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.
Equivalences preserve, reflect, and create limits and colimits in the isomorphism-invariant sense
Statement
An equivalence of categories preserves and reflects every existing limit and colimit and creates them in the ordinary isomorphism-invariant sense fixed in Preservation, reflection, and creation of limits and colimits; continuous and cocontinuous functors. This does not assert strict creation with an unchanged target apex.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: An equivalence .
An equivalence has a quasi-inverse and unit and counit natural isomorphisms (Equivalence, quasi-inverse, and adjoint equivalence of categories, Natural isomorphism).
Fully faithful functors reflect limits and colimits (Fully faithful functors reflect limits and colimits).
Isomorphism-invariant creation asks for a limiting source lift whose image is isomorphic as a cone to the target limit, together with reflection (Preservation, reflection, and creation of limits and colimits; continuous and cocontinuous functors).
Limits and colimits are formal duals (A limiting cone for a diagram is exactly a colimiting cocone for the formally dual diagram in the opposite category).
Proof
Since an equivalence is fully faithful, [L1] proves reflection of limits. The quasi-inverse is also fully faithful and therefore reflects limits.
If is a limit cone in , apply . If a cone over is given, transport it along the unit and counit of [F1], apply , and factor uniquely through . Transporting the factor back gives existence through ; reflection by gives uniqueness. Hence preserves limits.
Let be a limiting cone over . Applying and using step 2.1 for gives a limiting cone over . Transport it along the unit to a limiting cone over . Its image is isomorphic as a cone to by the counit and its naturality. Together with reflection from step 1.1, this is creation in [F2].
Applying [L2] to steps 1.1, 2.1, and 3.1 proves preservation, reflection, and isomorphism-invariant creation of colimits. The construction uses the unit and counit isomorphisms, so it supplies no on-the-nose strict lift.
Depends on
- Preservation, reflection, and creation of limits and colimits; continuous and cocontinuous functors
- Fully faithful functors reflect limits and colimits
- Equivalence, quasi-inverse, and adjoint equivalence of categories
- Natural isomorphism
- A limiting cone for a diagram is exactly a colimiting cocone for the formally dual diagram in the opposite category
Used by
Nothing in the library uses this result yet.
Dependency tree · next 3 levels
Direct dependencies and their dependencies through the next three levels: 21 results over 11 levels. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, and this result sits at the bottom with a heavier outline. Click the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- E. Riehl, Category Theory in Context, Lemma 3.4.5 and Definition 3.4.7 (standard reference, not scraped)