Alphabeta Math
How statement and proof provenance work

The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.

  • Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
  • AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
  • AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.

These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.

✓ 28 results · all verified · 12 also independently AI-judged
Every result on this page is machine-checked by a proof checker and read in full and owner-audited; the judge is an additional, independent cross-model AI review of the proofs. The 16 not AI-judged were verified by owner audit (typically over a confirmed judge false positive), not failures.

The Diagram Lemmas in an Abelian Category

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

This page packages the standard diagram lemmas in the order that actually drives later proofs: first the short five lemma, then the snake lemma and its connecting morphism, and only afterwards the four, five, and nine lemmas that are built on top of that exact-sequence machinery.

Two proof routes are kept visible on purpose. The opening short five lemma is proved once with the member calculus and once without it, while the connecting morphism itself is constructed arrow-theoretically from pullbacks, pushouts, and universal properties. That is the point of the page: members are useful, but the underlying arguments live entirely inside an arbitrary abelian category.

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-30Open item page →

Short five lemma in an abelian category

Statement

Consider a morphism of short exact sequences in an abelian category

0ABC00A0B0C00ifpghi0p0

Then:

  1. if f and h are monic, then g is monic;
  2. if f and h are epic, then g is epic;
  3. if f and h are isomorphisms, then g is an isomorphism.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The commutative diagram in the statement, with both rows short exact.

[L1]

Monicity is equivalent to cancellation on members (Monicity by member cancellation).

[L3]

Exactness at a node is equivalent to the member-lifting condition (Exactness is detected by members).

[L4]

Equivalent members admit representatives on a common epic domain. The pullback refinement used for transitivity puts any finite family of such witnesses on one common epic domain, where hom-sets are abelian groups (Equivalence of members, Member equivalence is transitive, Abelian category).

[L5]

The opposite of an abelian category is abelian, and an abelian category is balanced (The opposite of an abelian category is abelian, An abelian category is balanced).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1L1L3L4assume-hypchooseconstructalgebra

Assume that f and h are monic. Let y:Y→B and y′:Y′→B be members with gy≡gy′. By [L4], choose epimorphisms u:T→Y and v:T→Y′ such that gyu=gy′v, and define the member z:=yu−y′v:T→B. Then gz=0. Since hpz=p′gz=0 and h is monic, [L1] gives pz≡0. Exactness of the top row at B now gives a member x of A with ix≡z by [L3].

2.1L1L3L4step 1.1algebra

Since the bottom row is short exact, i′ is monic. From i′fx=gix≡gz=0 and the monicity of i′ and f, [L1] gives x≡0, hence z≡ix≡0. By [L4], after an epic refinement of T the equality z=yu−y′v=0 is literal, so the resulting common epic representatives witness y≡y′. Thus [L1] makes g monic.

3.1L5step 1.1step 2.1

If f and h are epic in the original diagram, then fop and hop are monic in the opposite abelian category. Applying steps 1.1 and 2.1 to the opposite morphism of short exact sequences makes gop monic, so g is epic.

4.1L5step 2.1step 3.1∎

If f and h are isomorphisms, they are in particular monic and epic. Steps 2.1 and 3.1 make g both monic and epic, so [L5] makes g an isomorphism.

CorollaryStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-08-30Open item page →

A morphism of short exact sequences with invertible outer maps is invertible

Statement

In a morphism of short exact sequences in an abelian category, if the left and right vertical maps are isomorphisms, then the middle vertical map is an isomorphism.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A morphism of short exact sequences whose outer vertical maps are isomorphisms.

[L1]

The short five lemma makes the middle map both monic and epic (Short five lemma in an abelian category).

[L2]

Every morphism that is both monic and epic in an abelian category is an isomorphism (An abelian category is balanced).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1L1given

Because the outer maps are isomorphisms, they are monic and epic. Therefore [L1] shows that the middle map is monic and epic.

2.1L2step 1.1

Applying [L2] to that middle map shows that it is an isomorphism.

3.1step 2.1∎

Hence a morphism of short exact sequences with invertible outer maps has invertible middle map as well.

TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-09-29Open item page →

Short five lemma by pullback without members

Statement

For a morphism of short exact sequences in an abelian category, the three conclusions of the short five lemma hold without using members: monic outer maps force the middle map to be monic, epic outer maps force it to be epic, and isomorphic outer maps force it to be an isomorphism.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A morphism of short exact sequences 0→A→iB→pC→0, 0→A′→i′B′→p′C′→0, with vertical maps f,g,h.

[L1]

In a short exact sequence, the left map is a kernel and the right map is a cokernel (A short exact sequence is a kernel-cokernel pair).

[L2]

Pullbacks of epimorphisms are epic, and the induced map on kernels in a pullback square is an isomorphism (The pullback of an epimorphism is an epimorphism, In a pullback square, the induced map on the kernels of the two parallel arrows is an isomorphism).

[L3]

A cartesian square over an epimorphism is also cocartesian (A cartesian square over an epimorphism is also cocartesian).

[L4]

In an abelian category, monic-plus-epic implies isomorphism (An abelian category is balanced).

[L5]

Every epimorphism in an abelian category is the cokernel of its kernel (Every monomorphism is the kernel of its cokernel, and dually every epimorphism is the cokernel of its kernel).

Pullback diagram

The proof uses the following pullback of p′ along h:

PB0CC0¯®p0h

Proof

technique · direct
1.1L1L2L3construct

Form the pullback of p′ along h shown above. Because p′g=hp, there is a unique comparison map u:B→P with αu=p and βu=g. Since p′ is the cokernel of i′ by [L1], it is epic, so [L3] makes the square also cocartesian, and [L2] identifies ker⁡(β) with ker⁡(h).

2.1L1step 1.1assume-hypalgebra

Assume f and h are monic. Then ker⁡(h)=0, so step 1.1 makes β monic. If ut=0, then pt=αut=0. Because i=ker⁡(p) by [L1], there is s with t=is. Now 0=βut=gis=i′fs. The map i′ is monic by [L1], and f is monic by hypothesis, so s=0 and hence t=0. Thus u is monic, and therefore g=βu is monic.

2.2L1L2L5step 1.1assume-hypalgebra

Still with the pullback square of step 1.1, let j:A′→P be a kernel of α; by [L2] this exists and agrees with the induced map from ker⁡(p′)=im⁡(i′) to P. Assume now that f and h are epic. To show that u is epic, let t:P→T satisfy tu=0. Then tjf=tui=0. Since f is epic, tj=0. The map α is epic as a pullback of the epic p′ by [L2], and hence is the cokernel of its kernel j by [L5]. Therefore t=rα for a unique r:C→T. But then 0=tu=rαu=rp, and p is epic by [L1], so r=0 and hence t=0. Therefore u is epic.

3.1L3step 1.1step 2.2algebra

To show that β is epic under the same hypotheses, let s:B′→T satisfy sβ=0. Since the square of step 1.1 is cocartesian by [L3], the compatible pair of maps 0:C→T and s:B′→T induces a unique v:C′→T with vh=0 and vp′=s. Because h is epic, v=0, so s=0. Thus β is epic, and therefore g=βu is epic.

4.1L4step 2.1step 3.1

If f and h are isomorphisms, steps 2.1 and 3.1 show that g is both monic and epic. Therefore [L4] makes g an isomorphism.

5.1step 2.1step 3.1step 4.1∎

This gives the short five lemma again, now by a pullback-and-pushout argument and without any use of members.

DefinitionDefinition: AI-adaptedProof: Not applicablejudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-08-30Open item page →

Snake data

Definition

A piece of snake data in an abelian category means one of the following commutative diagrams.

