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.
Composing a dinatural transformation with a natural transformation on either side gives a dinatural transformation
Statement
Let be functors (Product category and its projection functors, Opposite category ), let and be natural transformations (Natural transformation and its components), and let be dinatural (Dinatural transformation between functors on ). Then composing a dinatural transformation with a natural transformation on either side gives a dinatural transformation: the families
are dinatural transformations and respectively.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Functors on , natural transformations and , and a dinatural transformation .
A dinatural transformation is a family such that every satisfies , the equation displayed by the hexagon (Dinatural transformation between functors on ).
A natural transformation is a family such that every satisfies the naturality equation (Natural transformation and its components).
The product category has objects , morphisms , componentwise identities, and componentwise composition (Product category and its projection functors).
The opposite category has the same objects and (Opposite category ).
Proof
A morphism of supplies exactly four morphisms of between the objects that occur in a hexagon at , namely , , and ; the first coordinate of each is the morphism of corresponding to or an identity.
For the pre-composition case, naturality of at the first two morphisms of step 1.1 gives and , so both legs of the hexagon for at equal the corresponding leg of the hexagon for precomposed with ; those two legs agree by [F1], hence so do the legs for , and is dinatural.
For the post-composition case, naturality of at the last two morphisms of step 1.1 gives and , so both legs of the hexagon for at equal the corresponding leg of the hexagon for postcomposed with ; those two legs agree by [F1], hence so do the legs for , and is dinatural.
Remarks
Neither half assumes anything about or beyond naturality on the product category, and neither assumes that is natural: the argument transports the hexagon for along or and never builds a new one. What it does not give is a composition rule for two dinatural transformations, and no such rule holds: Dinatural transformations do not compose in general exhibits and both dinatural whose componentwise composite is not.
Depends on
Used by
- FALSE: dinatural transformations compose False statement
Dependency tree · two levels
6 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- F. Loregian, (Co)end Calculus (arXiv:1501.02503v7), Exercise 1.2 (standard reference, not scraped)