q2K BHP
Black History Portal
THE BHP WIRE —
HIDDEN TRUTHS
What's New!
THE JOURNEY THROUGH TIME

Explore Black History

Explore the people, places, events, achievements, struggles and stories that shaped our journey.

✊🏾

Civil Rights

Movements, leaders, victories and the continuing fight for equality.

⚙️

Black Inventors

Innovation, patents, science, technology and world-changing contributions.

🏆

Sports

Pioneers, champions, Negro Leagues, records, activism and excellence.

♟️

People

Meet the people whose lives, choices and achievements shaped the journey.

📍

Places

Black towns, communities, institutions and places where history happened.

📜

Events

Moments that changed communities, movements, institutions and the nation.

Enter a person, place, event, or topic.
MY'STORY

The MOVE Fire

This is a personal recollection on the Move fire on May 13, 1985 Philadelphia police fired thousands of rounds at the MOVE house, city officials approved dropping an explosive device on the roof, the resulting fire was allowed to burn, 11 people—including five children—died, and 61 homes were destroyed. Philadelphia City Council later called it a “brutal attack carried out by the City of Philadelphia on its own citizens” and acknowledged that no individual faced criminal consequences for the bombing. One timeline correction worth preserving for the BHP record: the major previous MOVE-police confrontation was August 8, 1978, about seven years before the bombing, not a year or two earlier. Officer James Ramp was killed, other police and firefighters were wounded, nine MOVE members were later convicted, and television cameras recorded police beating Delbert Africa during his arrest. The 1985 MOVE Commission later specifically criticized city planners for failing to adequately use lessons from that 1978 confrontation. And that actually strengthens the point you’re making: 1985 did not happen without precedent or institutional memory. There had already been a deadly confrontation with MOVE, years of conflict, negotiations and police involvement before Osage Avenue.

MORE →
BLACK FACTS
The Truths They Never Taught You...

Katherine Johnson — Mathematics to the Moon

Katherine Johnson’s mathematical calculations helped guide some of America’s most important early space missions while she confronted the racial and gender barriers faced by Black women in twentieth-century America.

MORE →
BHP gathered finds from its connected research sources. Showing the 4 strongest Black History matches.
← BACK TO RESULTS
Wikipedia

Subobject classifier

In the mathematical field of category theory, a subobject classifier is a special object of a category such that, informally, the subobjects of any object correspond to the morphisms from to . This provides an analogue of the set of Booleans in categories other than the category of sets.

The main use of subobject classifiers is in topos theory, where an elementary topos is defined as a category with a subobject classifier and certain additional requirements. In the internal language of an elementary topos, the subobject classifier is used to interpret truth values, hence the alternative name “object of truth values”.

Introduction

[edit]

Let be a set. A subset can be equivalently described by its indicator function

Informally, subsets of can be identified with functions . A subobject classifier of a category is an object which plays a similar role as does in the category of sets: subobjects of an object can be identified with morphisms from to the subobject classifier. To recover the subset with indicator function in a “purely categorical way”, one can take a pullback

where the function from to is the inclusion map. Indeed, the subset , equipped with the inclusion map (and the unique, constant map ) is such a pullback because it has the correct universal property since a map into which gives the constant function 1 when composed with is the same as a map into .

Definition

[edit]

Let be a finitely complete category (we denote the terminal object by ). A subobject classifier in is an object together with a monomorphism [a] such that every monomorphism is uniquely a pullback of .[1] This means that for every monomorphism , there exists a unique morphism , called the characteristic function or classifying map of , such that the following diagram is a pullback square (where denotes the unique morphism into the terminal object ):

A commutative diagram with morphisms ! : Y → 1, true : 1 ↪ Ω, ι : Y ↪ X and χ_ι : X → Ω

Equivalently (assuming is locally small), a subobject classifier is an object which represents the subobject functor . That is, there exists a bijection, natural in , between subobjects of and morphisms . When starting from this definition, one can recover the monomorphism as the subobject of corresponding to the morphism .[2]

Further examples

[edit]

Sheaves of sets

[edit]

The category of sheaves of sets on a topological space X has a subobject classifier Ω which can be described as follows: For any open set U of X, Ω(U) is the set of all open subsets of U. The terminal object is the sheaf 1 which assigns the singleton {*} to every open set U of X. The morphism η:1 → Ω is given by the family of maps ηU : 1(U) → Ω(U) defined by ηU(*)=U for every open set U of X. Given a sheaf F on X and a sub-sheaf j: G → F, the classifying morphism χ j : F → Ω is given by the family of maps χ j,U : F(U) → Ω(U), where χ j,U(x) is the union of all open sets V of U such that the restriction of x to V (in the sense of sheaves) is contained in jV(G(V)).

