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.
The meet of two subobjects is their pullback
Statement
Let and be subobjects of an object in an abelian category, represented by monomorphisms and . Then the meet in the subobject order is represented by the pullback of and .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Monomorphisms and .
Pullbacks are defined by their commutative square and universal property (Pullbacks and pushouts as limits and colimits of cospans and spans).
A pullback of a monomorphism is a monomorphism (A pullback of a monomorphism is a monomorphism, and a pushout of an epimorphism is an epimorphism).
Subobject inequalities are factorization relations between representatives (Subobjects and quotient objects form oppositely oriented partially ordered collections).
Proof
Form a pullback square tikzcd P \arrow[r, "q"] \arrow[d, "p"'] & C \arrow[d, "c"] \\ B \arrow[r, "b"'] & A. By [L2], the pullback leg is monic, so the composite is monic as well. Because factors through both and , it is a lower bound of the two subobjects.
Let be any lower bound. Then for some and . By the pullback universal property [L1], there is a unique with and . Therefore , so factors through . Hence .
Steps 1.1 and 1.2 show that is a lower bound above every other lower bound. By [L3], the pullback subobject is exactly .