However, in some contexts these definitions are inadequate as they do not concord with well-established notions of subobject or quotient object. In the category of topological spaces, monomorphisms are precisely the injective continuous functions; but not all injective continuous functions are subspace embeddings. In the category of rings, the inclusion \mathbb{Z} \hookrightarrow \mathbb{Q} is an epimorphism but is not the quotient of \mathbb{Z} by a two-sided ideal. To get maps which truly behave like subobject embeddings or quotients, rather than as arbitrary injective functions or maps with dense image, one must restrict to monomorphisms and epimorphisms satisfying additional hypotheses. Therefore one might define a "subobject" to be an equivalence class of so-called "regular monomorphisms" (monomorphisms which can be expressed as an equalizer of two morphisms) and a "quotient object" to be any equivalence class of "regular epimorphisms" (morphisms which can be expressed as a coequalizer of two morphisms)
