basic difference between canonical isomorphism and isomorphimsRings and isomorphismIsomorphism between multiplicative and additive groups of realsIsomorphism between $mathbbT$ and $mathbbR^n/Gamma$?Isomorphism between $mathbb Q times C_2$ and $mathbb Q^*$Isomorphism between Fundamental Group and $mathbb Z$Isomorphism between $HK$ and $H⋊ K$Isomorphism between $Hom$ and $mathbbZ_n$Isomorphism between $bigwedge^k V$ and $bigwedge^n-k V^*$?Isomorphism between finite groupsFunctional equations and finding isomorphism between groups
can anyone help me with this awful query plan?
What happens to Mjolnir (Thor's hammer) at the end of Endgame?
Which big number is bigger?
Why was the Spitfire's elliptical wing almost uncopied by other aircraft of World War 2?
How exactly does Hawking radiation decrease the mass of black holes?
How did Captain America manage to do this?
Why does nature favour the Laplacian?
How much cash can I safely carry into the USA and avoid civil forfeiture?
Can SQL Server create collisions in system generated constraint names?
Checks user level and limit the data before saving it to mongoDB
How do I check if a string is entirely made of the same substring?
Was there a shared-world project before "Thieves World"?
Re-entry to Germany after vacation using blue card
How could Tony Stark make this in Endgame?
Check if a string is entirely made of the same substring
Retract an already submitted recommendation letter (written for an undergrad student)
How to denote matrix elements succinctly?
A Note on N!
Was there a Viking Exchange as well as a Columbian one?
What does the integral of a function times a function of a random variable represent, conceptually?
Rivers without rain
What causes platform events to fail to be published and should I cater for failed platform event creations?
"The cow" OR "a cow" OR "cows" in this context
Pre-plastic human skin alternative
basic difference between canonical isomorphism and isomorphims
Rings and isomorphismIsomorphism between multiplicative and additive groups of realsIsomorphism between $mathbbT$ and $mathbbR^n/Gamma$?Isomorphism between $mathbb Q times C_2$ and $mathbb Q^*$Isomorphism between Fundamental Group and $mathbb Z$Isomorphism between $HK$ and $H⋊ K$Isomorphism between $Hom$ and $mathbbZ_n$Isomorphism between $bigwedge^k V$ and $bigwedge^n-k V^*$?Isomorphism between finite groupsFunctional equations and finding isomorphism between groups
$begingroup$
What is the basic difference between canonical isomorphism and isomorphims?
I need some basic analysis.
As far as I consider on canonical isomorphism means a similarity between two geometric object having same kind of configuration and structure.
While isomorphism means a map between two algebraic object or group or fields etc.
But I am not satisfied with my own analysis.
Can someone help me understanding these two definitions ?
group-isomorphism
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
What is the basic difference between canonical isomorphism and isomorphims?
I need some basic analysis.
As far as I consider on canonical isomorphism means a similarity between two geometric object having same kind of configuration and structure.
While isomorphism means a map between two algebraic object or group or fields etc.
But I am not satisfied with my own analysis.
Can someone help me understanding these two definitions ?
group-isomorphism
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
A canonical isomorphism is a "normal" isomorphism with the implication that it is somehow "easy" for the human mind to come with that isomorphism. For example, the canonical isomorphism between any object $G$ and $G$ (yes, two times) is the identity.
$endgroup$
– SK19
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@SK19, In that case the identity map between $G$ to $G$ is also an isomorphism
$endgroup$
– M. A. SARKAR
11 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
Usually people refer to an isomorphism as being canonical if it does not involve any artificial choices. Often this amounts to saying that the isomorphism is part of a natural transformation between certain functors, if you are familiar with this language.
$endgroup$
– asdq
11 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
What is the basic difference between canonical isomorphism and isomorphims?
I need some basic analysis.
As far as I consider on canonical isomorphism means a similarity between two geometric object having same kind of configuration and structure.
While isomorphism means a map between two algebraic object or group or fields etc.
But I am not satisfied with my own analysis.