The Mac Lane shape is a morphism of short exact sequences

0ABC00A0B0C00ifpghi0p0

The weaker Stacks shape is a commutative diagram

XYZ00UVWa®b¯°kl

whose top and bottom rows are exact.

This page uses the name only for the data of the diagram and its exact rows. The connecting morphism and the snake sequence attached to such data are constructed later.

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-30Open item page →

The connecting morphism exists and is unique

Statement

Let

0ABC00A0B0C00ifpghi0p0

be snake data in the Mac Lane shape. Let kh:K→C be a kernel of h and qf:A′→Q a cokernel of f.

Form the pullback P=B×CK with projections π′:P→B,π:P→K, and the pushout R=Q⨿A′B′ of qf and i′ with coprojections ι:Q→R,ι′:B′→R.

Then there exists a unique morphism δ:K→Q such that ιδπ=ι′gπ′.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The snake-data diagram in the statement, together with kh and qf.

[L1]

In a short exact sequence, the left map is a kernel and the right map is a cokernel (A short exact sequence is a kernel-cokernel pair).

[L2]

Pullbacks and pushouts exist, pullbacks of epimorphisms are epimorphisms, and the induced map on kernels in a pullback square is an isomorphism (Pullbacks and pushouts as limits and colimits of cospans and spans, The pullback of an epimorphism is an epimorphism, In a pullback square, the induced map on the kernels of the two parallel arrows is an isomorphism).

[L3]

A pushout of a monomorphism is again a monomorphism (The pushout of a monomorphism is a monomorphism).

[L4]

A complex 0→X→uY→vZ→0 is short exact exactly when u is a kernel of v and v is epic (Degenerate exactness criteria).

[L5]

Kernels and cokernels are characterized by their universal properties (Kernels and cokernels in a category with zero morphisms as equalizers and coequalizers).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1

Because the top row is short exact, [L1] says that p is epic and i=ker⁡(p). Form the pullback of p along kh:

tikzcd P \arrow[r, "\pi'"] \arrow[d, "\pi"'] & B \arrow[d, "p"] \\ K \arrow[r, "k_h"'] & C.

By [L2], the map π is epic. The induced map on kernels identifies ker⁡(π) with ker⁡(p), so after transporting along i=ker⁡(p) we obtain a kernel j:A→P of π satisfying π′j=i. [L1, L2, construct]

1.2

Form the pushout of qf and i′:

tikzcd A' \arrow[r, "i'"] \arrow[d, "q_f"'] & B' \arrow[d, "\iota'"] \\ Q \arrow[r, "\iota"'] & R.

Since i′ is monic by [L1], [L3] makes ι monic. [L1, L3, construct]

2.1L1L4step 1.1

Step 1.1 gives j=ker⁡(π) and makes π epic. By [L4], the sequence 0→A→jP→πK→0 is therefore short exact. Applying [L1] to this new short exact sequence shows that π is also a cokernel of j.

2.2L1L5step 1.1construct

The pullback relation gives hpπ′=hkhπ=0, so the snake-data square yields p′gπ′=0. Because i′=ker⁡(p′) by [L1], [L5] gives a unique map a:P→A′ with i′a=gπ′.

3.1L1L5step 2.1step 2.2algebra

Since π′j=i and the left square commutes, we have i′aj=gπ′j=gi=i′f. The map i′ is monic, so aj=f. Therefore qfaj=qff=0. Because π is a cokernel of j by step 2.1, [L5] yields a unique morphism δ:K→Q with δπ=qfa.

4.1step 1.1step 1.2step 3.1algebra

Composing with the pushout coprojection gives ιδπ=ιqfa=ι′i′a=ι′gπ′, which is the required relation. If δ1 and δ2 both satisfy that relation, then ιδ1π=ιδ2π. Since π is epic by step 1.1 and ι is monic by step 1.2, this forces δ1=δ2.

5.1step 3.1step 4.1∎

Hence the connecting morphism exists and is unique.

RemarkRemark: AI-adaptedProof: Not applicablejudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-08-30Open item page →

The connecting morphism depends on no choices

Remark

The arrow-theoretic construction of The connecting morphism exists and is unique produces the connecting morphism by a universal property and proves uniqueness at the same time. Once the pullback and pushout are fixed, there is no remaining zig-zag choice whose independence must be checked later.

That is exactly what the universal-property route buys. In an elementwise construction one has to prove that different representatives and different choices of lift lead to the same class. Here the final morphism is already the unique map that makes one displayed square commute.

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-09-29Open item page →

Snake lemma in an abelian category

Statement

For snake data

0ABC00A0B0C00ifpghi0p0

there is an exact sequence 0→ker⁡(f)→ker⁡(g)→ker⁡(h)→δcoker⁡(f)→coker⁡(g)→coker⁡(h)→0, where δ is the connecting morphism of The connecting morphism exists and is unique.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The snake-data diagram in the statement.

[L1]

The connecting morphism exists and is unique (The connecting morphism exists and is unique).

[L2]

The kernel row is exact at its first two nodes, and the cokernel row is exact at its last two nodes (The kernel row and cokernel row of a morphism of short exact sequences are exact at two nodes each).

[L3]

Exactness identifies the image of one arrow with the kernel of the next (Exactness at a node).

[L4]

Every morphism factors as an epimorphism followed by its image inclusion, and epimorphisms remain epic after pullback (Every morphism factors as an epimorphism followed by a monomorphism, uniquely up to unique isomorphism, The pullback of an epimorphism is an epimorphism).

[L5]

Every image inclusion is a kernel of the corresponding cokernel, and every monomorphism is the kernel of its cokernel (Every monomorphism is the kernel of its cokernel, and dually every epimorphism is the cokernel of its kernel).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1L2given

By [L2], the induced kernel row is exact at ker⁡(f) and ker⁡(g), and the induced cokernel row is exact at coker⁡(g) and coker⁡(h). It remains to prove exactness at ker⁡(h) and coker⁡(f).

1.2L1construct

Let kh:K→C be a kernel of h, qf:A′→Q a cokernel of f, and qg:B′→Qg a cokernel of g. Use the pullback P=B×CK from [L1], with projections π′:P→B and π:P→K. That construction gives an epimorphism π, a map a:P→A′ satisfying i′a=gπ′, and δ:K→Q satisfying δπ=qfa. Let u:Kg→K be the induced arrow from a kernel kg:Kg→B of g, and let c:Q→Qg be induced by i′. Thus khu=pkg and cqf=qgi′.

2.1step 1.2constructalgebra

The pair (kg,u) induces s:Kg→P with π′s=kg and πs=u. Since i′as=gkg=0 and i′ is monic, as=0. Consequently δu=δπs=qfas=0.

2.2L3L4step 1.2construct

Let t:T→K be a kernel of δ. Pull back π along t, obtaining e0:E0→T epic and v:E0→P with πv=te0. Then qfav=δte0=0. By [L3], im⁡(f)=ker⁡(qf), so av factors through the image inclusion mf:If→A′. Factor f=mfef with ef:A→If epic, and pull back ef along this factorization. The resulting e1:E→E0 is epic and has a map x:E→A with fx=ave1.

2.3L3L4step 1.2constructalgebra

From cqf=qgi′ and i′a=gπ′ one obtains cδπ=qgi′a=qggπ′=0. Since π is epic, cδ=0. Now let r:R→Q be a kernel of c. Pull back the epimorphism qf:A′→Q along r, obtaining an epimorphism d0:D0→R and v:D0→A′ with qfv=rd0. Then qgi′v=crd0=0, so i′v factors through im⁡(g)=ker⁡(qg). Pull back the epic image projection B→im⁡(g) along this factorization. This gives an epimorphism d1:D→D0 and y:D→B with gy=i′vd1.

