Talk:Isomorphism of categories

I deleted the last example, concerning the isomorphism of the category of sets and partial functions, Part, with the category of pointed sets, Set_*, because it is false. To see this, consider the isomorphism class of the null set in Part, it contains only the null set. On the other hand, each isomorphism class of Set_* contains more then 1 element. --128.232.250.244 20:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Contrast to equivalence

I already posted this in the article on equivalence:

Isomorphism of categories is a very strong condition and rarely satisfied in practice. Much more important is the notion of equivalence of categories; roughly speaking, for an equivalence of categories we don't require that FG(x) be equal to x, but only isomorphic to x in the category D, and likewise that GF(y) be isomorphic to y in C.

I think that the explanation in the appendix of H. Ehrig's "Fundamentals of algebraic graph transformation" gives a better idea of equivalence than that:

If C and D are isomorphic or equivalent then all “categorical” properties of C are shared by D,and vice versa. If C and D are isomorphic, then we have a bijection between objects and between morphisms of C and D. If they are only equivalent, then there is only a bijection of the corresponding isomorphism classes of objects and morphisms of C and D. However, the cardinalities of corresponding isomorphism classes may be different; for example all sets M with cardinality |M| = n are represented by the set M_n = { 0, ..., n−1 }. Taking the sets M_n (n ∈ N) as objects and all functions between these sets as morphisms, we obtain a category N, which is equivalent – but not isomorphic – to the category FinSets of all finite sets and functions between finite sets.

Shouldn't an explanation like this be included? The information that isomorphisms are rare doesn't explain the consequences of the weaker condition, after all. -- 188.192.81.230 (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)