Can someone help me understanding these two definitions ?
group-isomorphism
$endgroup$
What is the basic difference between canonical isomorphism and isomorphims?
I need some basic analysis.
As far as I consider on canonical isomorphism means a similarity between two geometric object having same kind of configuration and structure.
While isomorphism means a map between two algebraic object or group or fields etc.
But I am not satisfied with my own analysis.
Can someone help me understanding these two definitions ?
group-isomorphism
group-isomorphism
asked 11 hours ago
M. A. SARKARM. A. SARKAR
1
1
3
$begingroup$
A canonical isomorphism is a "normal" isomorphism with the implication that it is somehow "easy" for the human mind to come with that isomorphism. For example, the canonical isomorphism between any object $G$ and $G$ (yes, two times) is the identity.
$endgroup$
– SK19
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@SK19, In that case the identity map between $G$ to $G$ is also an isomorphism
$endgroup$
– M. A. SARKAR
11 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
Usually people refer to an isomorphism as being canonical if it does not involve any artificial choices. Often this amounts to saying that the isomorphism is part of a natural transformation between certain functors, if you are familiar with this language.
$endgroup$
– asdq
11 hours ago
add a comment |
3
$begingroup$
A canonical isomorphism is a "normal" isomorphism with the implication that it is somehow "easy" for the human mind to come with that isomorphism. For example, the canonical isomorphism between any object $G$ and $G$ (yes, two times) is the identity.
$endgroup$
– SK19
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@SK19, In that case the identity map between $G$ to $G$ is also an isomorphism
$endgroup$
– M. A. SARKAR
11 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
Usually people refer to an isomorphism as being canonical if it does not involve any artificial choices. Often this amounts to saying that the isomorphism is part of a natural transformation between certain functors, if you are familiar with this language.
$endgroup$
– asdq
11 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
A canonical isomorphism is a "normal" isomorphism with the implication that it is somehow "easy" for the human mind to come with that isomorphism. For example, the canonical isomorphism between any object $G$ and $G$ (yes, two times) is the identity.
$endgroup$
– SK19
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
A canonical isomorphism is a "normal" isomorphism with the implication that it is somehow "easy" for the human mind to come with that isomorphism. For example, the canonical isomorphism between any object $G$ and $G$ (yes, two times) is the identity.
$endgroup$
– SK19
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@SK19, In that case the identity map between $G$ to $G$ is also an isomorphism
$endgroup$
– M. A. SARKAR
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@SK19, In that case the identity map between $G$ to $G$ is also an isomorphism
$endgroup$
– M. A. SARKAR
11 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
Usually people refer to an isomorphism as being canonical if it does not involve any artificial choices. Often this amounts to saying that the isomorphism is part of a natural transformation between certain functors, if you are familiar with this language.
$endgroup$
– asdq
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
Usually people refer to an isomorphism as being canonical if it does not involve any artificial choices. Often this amounts to saying that the isomorphism is part of a natural transformation between certain functors, if you are familiar with this language.
$endgroup$
– asdq
11 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Great question. Canonical is more a term of art than a word with a strict mathematical definition. It's sometimes used as a synonym for “natural” or “obvious,” although natural is yet another idiom and obvious is in the eye of the beholder. You might think of it as meaning independent of any choices.
It sounds like you're in an abstract algebra class now, but hopefully this linear algebra example will make sense. Let $V$ be a vector space over $mathbbR$ of dimension $n$. By choosing a basis $(v_1,dots,v_n)$, $V$ is isomorphic to $mathbbR^n$. What is the isomorphism? It takes $vin V$, decomposes it into $alpha_1 v_1 + dots + alpha_n v_n$, and assigns to $v$ the $n$-tuple $(alpha_1,dots,alpha_n)$.
Through the isomorphism to $mathbbR^n$, all vector spaces of the same dimension are isomorphic to each other, but not for any good reason, and not in any natural way. The isomorphism depends on the choice of basis.
