3 Mar
1997
3 Mar
'97
7:52 a.m.
To William James, You must be using a non-standard (philosophical?) definition of "monic", since it is obvious using the standard (mathematical) definition that a monic remains a monic in any subcategory containing it (to get unnecessarily technical, because it's given by a universally quantified Horn sentence). Could you tell us your definition? (For the record: f: A -> B is monic iff for all x,x':X -> A it x f x' f is the case that X -> A -> B = X -> A -> B implies x = x'.)