Hubbry Logo
Commutative diagramCommutative diagramMain
Open search
Commutative diagram
Community hub
Commutative diagram
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Commutative diagram
Commutative diagram
from Wikipedia
The commutative diagram used in the proof of the five lemma

In mathematics, and especially in category theory, a commutative diagram is a diagram such that all directed paths in the diagram with the same start and endpoints lead to the same result.[1] It is said that commutative diagrams play the role in category theory that equations play in algebra.[2]

Description

[edit]

A commutative diagram often consists of three parts:

  • objects (also known as vertices)
  • morphisms (also known as arrows or edges)
  • paths or composites

Arrow symbols

[edit]

In algebra texts, the type of morphism can be denoted with different arrow usages:

  • A monomorphism may be labeled with a [3] or a .[4]
  • An epimorphism may be labeled with a .
  • An isomorphism may be labeled with a .
  • The dashed arrow typically represents the claim that the indicated morphism exists (whenever the rest of the diagram holds); the arrow may be optionally labeled as .
    • If the morphism is in addition unique, then the dashed arrow may be labeled or .
  • If the morphism acts between two arrows (such as in the case of higher category theory), it's called preferably a natural transformation and may be labelled as (as seen below in this article).

The meanings of different arrows are not entirely standardized: the arrows used for monomorphisms, epimorphisms, and isomorphisms are also used for injections, surjections, and bijections, as well as the cofibrations, fibrations, and weak equivalences in a model category.

Verifying commutativity

[edit]

Commutativity makes sense for a polygon of any finite number of sides (including just 1 or 2), and a diagram is commutative if every polygonal subdiagram is commutative.

Note that a diagram may be non-commutative, i.e., the composition of different paths in the diagram may not give the same result.

Examples

[edit]

Example 1

[edit]

In the left diagram, which expresses the first isomorphism theorem, commutativity of the triangle means that . In the right diagram, commutativity of the square means .

Example 2

[edit]

In order for the diagram below to commute, three equalities must be satisfied:

Here, since the first equality follows from the last two, it suffices to show that (2) and (3) are true in order for the diagram to commute. However, since equality (3) generally does not follow from the other two, it is generally not enough to have only equalities (1) and (2) if one were to show that the diagram commutes.

Diagram chasing

[edit]

Diagram chasing (also called diagrammatic search) is a method of mathematical proof used especially in homological algebra, where one establishes a property of some morphism by tracing the elements of a commutative diagram. A proof by diagram chasing typically involves the formal use of the properties of the diagram, such as injective or surjective maps, or exact sequences.[5] A syllogism is constructed, for which the graphical display of the diagram is just a visual aid. It follows that one ends up "chasing" elements around the diagram, until the desired element or result is constructed or verified.

Examples of proofs by diagram chasing include those typically given for the five lemma, the snake lemma, the zig-zag lemma, and the nine lemma.

In higher category theory

[edit]

In higher category theory, one considers not only objects and arrows, but arrows between the arrows, arrows between arrows between arrows, and so on ad infinitum. For example, the category of small categories Cat is naturally a 2-category, with functors as its arrows and natural transformations as the arrows between functors. In this setting, commutative diagrams may include these higher arrows as well, which are often depicted in the following style: . For example, the following (somewhat trivial) diagram depicts two categories C and D, together with two functors F, G : CD and a natural transformation α : FG:

There are two kinds of composition in a 2-category (called vertical composition and horizontal composition), and they may also be depicted via pasting diagrams (see 2-category#Definitions for examples).

Diagrams as functors

[edit]

A commutative diagram in a category C can be interpreted as a functor from an index category J to C; one calls the functor a diagram.

More formally, a commutative diagram is a visualization of a diagram indexed by a poset category. Such a diagram typically includes:

  • a node for every object in the index category,
  • an arrow for a generating set of morphisms (omitting identity maps and morphisms that can be expressed as compositions),
  • the commutativity of the diagram (the equality of different compositions of maps between two objects), corresponding to the uniqueness of a map between two objects in a poset category.

Conversely, given a commutative diagram, it defines a poset category, where:

  • the objects are the nodes,
  • there is a morphism between any two objects if and only if there is a (directed) path between the nodes,
  • with the relation that this morphism is unique (any composition of maps is defined by its domain and target: this is the commutativity axiom).

However, not every diagram commutes (the notion of diagram strictly generalizes commutative diagram). As a simple example, the diagram of a single object with an endomorphism (), or with two parallel arrows (, that is, , sometimes called the free quiver), as used in the definition of equalizer need not commute. Further, diagrams may be messy or impossible to draw, when the number of objects or morphisms is large (or even infinite).

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Bibliography

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
A commutative diagram in is a consisting of objects (vertices) and s (arrows) such that, for any two objects, the composition of s along every pair of paths connecting them results in the same . This commutativity condition ensures that the diagram captures consistent relational structures without ambiguity in how elements are mapped between objects. Commutative diagrams form a foundational tool in , serving as a visual and precise language for expressing abstract relationships, much like equations in algebraic contexts. They are indispensable for defining key concepts such as limits, colimits, products, coproducts, pullbacks, and pushouts, where the universal mapping properties are verified through commuting triangles or squares. Additionally, they illustrate the behavior of functors between categories and the naturality of transformations, enabling diagram chasing techniques to prove isomorphisms and equivalences. Beyond pure mathematics, commutative diagrams find applications in fields like , , and , where they model type systems, rules, and structural proofs in programming languages. Their graphical nature facilitates intuition and rigor, allowing mathematicians and computer scientists to abstract and unify diverse constructions across disciplines.