Let $V^*$ be the dual space to $V$, that is, the vector space of linear functions $V to mathbbR$. Once you choose a basis of $(v_1,dots,v_n)$, you can form a dual basis $(lambda_1,dots,lambda_n)$ of $V^*$, such that $lambda_i(v_j) = delta_ij$. So $V$ and $V^*$ are isomorphic, but not canonically so.
Now let $V^**$ be the dual space of $V^*$. Elements of $V^**$ are linear functions from $V^*$ to $mathbbR$. One way to create such a map is to select $v in V$ and send $lambda in V^*$ to $lambda(v)$. This association extends to a linear map
$$
f colon V to V^**, f(v)(lambda) = lambda(v)
$$
By a dimension count, this map has to be an isomorphism. And, we didn't have to choose a basis to create it. For this reason, we say that $V$ and $V^**$ are canonically isomorphic.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Or canonical as "given by definition", such as the projections $Atimes Bto A$ and $Atimes Bto B$, which are part of the definition of $times $ via universal property.(Note that by this have two distinct canonical maps $Atimes Ato A$!)
$endgroup$
– Hagen von Eitzen
38 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I agree with @MatthewLeingang that this is an excellent question. A canonical isomorphism is one that comes along with the structures you are investigating, requiring no arbitrary choices. Here's another example from abstract algebra.
Whenever you have a surjective group homomorphism $sigma: G to H$ there is a natural isomorphism
$$
phi : G/(ker sigma) to H
$$
defined by setting $phi (C) = sigma(g)$ for any $g in C$. Here $C$ is a coset of the kernel of $sigma$ and the value of $phi$ is independent of the choice of $g in C$.
When $sigma$ is not surjective this defines a canonical injective homomorphism.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I agree with your example, but could you say a sentence or two about what you see in it as being canonical? Why is that particular map the one to choose?
$endgroup$
– Santana Afton
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@SantanaAfton The map is an integral part of the definition of quotient (or cokernel), hence canonical (given $sigma$)
$endgroup$
– Hagen von Eitzen
37 mins ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
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
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3203028%2fbasic-difference-between-canonical-isomorphism-and-isomorphims%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
$begingroup$
Great question. Canonical is more a term of art than a word with a strict mathematical definition. It's sometimes used as a synonym for “natural” or “obvious,” although natural is yet another idiom and obvious is in the eye of the beholder. You might think of it as meaning independent of any choices.
It sounds like you're in an abstract algebra class now, but hopefully this linear algebra example will make sense. Let $V$ be a vector space over $mathbbR$ of dimension $n$. By choosing a basis $(v_1,dots,v_n)$, $V$ is isomorphic to $mathbbR^n$. What is the isomorphism? It takes $vin V$, decomposes it into $alpha_1 v_1 + dots + alpha_n v_n$, and assigns to $v$ the $n$-tuple $(alpha_1,dots,alpha_n)$.
Through the isomorphism to $mathbbR^n$, all vector spaces of the same dimension are isomorphic to each other, but not for any good reason, and not in any natural way. The isomorphism depends on the choice of basis.
Let $V^*$ be the dual space to $V$, that is, the vector space of linear functions $V to mathbbR$. Once you choose a basis of $(v_1,dots,v_n)$, you can form a dual basis $(lambda_1,dots,lambda_n)$ of $V^*$, such that $lambda_i(v_j) = delta_ij$. So $V$ and $V^*$ are isomorphic, but not canonically so.
Now let $V^**$ be the dual space of $V^*$. Elements of $V^**$ are linear functions from $V^*$ to $mathbbR$. One way to create such a map is to select $v in V$ and send $lambda in V^*$ to $lambda(v)$. This association extends to a linear map
$$
f colon V to V^**, f(v)(lambda) = lambda(v)
$$
By a dimension count, this map has to be an isomorphism. And, we didn't have to choose a basis to create it. For this reason, we say that $V$ and $V^**$ are canonically isomorphic.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Or canonical as "given by definition", such as the projections $Atimes Bto A$ and $Atimes Bto B$, which are part of the definition of $times $ via universal property.(Note that by this have two distinct canonical maps $Atimes Ato A$!)
