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.
Any two limits, or any two colimits, of one diagram are uniquely isomorphic compatibly with their structure maps
Statement
If and are limits of one diagram , there is a unique isomorphism satisfying for every . Dually, any two colimits of are joined by a unique isomorphism that commutes with every cocone leg.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Two limiting cones and over .
A limit is a terminal cone: every cone has a unique morphism to it, and a colimit is an initial cocone (Limits and colimits as terminal cones and initial cocones, with existence and uniqueness in their universal properties).
Any two terminal objects are uniquely isomorphic, as are any two initial objects (Initial and terminal objects are unique up to a unique isomorphism).
An isomorphism has a two-sided inverse (Isomorphism, groupoid, and connected category).
Proof
By [F1], there are unique cone morphisms and ; hence and for every .
Both and are cone morphisms from to itself, so terminal uniqueness gives . Similarly .
Thus is an isomorphism with inverse . Any compatible isomorphism is a cone morphism , so it equals by uniqueness.
The same argument in uses initial rather than terminal uniqueness [L1]: the unique morphisms between the two initial cocones are inverse and commute with all cocone legs.
Depends on
Used by
- A functor preserves a chosen limit exactly when its canonical comparison to the chosen target limit is an isomorphism, and dually for colimits Lemma
- A limit for each diagram need not provide a chosen limit functor without a simultaneous choice of representatives Remark
- An end is a limit over the twisted arrow category, and a coend is a colimit over its opposite Theorem
- Assuming Choice, precomposition with a final functor does not change colimits, and precomposition with an initial functor does not change limits Theorem
- Iterated small limits commute: either order is canonically isomorphic to the limit over the product category Theorem
Dependency tree · two levels
7 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, Proposition 3.1.7 (standard reference, not scraped)