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.
Snake lemma in an abelian category
Statement
For snake data
there is an exact sequence where is the connecting morphism of The connecting morphism exists and is unique.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The snake-data diagram in the statement.
The connecting morphism exists and is unique (The connecting morphism exists and is unique).
The kernel row is exact at its first two nodes, and the cokernel row is exact at its last two nodes (The kernel row and cokernel row of a morphism of short exact sequences are exact at two nodes each).
Exactness identifies the image of one arrow with the kernel of the next (Exactness at a node).
Every morphism factors as an epimorphism followed by its image inclusion, and epimorphisms remain epic after pullback (Every morphism factors as an epimorphism followed by a monomorphism, uniquely up to unique isomorphism, The pullback of an epimorphism is an epimorphism).
Every image inclusion is a kernel of the corresponding cokernel, and every monomorphism is the kernel of its cokernel (Every monomorphism is the kernel of its cokernel, and dually every epimorphism is the cokernel of its kernel).
Proof
By [L2], the induced kernel row is exact at and , and the induced cokernel row is exact at and . It remains to prove exactness at and .
Let be a kernel of , a cokernel of , and a cokernel of . Use the pullback from [L1], with projections and . That construction gives an epimorphism , a map satisfying , and satisfying . Let be the induced arrow from a kernel of , and let be induced by . Thus and .
The pair induces with and . Since and is monic, . Consequently .
Let be a kernel of . Pull back along , obtaining epic and with . Then . By [L3], , so factors through the image inclusion . Factor with epic, and pull back along this factorization. The resulting is epic and has a map with .
From and one obtains . Since is epic, . Now let be a kernel of . Pull back the epimorphism along , obtaining an epimorphism and with . Then , so factors through . Pull back the epic image projection along this factorization. This gives an epimorphism and with .
Put . Then , so for a unique . Also . Since is monic, . The composite is epic; hence . By [L5], factors through . Together with from step 2.1, this gives .
The bottom-row relation gives , so for a unique . The pair induces , and implies by monicity of . Thus . Because is epic, , so [L5] makes factor through . Along with , this proves .
The two remaining nodes are exact by steps 3.1 and 3.2; the other nodes are exact by step 1.1. Therefore the snake sequence is exact.
Depends on
- Snake data
- The connecting morphism exists and is unique
- The kernel row and cokernel row of a morphism of short exact sequences are exact at two nodes each
- Exactness at a node
- Every morphism factors as an epimorphism followed by a monomorphism, uniquely up to unique isomorphism
- The pullback of an epimorphism is an epimorphism
- Every monomorphism is the kernel of its cokernel, and dually every epimorphism is the cokernel of its kernel
Used by
- The kernel-cokernel sequence of a composite is a snake Corollary
- A snake configuration whose kernel row is not short exact Counterexample
- The connecting morphism computed for a short exact sequence of abelian groups Example
- The published module snake lemma as an instance Example
- The snake lemma applied to multiplication by an integer Example
- FALSE: the snake lemma is just a pair of short exact kernel and cokernel rows False statement
- Cartan–Eilenberg comparisons preserve both filtrations Lemma
- Refinement-limit Cech cohomology computes sheaf cohomology on compact Hausdorff spaces Lemma
- The horseshoe kernel fits into a short exact sequence Lemma
- An exact functor transports every diagram lemma Theorem
- The diagram lemmas hold in the opposite category Theorem
- The nine lemma follows from the snake lemma Theorem
Dependency tree · two levels
30 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
- Saunders Mac Lane, Categories for the Working Mathematician, Lemma VIII.4.5 (standard reference, not scraped)
- The Stacks Project, Section 12.5, Lemma 12.5.17(2) (standard reference, not scraped)