$endgroup$
– Hagen von Eitzen
38 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Great question. Canonical is more a term of art than a word with a strict mathematical definition. It's sometimes used as a synonym for “natural” or “obvious,” although natural is yet another idiom and obvious is in the eye of the beholder. You might think of it as meaning independent of any choices.
It sounds like you're in an abstract algebra class now, but hopefully this linear algebra example will make sense. Let $V$ be a vector space over $mathbbR$ of dimension $n$. By choosing a basis $(v_1,dots,v_n)$, $V$ is isomorphic to $mathbbR^n$. What is the isomorphism? It takes $vin V$, decomposes it into $alpha_1 v_1 + dots + alpha_n v_n$, and assigns to $v$ the $n$-tuple $(alpha_1,dots,alpha_n)$.
Through the isomorphism to $mathbbR^n$, all vector spaces of the same dimension are isomorphic to each other, but not for any good reason, and not in any natural way. The isomorphism depends on the choice of basis.
Let $V^*$ be the dual space to $V$, that is, the vector space of linear functions $V to mathbbR$. Once you choose a basis of $(v_1,dots,v_n)$, you can form a dual basis $(lambda_1,dots,lambda_n)$ of $V^*$, such that $lambda_i(v_j) = delta_ij$. So $V$ and $V^*$ are isomorphic, but not canonically so.
Now let $V^**$ be the dual space of $V^*$. Elements of $V^**$ are linear functions from $V^*$ to $mathbbR$. One way to create such a map is to select $v in V$ and send $lambda in V^*$ to $lambda(v)$. This association extends to a linear map
$$
f colon V to V^**, f(v)(lambda) = lambda(v)
$$
By a dimension count, this map has to be an isomorphism. And, we didn't have to choose a basis to create it. For this reason, we say that $V$ and $V^**$ are canonically isomorphic.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Or canonical as "given by definition", such as the projections $Atimes Bto A$ and $Atimes Bto B$, which are part of the definition of $times $ via universal property.(Note that by this have two distinct canonical maps $Atimes Ato A$!)
$endgroup$
– Hagen von Eitzen
38 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Great question. Canonical is more a term of art than a word with a strict mathematical definition. It's sometimes used as a synonym for “natural” or “obvious,” although natural is yet another idiom and obvious is in the eye of the beholder. You might think of it as meaning independent of any choices.
It sounds like you're in an abstract algebra class now, but hopefully this linear algebra example will make sense. Let $V$ be a vector space over $mathbbR$ of dimension $n$. By choosing a basis $(v_1,dots,v_n)$, $V$ is isomorphic to $mathbbR^n$. What is the isomorphism? It takes $vin V$, decomposes it into $alpha_1 v_1 + dots + alpha_n v_n$, and assigns to $v$ the $n$-tuple $(alpha_1,dots,alpha_n)$.
Through the isomorphism to $mathbbR^n$, all vector spaces of the same dimension are isomorphic to each other, but not for any good reason, and not in any natural way. The isomorphism depends on the choice of basis.
Let $V^*$ be the dual space to $V$, that is, the vector space of linear functions $V to mathbbR$. Once you choose a basis of $(v_1,dots,v_n)$, you can form a dual basis $(lambda_1,dots,lambda_n)$ of $V^*$, such that $lambda_i(v_j) = delta_ij$. So $V$ and $V^*$ are isomorphic, but not canonically so.
Now let $V^**$ be the dual space of $V^*$. Elements of $V^**$ are linear functions from $V^*$ to $mathbbR$. One way to create such a map is to select $v in V$ and send $lambda in V^*$ to $lambda(v)$. This association extends to a linear map
$$
f colon V to V^**, f(v)(lambda) = lambda(v)
$$
By a dimension count, this map has to be an isomorphism. And, we didn't have to choose a basis to create it. For this reason, we say that $V$ and $V^**$ are canonically isomorphic.
$endgroup$
Great question. Canonical is more a term of art than a word with a strict mathematical definition. It's sometimes used as a synonym for “natural” or “obvious,” although natural is yet another idiom and obvious is in the eye of the beholder. You might think of it as meaning independent of any choices.