Roughly speaking an assertion inside this topos is variably true or false, and its truth value from the viewpoint of an open subset U is the open subset of U where the assertion is true.

Presheaves

[edit]

Given a small category , the category of presheaves (i.e. the functor category consisting of all contravariant functors from to ) has a subobject classifer given by the functor sending any to the set of sieves on . The classifying morphisms are constructed quite similarly to the ones in the sheaves-of-sets example above.

Elementary topoi

[edit]

Both examples above are subsumed by the following general fact: every elementary topos, defined as a category with finite limits and power objects, necessarily has a subobject classifier.[3] The two examples above are Grothendieck topoi, and every Grothendieck topos is an elementary topos.

See also

[edit]
  • Quasitopos, a type of category with a strong subobject classifier, which only classifies strong subobjects

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ Every morphism out of the terminal object is automatically a monomorphism. This condition is included as a reminder that any pullback of will be a monomorphism.

Citations

[edit]
  1. ^ Mac Lane & Moerdijk 1992, p. 32.
  2. ^ Mac Lane & Moerdijk 1992, p. 33.
  3. ^ Pedicchio & Tholen (2004) p.8

References

[edit]
  • Artin, Michael; Alexander Grothendieck; Jean-Louis Verdier (1964). Séminaire de Géometrie Algébrique IV. Springer-Verlag.
  • Barr, Michael; Wells, Charles (1985). Toposes, Triples and Theories. Springer-Verlag. ISBN 0-387-96115-1.
  • Bell, John (1988). Toposes and Local Set Theories: an Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Goldblatt, Robert (1983). Topoi: The Categorial Analysis of Logic. North-Holland, Reprinted by Dover Publications, Inc (2006). ISBN 0-444-85207-7. Archived from the original on November 12, 2003.
  • Johnstone, Peter (2002). Sketches of an Elephant: A Topos Theory Compendium. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Johnstone, Peter (1977). Topos Theory. Academic Press. ISBN 0-12-387850-0.
  • Mac Lane, Saunders (1998). Categories for the Working Mathematician. Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Vol. 5 (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. ISBN 0-387-98403-8. Zbl 0906.18001.
  • Mac Lane, Saunders; Moerdijk, Ieke (1992). Sheaves in Geometry and Logic: a First Introduction to Topos Theory. Springer-Verlag. ISBN 0-387-97710-4.
  • McLarty, Colin (1992). Elementary Categories, Elementary Toposes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-853392-6.
  • Pedicchio, Maria Cristina; Tholen, Walter, eds. (2004). Categorical foundations. Special topics in order, topology, algebra, and sheaf theory. Encyclopedia of Mathematics and Its Applications. Vol. 97. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-83414-7. Zbl 1034.18001.
  • Taylor, Paul (1999). Practical Foundations of Mathematics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-63107-6.

Source: Wikipedia. Article content is retrieved live through the MediaWiki API.

No preview image
Wikipedia

Subobject classifier

In the mathematical field of category theory, a subobject classifier is a special object Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } of a category such that, informally, the subobjects of any object X {\displaystyle X} correspond to the morphisms from X {\displaystyle X} to Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } . This provides an analogue of the set of Booleans { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle \{0,1\}} in categories other than the category of sets. The main use of subobject classifiers is in topos theory, where an elementary topos is defined as a category with a subobject classifier and certain additional requirements. In the internal language of an elementary topos, the subobject classifier is used to interpret truth values, hence the alternative name “object of truth values”.