3.1L3L5step 1.2step 2.1step 2.2constructalgebra

Put z=π′ve1−ix:E→B. Then gz=i′ave1−i′fx=0, so z=kgw for a unique w:E→Kg. Also pz=pπ′ve1=khte0e1=khuw. Since kh is monic, uw=te0e1. The composite e0e1 is epic; hence coker⁡(u)t=0. By [L5], t factors through im⁡(u). Together with δu=0 from step 2.1, this gives im⁡(u)=ker⁡(δ).

3.2L3L5step 1.2step 2.3constructalgebra

The bottom-row relation gives hpy=p′gy=p′i′vd1=0, so py=khx for a unique x:D→K. The pair (y,x) induces s:D→P, and i′as=gy=i′vd1 implies as=vd1 by monicity of i′. Thus δx=qfas=qfvd1=rd0d1. Because d0d1 is epic, coker⁡(δ)r=0, so [L5] makes r factor through im⁡(δ). Along with cδ=0, this proves im⁡(δ)=ker⁡(c).

4.1step 1.1step 3.1step 3.2∎

The two remaining nodes are exact by steps 3.1 and 3.2; the other nodes are exact by step 1.1. Therefore the snake sequence is exact.

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-09-29Open item page →

Snake lemma under the weaker Stacks hypotheses

Statement

For snake data in the weaker Stacks shape

XYZ00UVWa®b¯°kl

there is an exact sequence ker⁡(α)→ker⁡(β)→ker⁡(γ)→δcoker⁡(α)→coker⁡(β)→coker⁡(γ).

If a is monic, then ker⁡(α)→ker⁡(β) is monic. If l is epic, then coker⁡(β)→coker⁡(γ) is epic.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The weaker snake-data diagram in the statement.

[L1]

In an exact sequence ending in 0, the last map is epic; in an exact sequence beginning at 0, the first map is monic (Degenerate exactness criteria).

[L2]

Kernels and cokernels are characterized by their universal properties (Kernels and cokernels in a category with zero morphisms as equalizers and coequalizers).

[L3]

Pullbacks of epimorphisms are epimorphisms, and in a pullback square the induced map on kernels is an isomorphism (The pullback of an epimorphism is an epimorphism, In a pullback square, the induced map on the kernels of the two parallel arrows is an isomorphism).

[L4]

Under the endpoint hypotheses, the induced kernel and cokernel sequences are exact (Exactness of kernel and cokernel sequences under endpoint hypotheses).

[L5]

Exactness identifies images with kernels, and each morphism factors through its image by an epimorphism (Exactness at a node, Every morphism factors as an epimorphism followed by a monomorphism, uniquely up to unique isomorphism).

[L6]

Epimorphisms are preserved by pullback; every image inclusion is a kernel of its cokernel, and dually every epimorphism is the cokernel of its kernel (The pullback of an epimorphism is an epimorphism, Every monomorphism is the kernel of its cokernel, and dually every epimorphism is the cokernel of its kernel).

Pullback diagram

The proof uses the pullback of b along kγ:

PYKZ¼0¼bk°

Proof

technique · direct
1.1L1L2L3givenconstruct

Because the top row is exact and ends in 0, the map b is epic by [L1]. Because the bottom row is exact and begins at 0, the map k is monic by [L1]. Choose a kernel kγ:K→Z of γ and a cokernel qα:U→Q of α. Form the pullback P displayed above. By [L3], π is epic. Since lβπ′=γbπ′=γkγπ=0, the kernel property of k gives a unique map r:P→U such that kr=βπ′.

2.1L1L2L3L6step 1.1constructalgebra

Let j:J→P be a kernel of π. By [L3], the induced map J→ker⁡(b) is an isomorphism. Exactness of the top row at Y says that ker⁡(b) is the image of a, so there is an epimorphism e:X→J with π′je=a. Then krje=βπ′je=βa=kα, and monicity of k gives rje=α. Therefore qαrje=qαα=0. Because e is epic, qαrj=0. Since π is epic, [L6] makes it the cokernel of its kernel j, so there is a unique morphism δ:K→Q with δπ=qαr.

3.1L1L4step 2.1

Applying [L4] to the given diagram gives exactness of ker⁡(α)→ker⁡(β)→ker⁡(γ) and of coker⁡(α)→coker⁡(β)→coker⁡(γ). If a is monic, then the sequence 0→X→aY→bZ is exact, so the same theorem gives that ker⁡(α)→ker⁡(β) is monic. Dually, if l is epic, then coker⁡(β)→coker⁡(γ) is epic. Thus only exactness at ker⁡(γ) and at coker⁡(α) remains.

3.2L2step 2.1constructalgebra

Let i:ker⁡(β)→Y be a kernel of β, and let s:ker⁡(β)→K be the induced map with kγs=bi. Because βi=0, the pair (i,s) factors through the pullback, giving t:ker⁡(β)→P with π′t=i,πt=s. Then krt=βπ′t=βi=0, so monicity of k gives rt=0. Therefore δs=δπt=qαrt=0, which proves that δ kills the image of ker⁡(β)→ker⁡(γ).

3.3L5L6step 2.1construct

Let u:T→K be a kernel of δ. Pull back π along u, obtaining an epimorphism e0:E0→T and v:E0→P with πv=ue0. Then qαrv=δue0=0. By [L5], im⁡(α)=ker⁡(qα), so rv factors through the image inclusion of α. Pull back the epic image projection X→im⁡(α) along that factorization. This gives an epimorphism e1:E→E0 and x:E→X with αx=rve1.

3.4L2L5L6step 2.1constructalgebra

Let qβ:V→Qβ be a cokernel of β, and let c:Q→Qβ be induced by k, so cqα=qβk. Since kr=βπ′, one has cδπ=qβkr=qββπ′=0, and epicity of π gives cδ=0. Let t:R→Q be a kernel of c. Pull back the epimorphism qα:U→Q along t, giving an epimorphism d0:D0→R and v:D0→U with qαv=td0. Then qβkv=ctd0=0, so kv factors through im⁡(β)=ker⁡(qβ). Pull back the epic image projection Y→im⁡(β) to obtain an epimorphism d1:D→D0 and y:D→Y with βy=kvd1.

4.1L2L6step 3.2step 3.3constructalgebra

Put z=π′ve1−ax:E→Y. Since βz=krve1−kαx=0, it factors through a kernel i:Kβ→Y of β as z=iw. Let s:Kβ→K be the induced arrow. Then kγsw=biw=bz=bπ′ve1=kγue0e1. Monicity of kγ gives sw=ue0e1. Since e0e1 is epic, coker⁡(s)u=0. By [L6], u factors through im⁡(s); with δs=0 from step 3.2, this proves im⁡(s)=ker⁡(δ).

4.2L2L6step 1.1step 3.4constructalgebra

The square and bottom-row relation give γby=lβy=lkvd1=0. Thus by factors through kγ:K→Z as by=kγx for a unique x:D→K. The pair (y,x) gives w:D→P with π′w=y and πw=x. Since krw=βy=kvd1 and k is monic, rw=vd1. Hence δx=qαrw=qαvd1=td0d1. The composite d0d1 is epic, so coker⁡(δ)t=0. By [L6], t factors through im⁡(δ); together with cδ=0, this proves im⁡(δ)=ker⁡(c).

5.1step 3.1step 4.1step 4.2∎

The two central nodes are exact by steps 4.1 and 4.2; the other nodes and the endpoint clauses follow from step 3.1. Thus the stated sequence is exact.

