Author:
(1) Thierry Boy de la Tour, Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, LIG 38000 Grenoble, France. Author: Author: (1) Thierry Boy de la Tour, Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, LIG 38000 Grenoble, France. Table of Links Abstract and 1 Introduction Abstract and 1 Introduction 2 Basic Definitions and Notations 2.1 Sets 2.1 Sets 2.2 Sequences 2.2 Sequences 2.3 Signatures and Algebras and 2.4 Categories 2.3 Signatures and Algebras and 2.4 Categories 3 Monographs and their Morphisms 3 Monographs and their Morphisms 4 Limits and Colimits 4 Limits and Colimits 5 Drawing Monographs 5 Drawing Monographs 6 Graph Structures and Typed Monographs 6 Graph Structures and Typed Monographs 7 Submonographs and Partial Morphisms 7 Submonographs and Partial Morphisms 8 Algebraic Transformations of Monographs 8 Algebraic Transformations of Monographs 9 Attributed Typed Monographs 9 Attributed Typed Monographs 10 Conclusion and References 10 Conclusion and References 5 Drawing Monographs It is sometimes necessary to name the edges in a drawing. We may then adopt the convention sometimes used for drawing diagrams in a category: the bullets are replaced by the names of the corresponding nodes, and arrows are interrupted to write their name at a place free from crossing, as in Note that no confusion is possible between the names of nodes and those of other edges, e.g., in it is clear that x and z are nodes since arrow tips point to them, and that y is the name of an edge of length 3. One particularity of monographs is that edges can be adjacent to themselves, as in Of course, knowing that a is a morphism sometimes allows to deduce the type of an edge, possibly from the types of adjacent edges. In the present case, indicating a single type would have been enough to deduce all the others. In particular applications it may be convenient to adopt completely different ways of drawing (typed) monographs. 6 Graph Structures and Typed Monographs The next lemma is central as it shows that no graph structure is omitted by the functor S if we allow sort-preserving isomorphisms of graph structures. We assume the Axiom of Choice through its equivalent formulation known as the Numeration Theorem [5]. It is therefore clear that if S were full it would be an equivalence of categories, but this is not the case as we now illustrate on graphs. The type indicated by the syntax (and consistent with the drawings of E-graphs in [2]) is of course T1. The type indicated by the syntax (and consistent with the drawings of E-graphs in [2]) is of course T1. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license. available on arxiv

Part of HackerNoon's growing list of open-source research papers, promoting free access to academic material.

Abstract

Theorem

Partial Morphisms and Their Impact on Monograph Theory

A Structural Analysis of Limits and Colimits in Monographs 

Read My Stories

Too Long; Didn't Read

Boost your HackerNoon story @ $159.99! 🚀

A Guide to Naming and Mapping Monographs

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

A Structural Analysis of Limits and Colimits in Monographs

The Algebra of Everything

The Building Blocks of Graph Structures

How Monographs Unify Graph Structures

A Structural Analysis of Limits and Colimits in Monographs

Partial Morphisms and Their Impact on Monograph Theory

A Structural Analysis of Limits and Colimits in Monographs

The Algebra of Everything

The Building Blocks of Graph Structures

How Monographs Unify Graph Structures

A Structural Analysis of Limits and Colimits in Monographs

Partial Morphisms and Their Impact on Monograph Theory

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps