17 Jan
2007
17 Jan
'07
4:11 p.m.
Yitzchak Gale wrote:
David House wrote:
I've added a bit more explanation, so it may now be palatable. It is quite a hard exercise, though, perhaps it shouldn't come so early on.
In my opinion, it is now much more clear. And it is a very instructive example.
If people still find it too hard, you could add the additional hint: Keep in mind that there are no morphisms other than the ones shown in the diagram.
Ok I understand it now, because David has just clarified offlist the thing that puzzled me about the diagram: namely that morphisms have an individuality of their own that isn't fully determined by the lhs and rhs of the arrow like the relationship between a function and its type. Brian. -- http://www.metamilk.com