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.
Triangulated Categories — Examples
1 · Prerequisites
- Abelian Categories
- Cardinal Arithmetic, Cofinality and the Alephs
- Categories, Functors and Natural Transformations
- Chain Complexes and Homology
- Chain Homotopy and the Homotopy Category
- Construction of the Natural Numbers
- Countability and Uncountability
- Exactness and the Member Calculus
- Foundations of the Real Numbers for Analysis
- Limits and Colimits
- Long Exact Sequences in Homology
- Mapping Cones Cylinders and Chain Triangles
- Order, Zorn's Lemma, and the Axiom of Choice
- Ordinal Arithmetic and the First Uncountable Ordinal
- Ordinals, Cardinals, and Transfinite Recursion
- Preadditive and Additive Categories and Biproducts
- Reflective Subcategories and the Adjoint Functor Theorems
- Relations, Functions, and Quotients
- Set Theory Beyond Choice: Recorded, Not Proved Here
- Suprema and Infima
- The Diagram Lemmas in an Abelian Category
- The ZFC Axioms and the Basic Set Constructions
- Triangulated Categories
- Universal Properties, Representables and the Yoneda Lemma
2 · Summary
Concrete cone, octahedral, and splitting calculations, together with the guards against the most tempting false generalizations.
3 · Logical flowchart
4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs
None yet.
5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements
The split distinguished triangle
Example
For objects of a triangulated category, consider
Verification
Given: The displayed data.
This is the canonical biproduct triangle, hence is distinguished.
Its final map is zero, so it also exhibits the splitting criterion and the evident section/retraction.
The cone triangle of multiplication by m
Example
For , the map has cone the two-term complex in degrees . Its standard cone triangle is therefore
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The displayed data.
The mapping cone has its stated degreewise direct-sum and differential formulas (The mapping cone of a chain map).
Passing a chain-level cone triangle to the homotopy category gives its standard cone triangle (Standard cone triangle in the homotopy category).
Verification
By [F1], the cone has in degree , so only degrees and remain and its differential is multiplication by .
By [F2], passing this explicit cone triangle to makes it a standard cone triangle.
The long exact Hom sequence of a cone triangle
Example
Applying to the cone triangle of multiplication by gives the exact segment
Verification
Given: The displayed data.
The displayed cone triangle is distinguished.
The representable long exact Hom theorem supplies the exact segment, and identifies its first map with multiplication by .
An octahedron for two composable maps of stalk complexes
Example
For , the three two-term cones of , , and are joined by a distinguished triangle .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The displayed data.
The three-cone calculation supplies the comparison maps and (The three-cone calculation for a composite chain map).
The octahedral axiom supplies a signed distinguished triangle joining the three cone objects (The octahedral axiom gives a triangle relating the cones of f, g, and gf).
Verification
The maps are composable chain maps of stalk complexes.
By [F1] the three-cone calculation provides the comparison maps and . Applying [F2] in supplies the signed fourth face and proves that the resulting triangle is distinguished.
The thick subcategory of acyclic complexes
Example
For an abelian category , the acyclic complexes in form a thick subcategory, and the cone of every quasi-isomorphism belongs to it.
Verification
Given: An abelian category and the displayed data.
Thickness is the preceding proposition.
A quasi-isomorphism has an acyclic cone, so its standard cone object lies in this thick subcategory.
A three-term zero-composite diagram that is not distinguished
Statement refuted
In , the diagram with all three displayed maps zero has zero consecutive composites, but it is not distinguished.
Counterexample
Given: The displayed data.
All consecutive composites are zero because every displayed map is zero.
If it were distinguished, it would be isomorphic to the standard cone triangle of , whose final map is the identity of ; no triangle isomorphism can turn that nonzero map into zero.
Nonuniqueness of a TR3 completion
Statement refuted
TR3 completions need not be unique. In , take the standard cone triangle of the zero map . The zero square on its first two terms has two distinct completions.
Counterexample
Given: The displayed data.
The cone is . Besides the zero third component, take the chain map whose matrix has the identity from the second summand to the first and zero in all other entries.
Both third components kill the cone inclusion and are killed by the cone projection, so each completes the same zero square; they differ on the second summand and hence are distinct in .
Sources
- Charles A. Weibel, Chapter 10, Example 10.1.5
- The Stacks Project, Definition 13.9.1
- The Stacks Project, Lemma 13.4.2
- The Stacks Project, Proposition 13.10.3
- The Stacks Project, Derived Categories, Section 13.10
- Charles A. Weibel, Chapter 10, Exercise 10.2.4
- The Stacks Project, Derived Categories, Remark 13.9.11