It sounds like you're in an abstract algebra class now, but hopefully this linear algebra example will make sense. Let $V$ be a vector space over $mathbbR$ of dimension $n$. By choosing a basis $(v_1,dots,v_n)$, $V$ is isomorphic to $mathbbR^n$. What is the isomorphism? It takes $vin V$, decomposes it into $alpha_1 v_1 + dots + alpha_n v_n$, and assigns to $v$ the $n$-tuple $(alpha_1,dots,alpha_n)$.
Through the isomorphism to $mathbbR^n$, all vector spaces of the same dimension are isomorphic to each other, but not for any good reason, and not in any natural way. The isomorphism depends on the choice of basis.
Let $V^*$ be the dual space to $V$, that is, the vector space of linear functions $V to mathbbR$. Once you choose a basis of $(v_1,dots,v_n)$, you can form a dual basis $(lambda_1,dots,lambda_n)$ of $V^*$, such that $lambda_i(v_j) = delta_ij$. So $V$ and $V^*$ are isomorphic, but not canonically so.
Now let $V^**$ be the dual space of $V^*$. Elements of $V^**$ are linear functions from $V^*$ to $mathbbR$. One way to create such a map is to select $v in V$ and send $lambda in V^*$ to $lambda(v)$. This association extends to a linear map
$$
f colon V to V^**, f(v)(lambda) = lambda(v)
$$
By a dimension count, this map has to be an isomorphism. And, we didn't have to choose a basis to create it. For this reason, we say that $V$ and $V^**$ are canonically isomorphic.
edited 7 hours ago
answered 11 hours ago
Matthew LeingangMatthew Leingang
17k12244
17k12244
$begingroup$
Or canonical as "given by definition", such as the projections $Atimes Bto A$ and $Atimes Bto B$, which are part of the definition of $times $ via universal property.(Note that by this have two distinct canonical maps $Atimes Ato A$!)
$endgroup$
– Hagen von Eitzen
38 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Or canonical as "given by definition", such as the projections $Atimes Bto A$ and $Atimes Bto B$, which are part of the definition of $times $ via universal property.(Note that by this have two distinct canonical maps $Atimes Ato A$!)
$endgroup$
– Hagen von Eitzen
38 mins ago
$begingroup$
Or canonical as "given by definition", such as the projections $Atimes Bto A$ and $Atimes Bto B$, which are part of the definition of $times $ via universal property.(Note that by this have two distinct canonical maps $Atimes Ato A$!)
$endgroup$
– Hagen von Eitzen
38 mins ago
$begingroup$
Or canonical as "given by definition", such as the projections $Atimes Bto A$ and $Atimes Bto B$, which are part of the definition of $times $ via universal property.(Note that by this have two distinct canonical maps $Atimes Ato A$!)
$endgroup$
– Hagen von Eitzen
38 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I agree with @MatthewLeingang that this is an excellent question. A canonical isomorphism is one that comes along with the structures you are investigating, requiring no arbitrary choices. Here's another example from abstract algebra.
Whenever you have a surjective group homomorphism $sigma: G to H$ there is a natural isomorphism
$$
phi : G/(ker sigma) to H
$$
defined by setting $phi (C) = sigma(g)$ for any $g in C$. Here $C$ is a coset of the kernel of $sigma$ and the value of $phi$ is independent of the choice of $g in C$.
When $sigma$ is not surjective this defines a canonical injective homomorphism.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I agree with your example, but could you say a sentence or two about what you see in it as being canonical? Why is that particular map the one to choose?
$endgroup$
– Santana Afton
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@SantanaAfton The map is an integral part of the definition of quotient (or cokernel), hence canonical (given $sigma$)
$endgroup$
– Hagen von Eitzen
37 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I agree with @MatthewLeingang that this is an excellent question. A canonical isomorphism is one that comes along with the structures you are investigating, requiring no arbitrary choices. Here's another example from abstract algebra.
