Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedSession-authored (Fable 5 assisted)precheck passaudited 2026-08-24
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 U:DC have a left adjoint. Suppose that a specific coequalizer is supplied for every reflexive pair in D, that U preserves these coequalizers, and that U reflects isomorphisms. Then U is monadic.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: An adjunction FU satisfying the three hypotheses in the Statement, with induced monad T and comparison functor K.

[L1]

A parallel pair f,g:AB is reflexive when it has a common section r:BA with fr=gr=1B (Reflexive parallel pairs and reflexive coequalizers).

[L2]

A conservative functor reflects isomorphisms (Conservative functor).

[L3]
[L4]

Every T-algebra is the coequalizer in CT of its canonical pair of free algebras (Every algebra is the coequalizer of its canonical pair of free algebras).

[L5]

The Eilenberg–Moore forgetful functor strictly creates coequalizers of its split pairs (The Eilenberg–Moore forgetful functor strictly creates coequalizers of UT-split pairs).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1

For a T-algebra (A,a), the pair F(TA)F(A) used in canonical reconstruction has common section F(ηA): one composite is the algebra unit law and the other is the adjunction triangle identity. Hence it is reflexive by [L1].

L1L3
2.1

Use the supplied coequalizer qA:F(A)H(A,a) of this reflexive pair. By hypothesis, applying U preserves it.

step 1.1given
3.1

The preserved coequalizer UqA and the split canonical base coequalizer in [L3] coequalize the same pair, so transport of the splitting makes the underlying fork of K(qA) split. By [L5], K(qA) is a coequalizer in CT; by [L4], so is the canonical fork ending at (A,a). Their universal properties therefore give an isomorphism KH(A,a)(A,a).

step 2.1L3L4L5
4.1

For dD, compare the coequalizer of the reflexive counit pair with the counit fork ending at d. Their images under U are isomorphic canonical coequalizers, so the comparison morphism becomes an isomorphism under U and is itself an isomorphism by [L2].

step 3.1L2
5.1

The supplied object assignment and coequalizer universality define H on algebra homomorphisms, and uniqueness makes the comparisons in steps 3.1 and 4.1 natural. Thus H is a quasi-inverse to K, so K is an equivalence and U is monadic.

step 4.1givenconstruct

Depends on

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