Fundamentals

Definition

In , a commutative diagram is a visual representation of objects and s within a category such that the composition of morphisms along any two distinct paths connecting the same pair of objects yields the same resulting . This ensures that the diagram encodes equalities of composite morphisms independently of the chosen path, providing a concise way to express structural relationships without explicit computation of each composition. Such diagrams typically depict objects as vertices and morphisms as directed arrows between them. Commutativity implies path independence: for any two paths from an object AA to an object BB, the composite morphisms must be identical in the category. This property captures the essence of relational equalities in categorical structures, where the diagram serves as a for verifying that multiple ways of mapping between objects are consistent. Formally, a commutative diagram is defined via a D:JCD: J \to C, where JJ is a small index category (often a finite graph viewed as a free category) and CC is the ambient category. The diagram commutes if, for every pair of parallel arrows (morphisms with the same domain and codomain) in JJ, their images under DD are equal in CC; more generally, all composite morphisms along parallel paths in JJ map to equal composites in CC. Equivalently, in the elementary sense, if JJ consists of vertices VV and edges EE, then DD assigns objects of CC to vertices and morphisms of CC to edges (preserving sources and targets), and the diagram is commutative precisely when the composite D(p)=D(p)D(p) = D(p') for any two paths p,pp, p' in JJ from a vertex xx to a vertex yy. The concept of commutative diagrams was popularized in the category theory literature of the 1940s and 1950s through the foundational works of and , with early documented uses appearing in the 1945 paper by and titled "A General Theory of Natural Equivalences," and further developed in Mac Lane's 1963 monograph "Homology".

Notation and Symbols

In commutative diagrams, morphisms between objects are typically represented by solid arrows, such as \to or \rightarrow, with labels indicating the specific map, for example, f:ABf: A \to B. Dashed arrows, denoted by \dashedrightarrow\dashedrightarrow or similar, are conventionally used to indicate implied, hypothetical, or uniquely determined morphisms, often in the context of universal properties where existence is asserted but not explicitly constructed. These arrows ensure visual distinction between given structure and derived elements, promoting clarity in diagram interpretation. Common diagram shapes include squares, which depict two parallel pairs of morphisms whose compositions must equalize; triangles, representing triangular identities or cone structures; and polygons, such as pentagons or hexagons, for more intricate relations involving multiple paths. These geometric configurations are arranged to visually encode the requirement that all paths between two objects yield the same composite , with objects positioned at vertices and arrows along edges. For rendering these diagrams, LaTeX-based tools like TikZ with its tikz-cd extension provide precise control over arrow styles, labels, and layouts, generating high-quality output suitable for mathematical publications. Similarly, the xy-pic package specializes in category-theoretic diagrams, supporting complex arrow decorations and positional logic for automated alignment. Graphviz offers an alternative for automated rendering of directed graphs, including commutative structures, through its DOT language, which excels in handling larger or algorithmic diagram generation. A notable variation in notation involves double arrows, such as \Rightarrow, to denote transformations between functors, briefly introducing a layer above ordinary morphisms without delving into higher categorical .

Commutativity Verification

To verify the commutativity of a in a category, one follows a systematic process that begins with identifying all directed paths between any pair of objects in the diagram. For each such pair, the composite morphisms along these paths must be computed and shown to be equal; for instance, in a triangular diagram with morphisms f:ABf: A \to B, g:BCg: B \to C, and h:ACh: A \to C, commutativity requires gf=hg \circ f = h. This path-by-path equality check ensures that the diagram factors through a preorder where parallel paths are identified, as formalized in the elementary definition of a commutative . Algebraic verification often leverages properties inherent to categorical structures, such as functoriality, to establish equalities without explicit path computations. Functors preserve the commutativity of by mapping objects and morphisms while maintaining composition and identities, so if a commutes in the source category, its under a commutes in the target category; this is particularly useful for naturality squares of natural transformations, where commutativity follows directly from the . Associativity of composition further aids in rearranging paths to match known equalities, reducing the need for direct calculation in larger . Common pitfalls in verification arise when the underlying lacks full categorical , such as in mere sets without specified composition, where paths may not yield well-defined composites, leading to non-commutativity unless additional relations are imposed. In diagrams with cycles, overlooking the requirement for identity morphisms along loops can cause inconsistencies, as compositions must return to the starting object unchanged. Similarly, fork structures (e.g., two morphisms from a ) demand outright equality of the morphisms, not merely post-composition with a common target, to avoid subtle failures in factorization. Detecting such issues involves checking for unresolved parallel paths or violations of conditions. For practical verification, especially in finite or concrete categories, matrix representations provide a computational approach: in finite-dimensional vector spaces, morphisms are represented as matrices, and commutativity reduces to equality of matrix products along paths, verifiable via linear algebra software. In formal settings, proof assistants like Coq enable rigorous checks through libraries that automate diagram chasing and commutativity proofs; for example, a Coq-based system uses tactics to synthesize and verify equalities in 1-categories by embedding diagrams as quivers and resolving the "commerge" problem for acyclic cases. These tools ensure decidability and reliability for complex verifications.

Examples

Basic Algebraic Examples

One foundational example of a commutative diagram arises in the context of group homomorphisms, particularly through short exact sequences. Consider the sequence 0AiBpC00 \to A \xrightarrow{i} B \xrightarrow{p} C \to 0
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.