Whenever you have a surjective group homomorphism $sigma: G to H$ there is a natural isomorphism
$$
phi : G/(ker sigma) to H
$$
defined by setting $phi (C) = sigma(g)$ for any $g in C$. Here $C$ is a coset of the kernel of $sigma$ and the value of $phi$ is independent of the choice of $g in C$.
When $sigma$ is not surjective this defines a canonical injective homomorphism.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I agree with your example, but could you say a sentence or two about what you see in it as being canonical? Why is that particular map the one to choose?
$endgroup$
– Santana Afton
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@SantanaAfton The map is an integral part of the definition of quotient (or cokernel), hence canonical (given $sigma$)
$endgroup$
– Hagen von Eitzen
37 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I agree with @MatthewLeingang that this is an excellent question. A canonical isomorphism is one that comes along with the structures you are investigating, requiring no arbitrary choices. Here's another example from abstract algebra.
Whenever you have a surjective group homomorphism $sigma: G to H$ there is a natural isomorphism
$$
phi : G/(ker sigma) to H
$$
defined by setting $phi (C) = sigma(g)$ for any $g in C$. Here $C$ is a coset of the kernel of $sigma$ and the value of $phi$ is independent of the choice of $g in C$.
When $sigma$ is not surjective this defines a canonical injective homomorphism.
$endgroup$
I agree with @MatthewLeingang that this is an excellent question. A canonical isomorphism is one that comes along with the structures you are investigating, requiring no arbitrary choices. Here's another example from abstract algebra.
Whenever you have a surjective group homomorphism $sigma: G to H$ there is a natural isomorphism
$$
phi : G/(ker sigma) to H
$$
defined by setting $phi (C) = sigma(g)$ for any $g in C$. Here $C$ is a coset of the kernel of $sigma$ and the value of $phi$ is independent of the choice of $g in C$.
When $sigma$ is not surjective this defines a canonical injective homomorphism.
answered 7 hours ago
Ethan BolkerEthan Bolker
46.9k555122
46.9k555122
$begingroup$
I agree with your example, but could you say a sentence or two about what you see in it as being canonical? Why is that particular map the one to choose?
$endgroup$
– Santana Afton
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@SantanaAfton The map is an integral part of the definition of quotient (or cokernel), hence canonical (given $sigma$)
$endgroup$
– Hagen von Eitzen
37 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I agree with your example, but could you say a sentence or two about what you see in it as being canonical? Why is that particular map the one to choose?
$endgroup$
– Santana Afton
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@SantanaAfton The map is an integral part of the definition of quotient (or cokernel), hence canonical (given $sigma$)
$endgroup$
– Hagen von Eitzen
37 mins ago
$begingroup$
I agree with your example, but could you say a sentence or two about what you see in it as being canonical? Why is that particular map the one to choose?
$endgroup$
– Santana Afton
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I agree with your example, but could you say a sentence or two about what you see in it as being canonical? Why is that particular map the one to choose?
$endgroup$
– Santana Afton
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@SantanaAfton The map is an integral part of the definition of quotient (or cokernel), hence canonical (given $sigma$)
$endgroup$
– Hagen von Eitzen
37 mins ago
$begingroup$
@SantanaAfton The map is an integral part of the definition of quotient (or cokernel), hence canonical (given $sigma$)
$endgroup$
– Hagen von Eitzen
37 mins ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- 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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3203028%2fbasic-difference-between-canonical-isomorphism-and-isomorphims%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
3
$begingroup$
A canonical isomorphism is a "normal" isomorphism with the implication that it is somehow "easy" for the human mind to come with that isomorphism. For example, the canonical isomorphism between any object $G$ and $G$ (yes, two times) is the identity.
$endgroup$
– SK19
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@SK19, In that case the identity map between $G$ to $G$ is also an isomorphism
$endgroup$
– M. A. SARKAR
11 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
Usually people refer to an isomorphism as being canonical if it does not involve any artificial choices. Often this amounts to saying that the isomorphism is part of a natural transformation between certain functors, if you are familiar with this language.
$endgroup$
– asdq
11 hours ago