functions with the cartesian product (that is, the cartesian product in $Set$, which is not the cartesian product in $Par$). Since $Par$ is equivalent to the category of pointed sets with its monoidal smash product, where the basepoint in a pointed set is a formal way to represent "not defined", it is equivalent to talk about categories enriched over the latter.



        A different notion of "category with partially defined composition" is called a paracategory. This has $n$-ary partial composition functions for all $n$, which are associative insofar as defined in an "unbiased" way. It was apparently defined by Peter Freyd in unpublished work, and studied further by Hermida and Mateus; see the references at the link.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$















          5












          5








          5





          $begingroup$

          As Qiaochu says, one way to talk about categories with partially defined composition is to talk about categories enriched over the monoidal category $Par$ of sets and partial functions with the cartesian product (that is, the cartesian product in $Set$, which is not the cartesian product in $Par$). Since $Par$ is equivalent to the category of pointed sets with its monoidal smash product, where the basepoint in a pointed set is a formal way to represent "not defined", it is equivalent to talk about categories enriched over the latter.



          A different notion of "category with partially defined composition" is called a paracategory. This has $n$-ary partial composition functions for all $n$, which are associative insofar as defined in an "unbiased" way. It was apparently defined by Peter Freyd in unpublished work, and studied further by Hermida and Mateus; see the references at the link.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          As Qiaochu says, one way to talk about categories with partially defined composition is to talk about categories enriched over the monoidal category $Par$ of sets and partial functions with the cartesian product (that is, the cartesian product in $Set$, which is not the cartesian product in $Par$). Since $Par$ is equivalent to the category of pointed sets with its monoidal smash product, where the basepoint in a pointed set is a formal way to represent "not defined", it is equivalent to talk about categories enriched over the latter.



          A different notion of "category with partially defined composition" is called a paracategory. This has $n$-ary partial composition functions for all $n$, which are associative insofar as defined in an "unbiased" way. It was apparently defined by Peter Freyd in unpublished work, and studied further by Hermida and Mateus; see the references at the link.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered 2 hours ago









          Mike ShulmanMike Shulman

          37.8k485235




          37.8k485235





















              0












              $begingroup$

              Jørgen Ellegaard Andersen calls this a "categroid". I'm not particularly fond of that term.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$

















                0












                $begingroup$

                Jørgen Ellegaard Andersen calls this a "categroid". I'm not particularly fond of that term.






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$















                  0












                  0








                  0





                  $begingroup$

                  Jørgen Ellegaard Andersen calls this a "categroid". I'm not particularly fond of that term.






                  share|cite|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$



                  Jørgen Ellegaard Andersen calls this a "categroid". I'm not particularly fond of that term.







                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  edited 2 hours ago









                  Dan Petersen

                  26.1k277142




                  26.1k277142










                  answered 2 hours ago









                  Theo Johnson-FreydTheo Johnson-Freyd

                  29.8k881252




                  29.8k881252



























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded
















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


                      • 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.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f327093%2fa-category-like-structure-without-composition%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

                      Do these spellcasting foci from Xanathar's Guide to Everything have to be held in a hand?How do foci and somatic+material components interact when it comes to occupying a hand?Can you cast spells with a Somatic component if you're holding a two-handed weapon?Crafting an Improvised Spellcasting Focus?Can a multiclass Cleric/Warlock hold a Holy Shield and an Arcane Staff and still cast spells?Where should I report printing errors in Xanathar's Guide to Everything?Where can I purchase a legal Xanathar's Guide to Everything PDF?Can I use a hand holding a focus from one class to cover somatic components for a spell from another class?Do you need a “gameplay-wise” free hand to handle material components?Portent, as it relates to the Gambling downtime rules from Xanathar's Guide to EverythingWhat is the correct interpretation of the Gambling Results table in Xanathar's Guide to Everything?

                      Can I stretch or expand an entire standalone document to fit the page? The Next CEO of Stack Overflow

                      Why do some congregations only make noise at certain occasions of Haman?Purim and Shushan PurimParashat TzavSource to make noise when Haman's name is mentioned?Does anyone say not to make noise for Haman?Why is Megillat Esther the only one to receive a bracha after reading it?Why did Haman change his mind and decide to immediately hang Mordechai?Chazal empty barrels make the most noiseWhy is Megillat Esther the only Megillah that is still read from parchment?Why is v'acharei added in some siddurim?is there some significance in their relationship between Haman and Daniel?Why is only Purim to be celebrated “forever”?Why didn't Haman just kill Mordechai?