MORE →
No preview image
Wikipedia

Heyting algebra

In mathematics, a Heyting algebra (also known as pseudo-Boolean algebra) is a bounded lattice (with join and meet operations written ∨ and ∧ and with least element 0 and greatest element 1) equipped with a binary operation a → b called implication such that (c ∧ a) ≤ b is equivalent to c ≤ (a → b). In a Heyting algebra a ≤ b can be found to be equivalent to 1 ≤ a → b; i.e. if a ≤ b then a proves b. From a logical standpoint, A → B is by this definition the weakest proposition for which modus ponens, the inference rule A → B, A ⊢ B, is sound. Like Boolean algebras, Heyting algebras form a variety axiomatizable with finitely many equations. Heyting algebras were introduced in 1930 by Arend Heyting to formalize intuitionistic logic. Heyting algebras are distributive lattices. Every Boolean algebra is a Heyting algebra when a → b is defined as ¬a ∨ b, as is every complete distributive lattice satisfying a one-sided infinite distributive law when a → b is taken to be the supremum of the set of all c for which c ∧ a ≤ b. In the finite case, every nonempty distributive lattice, in particular every nonempty finite chain, is automatically complete and completely distributive, and hence a Heyting algebra. It follows from the definition that 1 ≤ 0 → a, corresponding to the intuition that any proposition a is implied by a contradiction 0. Although the negation operation ¬a is not part of the definition, it is definable as a → 0. The intuitive content of ¬a is the proposition that to assume a would lead to a contradiction. The definition implies that a ∧ ¬a = 0 (non-contradiction). It can further be shown that a ≤ ¬¬a, although the converse, ¬¬a ≤ a, is not true in general, that is, double negation elimination does not hold in general in a Heyting algebra. Heyting algebras generalize Boolean algebras in the sense that Boolean algebras are precisely the Heyting algebras satisfying a ∨ ¬a = 1 (excluded middle), equivalently ¬¬a = a. Those elements of a Heyting algebra H of the form ¬a comprise a Boolean lattice, but in general this is not a subalgebra of H (see below). Heyting algebras serve as the algebraic models of propositional intuitionistic logic in the same way Boolean algebras model propositional classical logic. The internal logic of an elementary topos is based on the Heyting algebra of subobjects of the terminal object 1 ordered by inclusion, equivalently the morphisms from 1 to the subobject classifier Ω. The open sets of any topological space form a complete Heyting algebra. Complete Heyting algebras thus become a central object of study in pointless topology. Every Heyting algebra whose set of non-greatest elements has a greatest element (and forms another Heyting algebra) is subdirectly irreducible, whence every Heyting algebra can be made subdirectly irreducible by adjoining a new greatest element. It follows that even among the finite Heyting algebras there exist infinitely many that are subdirectly irreducible, no two of which have the same equational theory. Hence no finite set of finite Heyting algebras can supply all the counterexamples to non-laws of Heyting algebra. This is in sharp contrast to Boolean algebras, whose only subdirectly irreducible one is the two-element one, which on its own therefore suffices for all counterexamples to non-laws of Boolean algebra, the basis for the simple truth table decision method. Nevertheless, it is decidable whether an equation holds of all Heyting algebras. Heyting algebras are less often called pseudo-Boolean algebras, or even Brouwer lattices, although the latter term may denote the dual definition, or have a slightly more general meaning.

MORE →
No preview image
Wikipedia

Fundamental theorem of topos theory

In mathematics, the fundamental theorem of topos theory states that the slice E / X {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} /X} of an elementary topos E {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} } over any one of its objects X {\displaystyle X} is itself a topos. Moreover, if there is a morphism f : A → B {\displaystyle f:A\rightarrow B} in E {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} } then there is a functor f ∗ : E / B → E / A {\displaystyle f^{*}:\mathbf {E} /B\rightarrow \mathbf {E} /A} which preserves exponentials and the subobject classifier.

MORE →
No preview image
Wikipedia

Quasitopos

In mathematics, specifically category theory, a quasitopos is a generalization of a topos. A topos has a subobject classifier classifying all subobjects, but in a quasitopos, only strong subobjects are classified. Quasitoposes are also required to be finitely cocomplete and locally cartesian closed. A solid quasitopos is one for which 0 is a strong subobject of 1.

MORE →
TOPIC OF THE DAY

Greenwood / Black Wall Street

Before the 1921 destruction of Tulsa’s Greenwood District, Black residents had created a remarkable center of business and community life. The district included stores, professional offices, entertainment venues and homes owned by Black citizens. Understanding Greenwood means learning what was built—not only what was burned.

MORE →
TRIVIA QUESTION OF THE DAY

Who became the first Black woman to travel into space?

Mae Jemison, aboard Space Shuttle Endeavour in 1992.