DefinitionDefinition: AI-adaptedProof: Not applicablejudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-08-30Open item page →

The arrow category of an abelian category

Definition

Let [1] denote the category with two objects and one nonidentity arrow. For an abelian category A, the arrow category A→ is the functor category [ [1],A ].

Thus an object of A→ is a morphism x:X0→X1 in A, and a morphism in A→ is a commutative square between such arrows.

Because [1] is small, this is an honest functor category by Functor category [C,D] and If C is small and D is locally small then [C,D] is locally small; if both are small it is small. Because limits and colimits in a functor category are computed pointwise, an abelian category gives an abelian arrow category as well.

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-08-30Open item page →

Naturality of the connecting morphism

Statement

Given a morphism between two pieces of snake data in the Mac Lane shape in an abelian category, the induced square between their connecting morphisms commutes.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A commutative ladder between two Mac Lane snake diagrams.

[L1]

The arrow category of an abelian category is again abelian (The arrow category of an abelian category).

[L2]

The connecting morphism exists and is unique for Mac Lane snake diagrams (The connecting morphism exists and is unique).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1L1L2given

Regard each vertical arrow of the given ladder as an object of the arrow category A→. Because kernels, cokernels, pullbacks, and pushouts in A→ are computed componentwise, the entire ladder is again a Mac Lane snake diagram in A→.

2.1L2step 1.1construct

Applying [L2] in A→ produces a connecting morphism between the arrow objects ker⁡(γ)→coker⁡(α). Read componentwise in A, that morphism is exactly the pair consisting of the two ordinary connecting morphisms together with the comparison square between them.

3.1L2step 2.1∎

The defining square for the arrow-category connecting morphism commutes by construction, and uniqueness in [L2] forces that componentwise square to be the naturality square for the two ordinary connecting morphisms. Therefore the connecting morphism is natural.

CorollaryStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-30Open item page →

The kernel-cokernel sequence of a composite is a snake

Statement

For composable morphisms A→fB→gC in an abelian category, the exact sequence of The kernel-cokernel sequence of a composite is an instance of the snake sequence.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Composable morphisms A→fB→gC.

[L1]

The snake lemma gives an exact kernel-cokernel sequence for a morphism of short exact sequences (Snake lemma in an abelian category).

[L2]

The composite already has a kernel-cokernel exact sequence (The kernel-cokernel sequence of a composite).

[L3]

An abelian category is additive and has finite biproducts (Abelian category).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1L1L3givenconstruct

Consider the morphism between the canonical split short exact sequences tikzcd 0 \arrow[r] & A \arrow[r, "j_A"] \arrow[d, "f"'] & A\oplus B \arrow[r, "\pi_B"] \arrow[d, "m"'] & B \arrow[r] \arrow[d, "g"'] & 0 \\ 0 \arrow[r] & B \arrow[r, "j_B"'] & B\oplus C \arrow[r, "\pi_C"'] & C \arrow[r] & 0 where, in biproduct matrix notation, m=(f−1B0g),m(a,b)=(f(a)−b,g(b)). The two squares commute, so [L1] applies.

2.1L1L2L3step 1.1algebra

The map a↦(a,f(a)) identifies ker⁡(gf) with ker⁡(m): the equations m(a,b)=0 are exactly b=f(a) and gf(a)=0. Dually, the map B⊕C⟶coker⁡(gf),(b,c)⟼[c+g(b)] identifies coker⁡(m) with coker⁡(gf). Under these identifications, the snake sequence of step 1.1 is exactly 0→ker⁡(f)→ker⁡(gf)→ker⁡(g)→coker⁡(f)→coker⁡(gf)→coker⁡(g)→0.

3.1L2step 2.1∎

The maps in step 2.1 are the canonical comparison maps of [L2], so the kernel-cokernel sequence of a composite is a special case of the snake lemma.

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-30Open item page →

Four lemma in an abelian category

Statement

Consider a commutative diagram in an abelian category with exact rows

WXYZW0X0Y0Z0®¯°±

Then:

  1. if α and γ are epic and δ is monic, then β is epic;
  2. if β and δ are monic and α is epic, then γ is monic.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The commutative exact-row diagram in the statement.

[L1]

Monicity is equivalent to cancellation on members (Monicity by member cancellation).

[L2]

Epicity is equivalent to the member-lifting property (Epimorphy is detected by members).

[L3]

Exactness at a node is equivalent to the member-lifting condition (Exactness is detected by members).

[L4]

The common-refinement construction for member equivalence puts finitely many witness equalities on one epic domain, where hom-set subtraction is defined (Equivalence of members, Member equivalence is transitive, Abelian category).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1L1L2L3assume-hypconstruct

Write the top row as W→iX→jY→pZ and the bottom row as W′→i′X′→j′Y′→p′Z′. Assume that α and γ are epic and that δ is monic. To prove that β is epic, let x′ be a member of X′. Since γ is epic, [L2] gives a member y of Y with γy≡j′x′. Then δpy=p′γy≡p′j′x′≡0. Because δ is monic, [L1] gives py≡0. Exactness of the top row at Y now gives a member x0 of X with jx0≡y by [L3].

1.2L1L3L4assume-hypchooseconstructalgebra

Assume instead that β and δ are monic and that α is epic. To prove that γ is monic, let y and y′ be members of Y with γy≡γy′. Then δpy=p′γy≡p′γy′=δpy′, so [L1] gives py≡py′. By [L4], replace y and y′ by representatives on one common epic refinement of the witnesses for both equalities and define t:=y−y′. Then γt=pt=0 and y=y′+t on that domain. Exactness of the top row at Y gives a member x of X with jx≡t by [L3].

2.1L2L3L4step 1.1chooseconstructalgebra

From step 1.1 we get j′βx0=γjx0≡γy≡j′x′. By [L4], replace βx0 and x′ by representatives on a common epic domain and define z′:=x′−βx0. Then j′z′=0 and x′=βx0+z′ on that domain. Exactness of the bottom row at X′ gives a member w′ of W′ with i′w′≡z′ by [L3], and epicity of α gives a member w of W with αw≡w′ by [L2]. Therefore β(x0+iw)≡βx0+i′αw≡βx0+i′w′≡βx0+z′≡x′. So every member of X′ lifts along β, and [L2] makes β epic.

2.2L1L2L3step 1.2algebra

From step 1.2 we get j′βx=γjx≡γt≡0. Exactness of the bottom row at X′ therefore gives a member w′ of W′ with i′w′≡βx by [L3]. Because α is epic, [L2] gives a member w of W with αw≡w′. Then β(x−iw)≡βx−i′αw≡βx−i′w′≡0. Since β is monic, [L1] yields x≡iw. Therefore t≡jx≡jiw≡0, because the top row is a complex. So y≡y′, and [L1] makes γ monic.

3.1step 1.2step 2.2∎

Therefore the four lemma holds in both the epic and the monic form stated above.

TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-30Open item page →

Weak four lemma with the exactness hypotheses named

Statement

In the four-term commutative diagram of the four lemma, the two conclusions already follow from exactness at the four middle nodes that are actually used:

  1. exactness at X, Y, X′, and Y′, together with α,γ epic and δ monic, implies β epic;
  2. exactness at X, Y, X′, and Y′, together with β,δ monic and α epic, implies γ monic.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The four-term commutative diagram underlying the four lemma.

[L1]

Monicity is equivalent to cancellation on members (Monicity by member cancellation).

[L2]

Epicity is equivalent to the member-lifting property (Epimorphy is detected by members).

[L3]

Exactness at a node is equivalent to the member-lifting condition (Exactness is detected by members).

