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.
Mutual factorisation is an equivalence relation on monomorphisms into an object and dually on epimorphisms out of it
Statement
For monomorphisms into a fixed object, mutual factorisation as defined in Subobject and quotient object as mutual-factorisation classes of monomorphisms and epimorphisms is an equivalence relation. If and mutually factor, the factor maps are unique inverse isomorphisms. Dually, mutual factorisation is an equivalence relation on epimorphisms out of a fixed object, and its factor maps are unique inverse isomorphisms.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Monomorphisms , , and , with the mutual-factorisation relation of Subobject and quotient object as mutual-factorisation classes of monomorphisms and epimorphisms.
A morphism is monic when implies for every parallel pair , and epic when implies ; thus monomorphisms are left-cancellable and epimorphisms right-cancellable (Monomorphism and epimorphism by left and right cancellation).
A morphism with a two-sided inverse is an isomorphism, and that inverse is unique (Isomorphism, groupoid, and connected category).
Proof
Identity factorisations give reflexivity, exchanging the two factor maps gives symmetry, and composing factor maps gives transitivity. The same three operations work dually for epimorphisms.
Suppose and . Then , so monicity of gives ; similarly monicity of gives . Thus and are inverse isomorphisms by [L2], and monicity makes each factor map unique. For epimorphisms the same equations are cancelled on the right, proving the dual claim.
Depends on
Used by
- Two different monomorphisms can represent the same subobject Counterexample
- Subobjects in Set are subsets Example
- FALSE: A subobject is a monomorphism rather than an equivalence class of representatives False statement
- Wide pullbacks compute intersections of supplied set-indexed subobject representatives independently of the representatives Lemma
- Subobjects and quotient objects form oppositely oriented partially ordered collections Theorem
Cited to discharge well-definedness by Subobject and quotient object as mutual-factorisation classes of monomorphisms and epimorphisms.
Dependency tree · next 3 levels
Direct dependencies and their dependencies through the next three levels: 9 results over 5 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, section 4.5 (standard reference, not scraped)