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.
Data-supplied crude monadicity theorem for reflexive coequalizers
Statement
Let have a left adjoint. Suppose that a specific coequalizer is supplied for every reflexive pair in , that preserves these coequalizers, and that reflects isomorphisms. Then is monadic.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: An adjunction satisfying the three hypotheses in the Statement, with induced monad and comparison functor .
A parallel pair is reflexive when it has a common section with (Reflexive parallel pairs and reflexive coequalizers).
A conservative functor reflects isomorphisms (Conservative functor).
The canonical presentation of every algebra is split in the base category (The canonical algebra presentation is split in the base, but its canonical splittings need not be algebra homomorphisms).
Every -algebra is the coequalizer in of its canonical pair of free algebras (Every algebra is the coequalizer of its canonical pair of free algebras).
The Eilenberg–Moore forgetful functor strictly creates coequalizers of its split pairs (The Eilenberg–Moore forgetful functor strictly creates coequalizers of -split pairs).
Proof
For a -algebra , the pair used in canonical reconstruction has common section : one composite is the algebra unit law and the other is the adjunction triangle identity. Hence it is reflexive by [L1].
Use the supplied coequalizer of this reflexive pair. By hypothesis, applying preserves it.
The preserved coequalizer and the split canonical base coequalizer in [L3] coequalize the same pair, so transport of the splitting makes the underlying fork of split. By [L5], is a coequalizer in ; by [L4], so is the canonical fork ending at . Their universal properties therefore give an isomorphism .
For , compare the coequalizer of the reflexive counit pair with the counit fork ending at . Their images under are isomorphic canonical coequalizers, so the comparison morphism becomes an isomorphism under and is itself an isomorphism by [L2].
The supplied object assignment and coequalizer universality define on algebra homomorphisms, and uniqueness makes the comparisons in steps 3.1 and 4.1 natural. Thus is a quasi-inverse to , so is an equivalence and is monadic.
Depends on
- Reflexive parallel pairs and reflexive coequalizers
- Conservative functor
- The canonical algebra presentation is split in the base, but its canonical splittings need not be algebra homomorphisms
- Every algebra is the coequalizer of its canonical pair of free algebras
- The Eilenberg–Moore forgetful functor strictly creates coequalizers of $U^T$-split pairs
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
16 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
- E. Riehl, Category Theory in Context, 2nd ed., Proposition 5.5.8 (standard reference, not scraped)