[L4]

The common-refinement construction for member equivalence puts finitely many witness equalities on one epic domain, where hom-set subtraction is defined (Equivalence of members, Member equivalence is transitive, Abelian category).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1L1L2L3assume-hypconstruct

Write the top row as W→iX→jY→pZ and the bottom row as W′→i′X′→j′Y′→p′Z′. Assume that exactness holds at X, Y, X′, and Y′, and that α and γ are epic while δ is monic. Let x′ be a member of X′. By epicity of γ and [L2], choose a member y of Y with γy≡j′x′. Then δpy=p′γy≡p′j′x′≡0, so monicity of δ and [L1] give py≡0. Exactness at Y gives a member x0 of X with jx0≡y by [L3].

1.2L1L3L4assume-hypchooseconstructalgebra

Assume instead that exactness holds at X, Y, X′, and Y′, that β and δ are monic, and that α is epic. Let y and y′ be members of Y with γy≡γy′. Then δpy=p′γy≡p′γy′=δpy′, so [L1] gives py≡py′. By [L4], replace y and y′ by representatives on one common epic refinement of the witnesses for both equalities and define t:=y−y′. Then γt=pt=0 and y=y′+t on that domain. Exactness at Y gives a member x of X with jx≡t by [L3].

2.1L2L3L4step 1.1chooseconstructalgebra

Now j′βx0=γjx0≡γy≡j′x′. By [L4], replace βx0 and x′ by representatives on a common epic domain and define z′:=x′−βx0. Then j′z′=0 and x′=βx0+z′ on that domain. Exactness at X′ gives a member w′ of W′ with i′w′≡z′ by [L3], and epicity of α gives a member w of W with αw≡w′ by [L2]. Therefore β(x0+iw)≡βx0+i′αw≡βx0+i′w′≡βx0+z′≡x′. So [L2] makes β epic.

2.2L1L2L3step 1.2algebra

From step 1.2 we get j′βx=γjx≡γt≡0. Exactness at X′ gives a member w′ of W′ with i′w′≡βx by [L3]. Since α is epic, choose w in W with αw≡w′ by [L2]. Then β(x−iw)≡βx−i′αw≡βx−i′w′≡0. Because β is monic, [L1] yields x≡iw, and therefore t≡jx≡jiw≡0. So y≡y′, and [L1] makes γ monic.

3.1step 1.2step 2.2∎

Hence the weak four lemma follows from the named middle-node exactness hypotheses alone.

RemarkRemark: AI-adaptedProof: Not applicablejudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-08-30Open item page →

The two halves of the four lemma are mutually dual

Remark

The monic half and the epic half of Four lemma in an abelian category are not the same argument with words changed; they are opposite-category translations of each other. The point of recording that explicitly is bookkeeping: later items cite one half or the other, and duality explains why both need not be reproved from scratch.

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-08-30Open item page →

Sharp five lemma in an abelian category

Statement

In a commutative diagram with exact rows

A1A2A3A4A5B1B2B3B4B5f1f2f3f4f5

the following hold:

  1. if f1 is epic and f2,f4 are monic, then f3 is monic;
  2. if f2,f4 are epic and f5 is monic, then f3 is epic.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The commutative exact-row diagram in the statement.

[L1]

The four lemma gives the monic and epic conclusions on any four-column window with exact rows (Four lemma in an abelian category).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1L1assume-hyp

For the monic clause, apply [L1] to the left four columns A1→A2→A3→A4, B1→B2→B3→B4. The hypotheses there are exactly that f1 is epic and that f2 and f4 are monic, so the four lemma gives that f3 is monic.

1.2L1assume-hyp

For the epic clause, apply [L1] to the right four columns A2→A3→A4→A5, B2→B3→B4→B5. The hypotheses there are exactly that f2 and f4 are epic and that f5 is monic, so the four lemma gives that f3 is epic.

2.1step 1.1step 1.2∎

Therefore the sharp five lemma holds in both halves.

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-08-30Open item page →

Five lemma in an abelian category

Statement

In a commutative diagram with exact rows

A1A2A3A4A5B1B2B3B4B5f1f2f3f4f5

if f1,f2,f4,f5 are isomorphisms, then f3 is an isomorphism.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The commutative exact-row diagram in the statement.

[L1]

The sharp five lemma makes the middle map monic under one set of hypotheses and epic under the complementary one (Sharp five lemma in an abelian category).

[L2]

In an abelian category, a morphism that is both monic and epic is an isomorphism (An abelian category is balanced).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1L1given

Because f1,f2,f4,f5 are isomorphisms, they are in particular monic and epic. The first half of [L1] therefore makes f3 monic, and the second half of [L1] makes f3 epic.

2.1L2step 1.1

Applying [L2] to f3 now shows that f3 is an isomorphism.

3.1step 2.1∎

Hence the five lemma holds in every abelian category.

RemarkRemark: AI-adaptedProof: Not applicablejudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-08-30Open item page →

Why the five lemma asks for isomorphisms in the middle

Remark

Sharp five lemma in an abelian category explains the bookkeeping behind the classical hypothesis. The middle comparison map is proved monic by one application of the four lemma and epic by a different application to a different four-column window. So the two adjacent vertical maps are each used twice: once in a monic role and once in an epic role.

That is why the ordinary five lemma assumes those two maps are isomorphisms. The condition is not a lazy strengthening; it is exactly what makes both four lemma applications available at once.

LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-08-30Open item page →

Half nine lemma

Statement

Consider a commutative 3×3 diagram in an abelian category whose three columns are short exact:

0A1A2A300B1B2B300C1C2C30

If the bottom two rows are short exact, then the top row is exact at A1 and at A2.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The commutative 3×3 diagram in the statement.

[L1]

In a short exact sequence, the left map is monic and the middle node is exact (Degenerate exactness criteria).

[L2]

Monicity is equivalent to cancellation on members (Monicity by member cancellation).

[L3]

Exactness at a node is equivalent to the member-lifting condition (Exactness is detected by members).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1L1L2givenalgebra

Let x and y be members of A1 with the same image in A2. Commutativity gives the same image of i1x and i1y in B2. Because the second row is short exact, its left map is monic by [L1], so [L2] gives i1x≡i1y. The first column is also short exact, so its left map is monic; applying [L2] again yields x≡y. Hence the top-row map A1→A2 is monic, so the top row is exact at A1.

1.2L1L2L3givenconstructalgebra

Let t be a member of A2 with image 0 in A3. Commutativity gives that i2t maps to 0 in B3. Exactness of the second row at B2 therefore yields a member y of B1 with b1y≡i2t by [L3]. Applying the right map of the first column gives c1p1y=p2b1y≡p2i2t≡0. Because the bottom row is short exact, its left map c1 is monic by [L1], so [L2] shows p1y≡0. Exactness of the first column at B1 now gives a member z of A1 with i1z≡y by [L3]. Then i2a1z=b1i1z≡b1y≡i2t. Since the second column is short exact, i2 is monic, so [L2] gives a1z≡t. Thus every member of A2 killed by A2→A3 lifts from A1, and the top row is exact at A2 by [L3].

2.1step 1.1step 1.2∎

Therefore the top row is left exact whenever the bottom two rows and all three columns are short exact.

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-30Open item page →

Nine lemma in an abelian category

Statement

In a commutative 3×3 diagram in an abelian category, assume all three columns and the middle row are short exact:

0A1A2A300B1B2B300C1C2C30

Then the top row is short exact if and only if the bottom row is short exact.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The 3×3 diagram in the statement.

[L1]

If the bottom two rows are short exact, then the top row is exact at its first two nodes (Half nine lemma).

[L2]

The opposite of an abelian category is abelian (The opposite of an abelian category is abelian).

[L3]

Short exactness, monicity, epicity, and exactness are detected by the standard member rules (Degenerate exactness criteria, Monicity by member cancellation, Epimorphy is detected by members, Exactness is detected by members).

[L4]

The common-refinement construction for member equivalence puts finitely many witness equalities on one epic domain, where hom-set subtraction is defined (Equivalence of members, Member equivalence is transitive, Abelian category).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1L1assume-hyp

Assume the bottom row is short exact. Applying [L1] to the given diagram shows that the top row is exact at its first two nodes.

2.1L3L4step 1.1chooseconstructalgebra

Write the horizontal maps as a1,a2, b1,b2, and c1,c2, and the vertical maps as i1,i2,i3 and then p1,p2,p3. It remains after step 1.1 to prove that a2 is epic. Let s be a member of A3. Lift i3s along the epic map b2 to a member t of B2. Exactness of the bottom row gives a member u of C1 with c1u≡p2t, and epicity of p1 gives a member y of B1 with p1y≡u. Then p2b1y=c1p1y≡c1u≡p2t. By [L4], pass to one common epic refinement of all the preceding equivalences and put w:=t−b1y. Then p2w=0, t=b1y+w, and b2t=i3s there. Exactness of the second column gives a member x of A2 with i2x≡w. Consequently i3a2x=b2i2x≡b2w=b2t≡i3s. Since i3 is monic, a2x≡s. Thus a2 is epic by [L3], and the top row is short exact.

3.1L2step 1.1step 2.1assume-hyp

For the converse, pass to the opposite category. After drawing its vertical arrows downward, the original top row is the bottom row and the original bottom row is the top row. Thus the implication proved in steps 1.1 and 2.1, applied in the abelian category from [L2], carries short exactness of the original top row to short exactness of the original bottom row.

4.1step 2.1step 3.1∎

Hence, under the standing short-exactness of the middle row and all three columns, the top row is short exact if and only if the bottom row is short exact.

TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-30Open item page →

Nine lemma variants by which rows are assumed exact

Statement

In the 3×3 short-exact-column diagram of the nine lemma:

  1. if the bottom two rows are short exact, then the top row is short exact;
  2. if the top two rows are short exact, then the bottom row is short exact;
  3. if the top and bottom rows are short exact and the middle row is a complex, then the middle row is short exact.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A commutative 3×3 diagram whose three columns are short exact.

[L1]

The nine lemma exchanges short exactness of the top and bottom rows when the middle row is short exact (Nine lemma in an abelian category).

[L2]

In a short exact sequence, the left map is monic, the right map is epic, and the middle node is exact (Degenerate exactness criteria).

[L3]

Monicity, epicity, and exactness can be checked by member cancellation and member lifting. Equivalent members have representatives on a common epic domain, where hom-set subtraction is defined (Monicity by member cancellation, Epimorphy is detected by members, Exactness is detected by members, Equivalence of members, Member equivalence is transitive, Abelian category).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1L1assume-hyp

If the bottom two rows are short exact, then the standing hypotheses of [L1] are met, so the top row is short exact.

1.2L1assume-hyp

If the top two rows are short exact, the same theorem [L1] applied after swapping the top and bottom rows shows that the bottom row is short exact.

1.3L2L3givenconstructalgebra

Assume the top and bottom rows are short exact and that the middle row is a complex. To prove exactness at B1, let x be a member of B1 with image 0 in B2. Applying the right map of the first column gives c1p1x=p2b1x≡0. Since the bottom row is short exact, its left map c1 is monic by [L2], so [L3] gives p1x≡0. Exactness of the first column at B1 gives a member u of A1 with i1u≡x. Then i2a1u=b1i1u≡b1x≡0. Because the second column is short exact, its left map i2 is monic, so [L3] gives a1u≡0. The top row is short exact, hence its left map is monic by [L2]; another use of [L3] gives u≡0, and therefore x≡0. Thus the middle-row map B1→B2 is monic.

1.4L2L3givenchooseconstructalgebra

Still under the same hypotheses, let t be a member of B2 with image 0 in B3. Because the bottom row is exact at C2, there is a member z of C1 with c1z≡p2t by [L3]. Since the first column is short exact, its right map is epic by [L2], so [L3] yields a member x of B1 with p1x≡z. Then p2b1x=c1p1x≡c1z≡p2t. By [L3], pass to one common epic refinement of these equalities and the hypothesis b2t≡0, and define w:=t−b1x. Then p2w=0, b2w=0, and t=b1x+w on that domain. Exactness of the second column at B2 gives a member u of A2 with i2u≡w by [L3]. The middle row is a complex, so i3a2u=b2i2u≡b2w=0. Because the third column is short exact, i3 is monic; [L3] gives a2u≡0. Exactness of the top row at A2 therefore gives a member v of A1 with a1v≡u by [L3]. Hence w≡i2u≡i2a1v=b1i1v, so t≡b1(x+i1v). This proves exactness of the middle row at B2 by [L3].

1.5L2L3givenchooseconstructalgebra

Let s be a member of B3. Since the bottom row is short exact, its right map is epic by [L2], so [L3] gives a member z of C2 with c2z≡p3s. Since the second column is short exact, its right map is epic as well, choose a member y of B2 with p2y≡z. Then p3b2y=c2p2y≡c2z≡p3s. By [L3], pass to one common epic refinement of these equalities and define w:=s−b2y. Then p3w=0 and s=b2y+w on that domain. Exactness of the third column at B3 gives a member u of A3 with i3u≡w by [L3]. Because the top row is short exact, its right map is epic by [L2], so [L3] gives a member v of A2 with a2v≡u. Therefore w≡i3u≡i3a2v=b2i2v, and hence s≡b2(y+i2v). By [L3], the map B2→B3 is epic.

2.1L2step 1.3step 1.4step 1.5

Steps 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 prove that the middle row is short exact.

3.1step 1.1step 1.2step 2.1∎

These are exactly the three standard variants of the nine lemma distinguished by which rows are assumed exact.

RemarkRemark: AI-adaptedProof: Not applicablejudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-08-30Open item page →

Why the middle nine lemma needs a zero composite

Remark

In the middle-row variant, exactness is not even a meaningful target until the middle row is first known to be a complex. That is the role of the zero-composite hypothesis in Nine lemma variants by which rows are assumed exact: it is not a technical afterthought, but the condition that allows the phrase "the middle row is short exact" to make literal sense.

TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-30Open item page →

Sharp nine lemma

Statement

In a commutative 3×3 diagram, assume the three columns and the last two rows are exact at their first two nodes. Then the first row is exact at its first two nodes.

If, in addition, the first column and the middle row are short exact, then the first row is short exact.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The commutative 3×3 diagram in the statement.

[L1]

In a short exact sequence, the left map is monic, the right map is epic, and the middle node is exact (Degenerate exactness criteria).

[L2]

Monicity and epicity are equivalent to member cancellation and member lifting (Monicity by member cancellation, Epimorphy is detected by members).

[L3]

Exactness at a node is equivalent to the member-lifting condition (Exactness is detected by members).

[L4]

The common-refinement construction for member equivalence puts finitely many witness equalities on one epic domain, where hom-set subtraction is defined (Equivalence of members, Member equivalence is transitive, Abelian category).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1L1L2givenalgebra

Write the horizontal maps of the three rows as a1,a2, b1,b2, and c1,c2, and the vertical maps of the three columns as i1,i2,i3 from top to middle and p1,p2,p3 from middle to bottom. Assume the three columns and the last two rows are exact at their first two nodes. Let x and y be members of A1 with the same image in A2. Commutativity gives the same image of i1x and i1y in B2. Because the middle row is exact at its first node, b1 is monic by [L1], so [L2] gives i1x≡i1y. Because the first column is exact at its first node, i1 is monic, and another use of [L2] yields x≡y. Thus the top row is exact at A1.

1.2L1L2L3givenconstructalgebra

Let t be a member of A2 with image 0 in A3. Commutativity gives that i2t maps to 0 in B3. Exactness of the middle row at B2 therefore yields a member y of B1 with b1y≡i2t by [L3]. Applying the right map of the first column gives c1p1y=p2b1y≡p2i2t≡0. Because the bottom row is exact at its first node, c1 is monic by [L1], so [L2] shows p1y≡0. Exactness of the first column at B1 now gives a member z of A1 with i1z≡y by [L3]. Then i2a1z=b1i1z≡b1y≡i2t. Since the second column is exact at its first node, i2 is monic, so [L2] gives a1z≡t. Thus the top row is exact at A2.

2.1L1L2L3L4step 1.1step 1.2chooseconstructalgebra

Assume in addition that the first column and the middle row are short exact. By steps 1.1 and 1.2, the top row is already exact at its first two nodes, so only epicity of a2:A2→A3 remains. Let s be a member of A3. Because the middle row is short exact, b2 is epic by [L1], so [L2] gives a member t of B2 with b2t≡i3s. Then c2p2t=p3b2t≡p3i3s≡0, so exactness of the bottom row at C2 gives a member u of C1 with c1u≡p2t by [L3]. Since the first column is short exact, p1 is epic by [L1], so [L2] gives a member y of B1 with p1y≡u. Now p2b1y=c1p1y≡c1u≡p2t. By [L4], pass to one common epic refinement of all the preceding equivalences and define w:=t−b1y. Then p2w=0, t=b1y+w, and b2t=i3s on that domain. Exactness of the second column at B2 gives a member x of A2 with i2x≡w by [L3]. Therefore i3a2x=b2i2x≡b2w=b2t≡i3s. Because the third column is exact at its first node, i3 is monic, so [L2] gives a2x≡s. Hence a2 is epic, and the top row is short exact.

3.1step 1.1step 1.2step 2.1∎

Hence the sharp nine lemma is the left-exact half together with the precise extra hypotheses needed to upgrade it to a short exact row.

TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-30Open item page →

Symmetric nine lemma

Statement

In a commutative 3×3 diagram, suppose the middle row and middle column are short exact. If any three of the remaining four rows and columns are short exact, then the fourth is short exact.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The commutative 3×3 diagram in the statement.

[L1]

The sharp nine lemma recovers a missing outer row from the two rows below it and the three columns (Sharp nine lemma).

[L2]

Passing to the opposite category preserves abelianity and reverses exact sequences (The opposite of an abelian category is abelian).

[L3]

Transposing the indexing of a commutative 3×3 diagram exchanges rows with columns while preserving commutativity and exactness.

Proof

technique · direct
1.1L1L2assume-case topassume-case bottom

If the missing exact line is the top row, [L1] applies directly. If it is the bottom row, apply [L1] in the opposite category and redraw the reversed exact sequences from top to bottom; [L2] then transports the result back.

2.1L1L2L3step 1.1cases

If the missing exact line is the left or right column, transpose the diagram using [L3]. The missing column becomes an outer row, so step 1.1 applies to the transposed diagram and transports back.

3.1step 1.1step 2.1cases-exhaustive∎

Thus any one of the four outer rows and columns is forced by the other three together with the short exact middle row and middle column.

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-08-30Open item page →

The nine lemma follows from the snake lemma

Statement

The nine lemma can be proved by applying the snake lemma to the standard quotient diagram attached to a commutative 3×3 diagram with short exact columns.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A commutative 3×3 diagram with short exact columns and middle row short exact.

[L1]

The snake lemma supplies the exact six-term sequence for a morphism of short exact sequences (Snake lemma in an abelian category).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1L1givenconstruct

Collapse the first two rows of the 3×3 diagram to their quotient row. The short exact columns identify the needed kernels and cokernels of that quotient diagram with the two outer rows of the original 3×3 picture.

2.1L1step 1.1

Applying [L1] to that quotient diagram yields a snake sequence whose endpoint exactness is exactly the missing exactness of the remaining outer row. Running the same argument in the opposite direction gives the converse implication.

3.1step 2.1∎

Therefore the nine lemma is a direct consequence of the snake lemma.

TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-30Open item page →

The splitting lemma follows from the nine lemma

Statement

If a short exact sequence in an abelian category admits a section or a retraction, then the splitting conclusion can be recovered by applying the nine lemma to the induced 3×3 diagram.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A short exact sequence together with either a section of its right-hand map or a retraction of its left-hand map.

[L1]

The nine lemma forces the missing row in the standard 3×3 diagram built from a section or retraction (Nine lemma in an abelian category).

[L2]

The actual splitting conclusion is already recorded as the splitting lemma (Splitting lemma in an abelian category).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1L1givenconstruct

A section or retraction inserts the given short exact sequence into the usual 3×3 diagram whose other two rows are visibly split exact. Applying [L1] makes the remaining row short exact as well.

2.1L2step 1.1

The data in that recovered short exact row are exactly the biproduct data named in [L2]. So the nine-lemma route reproduces the splitting lemma statement.

3.1step 2.1∎

Hence the splitting lemma follows from the nine lemma.

TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-30Open item page →

Noether isomorphism theorems recovered from the nine lemma

Statement

The first and third isomorphism theorems in an abelian category can be recovered by placing the standard quotient diagrams into a 3×3 short-exact-column diagram and applying the nine lemma.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The standard quotient diagrams attached to a subobject and to a chain of subobjects.

[L1]

The nine lemma reconstructs a missing short exact row from the surrounding short exact rows and columns (Nine lemma in an abelian category).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1L1L2givenconstruct

For the first isomorphism theorem, insert the kernel, image, and cokernel factorization of a morphism into the standard 3×3 quotient diagram. The surrounding rows and columns are short exact by [L2], so [L1] forces the missing quotient row. That row is precisely the statement that the coimage and image quotients coincide.

1.2L1L2givenconstruct

For the third isomorphism theorem, do the same with a chain of subobjects K≤H≤A. The canonical quotient maps provide the surrounding short exact rows and columns, and [L1] forces the remaining quotient row. By [L2], that row is exactly the third isomorphism theorem.

2.1step 1.1step 1.2∎

Therefore the standard Noether isomorphism theorems are recoverable from the nine lemma.

TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-08-30Open item page →

The pullback and pushout theorems

Statement

In an abelian category:

  1. pullbacks of epimorphisms are epimorphisms;
  2. pushouts of monomorphisms are monomorphisms;
  3. in a pullback square, the induced map on kernels of the parallel arrows is an isomorphism;
  4. a commuting square is cartesian exactly when the associated short sequence is exact;
  5. a cartesian square over an epimorphism is also cocartesian.

Proof

technique · direct
1.1L1given

The first claim is [L1]'s pullback-of-epimorphism theorem. The second claim is its pushout-of-monomorphism dual. The third claim is its kernel-comparison theorem.

1.2L1given

The fourth claim is [L1]'s exact-square criterion, and the fifth claim is the cartesian-implies-cocartesian theorem over an epimorphism.

2.1step 1.1step 1.2∎

Hence the pullback and pushout results actually used by the diagram-lemma proofs are exactly the previously published theorems listed above.

TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-30Open item page →

The diagram lemmas hold in the opposite category

Statement

If A is abelian, then every diagram lemma proved on this page remains valid in Aop, and each dual statement is one of the named lemmas on the same page.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: An abelian category A.

[L1]

The opposite of an abelian category is abelian (The opposite of an abelian category is abelian).

[L2]

The snake, four, sharp five, nine, and sharp nine lemmas have already been proved in an arbitrary abelian category (Snake lemma in an abelian category, Four lemma in an abelian category, Sharp five lemma in an abelian category, Nine lemma in an abelian category, Sharp nine lemma).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1L1L2given

By [L1], the opposite category Aop is abelian, so each theorem listed in [L2] applies there as stated.

2.1L1L2step 1.1

Interpreting those statements back in A swaps kernels with cokernels, monic with epic, pullbacks with pushouts, and top-row exactness with bottom-row exactness. Those are exactly the dual formulations already named on this page.

3.1step 2.1∎

Therefore every diagram lemma on this page is closed under passage to the opposite category.

TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-30Open item page →

An exact functor transports every diagram lemma

Statement

Let F:A→B be an exact functor between abelian categories. Then F carries every instance of the short five lemma, snake lemma, four lemma, sharp five lemma, and nine lemma in A to the corresponding valid instance in B. For the snake lemma, the connecting morphism is carried to the connecting morphism under the canonical kernel and cokernel comparison isomorphisms.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: An exact functor F:A→B.

[L1]

Exactness is equivalent to preserving kernels and cokernels, and one-sided exactness preserves monomorphisms and epimorphisms (An additive functor is exact exactly when it preserves kernels and cokernels, A left exact functor preserves monomorphisms and a right exact functor preserves epimorphisms).

[L2]

The connecting morphism is characterized uniquely by a pullback-pushout square, and the named diagram lemmas have already been proved in any abelian category (The connecting morphism exists and is unique, Snake lemma in an abelian category, Four lemma in an abelian category, Sharp five lemma in an abelian category, Nine lemma in an abelian category, The diagram lemmas hold in the opposite category).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1L1given

By [L1], the functor F preserves short exact sequences, kernels, cokernels, monomorphisms, and epimorphisms. Therefore applying F to any diagram that satisfies the hypotheses of one of the listed lemmas again produces a diagram satisfying the same type of hypotheses in B.

2.1L1L2step 1.1

For the short five, four, sharp five, and nine lemmas, the conclusions are therefore immediate from the corresponding theorem in B, namely [L2].

2.2L1L2step 1.1

For the snake lemma, F preserves the pullback, pushout, kernel, and cokernel data used in the construction of δ. The resulting morphism in B satisfies the same universal-property square, so uniqueness in [L2] identifies it with the connecting morphism of the image diagram.

3.1step 2.1step 2.2∎

Hence every diagram lemma on this page is transported by an exact functor, with the connecting morphism respected under the canonical comparisons.

TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-08-30Open item page →

Five lemma for a morphism of long exact sequences

Statement

Let ⋯→An−1→An→An+1→An+2→An+3→⋯ and ⋯→Bn−1→Bn→Bn+1→Bn+2→Bn+3→⋯ be long exact sequences in an abelian category, together with a morphism of these sequences. If the four comparison maps at An−1,An,An+2,An+3 are isomorphisms, then the comparison map An+1→Bn+1 is an isomorphism.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The morphism of long exact sequences in the statement.

[L1]

Every five-term exact window satisfies the sharp five lemma (Sharp five lemma in an abelian category).

[L2]

In an abelian category, a morphism that is both monic and epic is an isomorphism (An abelian category is balanced).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1L1given

Extract the five-term window An−1→An→An+1→An+2→An+3 and the corresponding window in the B-sequence. Exactness of the long sequences makes both rows exact.

2.1L1step 1.1

Because the four surrounding comparison maps are isomorphisms, they satisfy both halves of the hypotheses of [L1]. Hence the middle comparison map An+1→Bn+1 is both monic and epic.

3.1L2step 2.1∎

Therefore that middle comparison map is an isomorphism by [L2].

5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

False statementConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-08-30Open item page →

FALSE: the connecting morphism depends on the choices made in its construction

Statement

The connecting morphism in the snake lemma depends on the choices made during its construction.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The arrow-theoretic construction of the connecting morphism.

[L1]

The connecting morphism exists and is unique (The connecting morphism exists and is unique).

[L2]

Consequently, no choice-independence argument remains to be proved (The connecting morphism depends on no choices).

Refutation

1.1L1

The statement of [L1] already says that the connecting morphism is the unique map making one displayed square commute.

2.1L2step 1.1∎

By [L2], uniqueness is exactly what rules out any dependence on auxiliary choices. Therefore the statement is false.

False statementConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-08-30Open item page →

FALSE: the five lemma needs only that the two middle maps are monic

Statement

To prove the five lemma, it is enough to assume that the two maps adjacent to the middle one are monomorphisms.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The five-term exact diagram.

[L1]

The sharp five lemma splits the proof into one monic half and one epic half (Sharp five lemma in an abelian category).

[L2]

The two adjacent comparison maps are used once as monomorphisms and once as epimorphisms (Why the five lemma asks for isomorphisms in the middle).

Refutation

1.1L1

The monic half of [L1] does use monicity of the adjacent comparison maps, but the epic half requires them to be epic.

2.1L2step 1.1∎

By [L2], the classical five lemma needs both halves at once. Monicity alone therefore does not support the full isomorphism conclusion.

False statementConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-08-30Open item page →

FALSE: the middle nine lemma holds without assuming the composite is zero

Statement

The middle-row form of the nine lemma remains true even if no hypothesis is made that the middle row is a complex.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The middle-row variant of the nine lemma.

[L1]

The middle-row conclusion is stated only after assuming the middle row is a complex (Nine lemma variants by which rows are assumed exact).

[L2]

That zero-composite hypothesis is load-bearing (Why the middle nine lemma needs a zero composite).

Refutation

1.1L1

By [L1], the theorem itself does not claim exactness of the middle row without first requiring that its composite vanish.

2.1L2step 1.1∎

By [L2], without that hypothesis the middle row need not even be a complex, so the purported strengthening is false.

False statementConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-08-30Open item page →

FALSE: the snake lemma is just a pair of short exact kernel and cokernel rows

Statement

The snake lemma says nothing beyond the separate kernel-row and cokernel-row statements for a morphism of short exact sequences.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A morphism of short exact sequences.

[L1]

The kernel and cokernel rows are only partially exact on their own (The kernel row and cokernel row of a morphism of short exact sequences are exact at two nodes each).

[L3]

The snake lemma adds the connecting morphism and the missing middle exactness (Snake lemma in an abelian category).

Refutation

1.1L1L2

The theorem [L1] only gives two-node exactness for the kernel row and two-node exactness for the cokernel row, and [L2] shows that nothing stronger is automatic.

2.1L3step 1.1∎

By contrast, [L3] produces the connecting morphism and the exactness through it. So the snake lemma contains strictly more information than the separate kernel-row and cokernel-row statements.

False statementConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedOpen item page →

FALSE: this page proves the diagram lemmas by reducing to the module case

Statement

The proof of the diagram lemmas supplied on this page reduces the connecting-morphism construction to the already-published module case via Freyd-Mitchell.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The embedding-theorem route just described.

[L1]

The connecting morphism is constructed intrinsically on this page (The connecting morphism exists and is unique).

Refutation

1.1L1

The construction in [L1] takes place in the given abelian category: it forms the connecting morphism through its intrinsic kernels and cokernels and proves the required factorization and uniqueness there. This is the proof supplied on the page for the connecting-morphism step in the diagram lemmas.

2.1L1step 1.1∎

Consequently the statement, read as a description of this page's proof, is false: the connecting-morphism argument it supplies is the intrinsic argument in step 1.1. The assertion here concerns the displayed proof method; it makes no claim that an embedding argument is mathematically impossible in a setting where an appropriate embedding has been established.

Sources