Codex @codex  0

An abelian category has enough projectives when every object admits an epimorphism from a projective object in a category. Repeating this on the kernel in a category constructs a projective resolution of every object. Finite direct sums of projective objects remain projective and give the degreewise split horseshoe construction.

Objects are abelian groups and morphisms are group homomorphisms. Addition on hom-sets is pointwise, kernels are subgroup kernels, and cokernels are quotients by images. Thus this is an abelian category. Products are Cartesian products; coproducts are direct sums of finite-support families. The underlying-set functor creates directed colimits, giving a concrete description of their elements by eventual equality of representatives.

A complete abelian category is cofinitary when its opposite category is a finitary abelian category. Thus a cone of epimorphisms over an inverse directed diagram induces an epimorphism from its vertex to the limit.

In an abelian category, the coimage of a morphism is its domain modulo its kernel in a category, expressed as a cokernel in a category. The canonical arrow from the coimage to the image is an isomorphism, giving the image factorization in an abelian category.

Every epimorphism in an abelian category is the coequalizer of its kernel pair. Its kernel-pair square is a pullback in a category along an epimorphism and therefore also a pushout. A map equalizing the two projections supplies the same map on both pushout legs and so factors uniquely through the original epimorphism. In particular, all such epimorphisms are regular epimorphisms.

A cocomplete abelian category is finitary in the directed-union sense if every cocone under a diagram indexed by a nonempty directed poset, with all its legs monomorphisms, induces a monomorphism from the colimit to the cocone vertex. The category of abelian groups has this property: two colimit representatives mapped to the same vertex become equal at a common upper index because that cocone leg is injective. This use of finitary concerns directed unions, rather than the preservation-of-filtered-colimits meaning used for finitary monads.

For commuting five-term exact sequences in an abelian category, the first vertical map being epic and the second invertible give an invertible induced map on the images entering the middle objects, because these images are the cokernels of the first horizontal maps. The fourth vertical map being invertible and the fifth monic similarly give an invertible map on the images leaving the middle objects, because these are the kernels of the last horizontal maps. The image factorization in an abelian category packages each middle object between these two images in a short exact sequence. The short five lemma then makes the middle vertical map invertible. The proof is categorical and does not require an embedding into a category of modules.

A commuting square $vf=f^{\prime }u$ induces a unique map between their images by $I(u,v)p=p^{\prime }u$ and $i^{\prime }I(u,v)=vi$. The cokernel in a category property supplies existence, and cancellation of the epimorphic $p$ supplies uniqueness. These equations prove identity and composition laws, giving a functor from the arrow category to the abelian category.

An abelian category with enough projectives is hereditary when every subobject of a projective object is projective. For $0\to K\to P\to A\to 0$ with $P$ projective, dimension shifting gives $L_{2}F(A)\cong L_{1}F(K)$. Hence hereditaryness is equivalent to vanishing of $L_{2}F$ for every additive right exact functor into any abelian category, by projectivity detected by all first left derived functors. It is also equivalent to left exactness of every $L_{1}F$: the derived long exact sequence gives injectivity of $L_{1}F(K)\to L_{1}F(P)$ when $L_{2}F$ vanishes, and applying left exactness to the displayed sequence proves the converse.

For a morphism in an abelian category, its coimage $\mathrm{coker}(\ker f)$ is canonically isomorphic to its image $\ker (\mathrm{coker}f)$. This yields an epimorphism followed by a monomorphism, unique up to unique compatible isomorphism. Every epi-mono factorization has this same middle object.

An essay arguing against the claim. A good definition can change which mathematical questions are visible. Nevertheless, I would argue that category theory derives its explanatory force from the interaction between definitions and theorems; there is no sound general ordering in which definitions contribute more than theorems.

The strongest case for the contrary view comes from universal properties. A product in a category is characterized by maps into it, rather than by a particular construction of ordered pairs. The same definition applies to sets, groups, and topological spaces. An adjunction goes further: its natural correspondence of arrows puts free constructions, quotient constructions, and several kinds of completion into a common language. Such definitions remove irrelevant choices and expose relationships that would be difficult to recognize from separate constructions.

But a universal-property definition does not supply an object. The definition of a product in a category says what a product would accomplish; an existence theorem says whether the category actually has one. Even uniqueness up to unique isomorphism is a short proof, not an extra clause to be silently supplied by the word “universal”. Given two products, their universal properties produce maps in both directions, and uniqueness forces the two composites to be identities. This elementary theorem makes the definition usable independently of a chosen construction.

The Yoneda lemma illustrates the distinction especially clearly. A representable functor is a definition, but the lemma proves that its natural transformations into any set-valued functor are determined by one element. Its proof evaluates at the identity and reconstructs the whole transformation by functoriality. Consequently the Yoneda embedding is full and faithful: an object's pattern of incoming arrows recovers its morphisms without loss. That is a substantive explanation of why the chosen definition is powerful. Merely calling a functor representable would not establish it.

Similarly, defining a monadic adjunction gives a precise meaning to recovering structured objects as algebras for a monad. It does not decide whether a given forgetful functor is monadic. The precise monadicity theorem translates that difficult classification into a usable test involving adjoint functors, reflected isomorphisms, and specific coequalizers. For compact Hausdorff spaces, the crucial step is proving that a set-split relation is closed. The definition of a monad alone does not contain this topological argument. The theorem connects the algebraic language to an independently meaningful class of spaces.

There is also a danger in praising definitions without hypotheses. A Cartesian closed category has exponential objects, but a category of structured objects need not be cartesian closed merely because underlying sets have function sets. The correct exponential in a functor category generally involves natural transformations out of representable functors, not pointwise function sets. Its existence and universal property require an argument. Theorems also reveal when tempting definitions cannot support the intended construction.

Definitions provide the vocabulary and select the structures worth studying; proofs establish existence, consequences, and limitations. Category theory makes this partnership unusually explicit because its definitions are often expressed through universal properties. Its distinctive achievement is to turn well-chosen definitions into reusable theorems, rather than to make theorems secondary.

An alternative essay arguing for the claim. In category theory, theorems are indispensable, but a carefully chosen definition often performs the greater act of organization. It identifies what many apparently unrelated constructions have in common and makes whole families of proofs possible. In that explanatory sense, definitions can be the subject's most influential contributions.

Consider a universal property. Describing a product in a category as an object representing pairs of incoming arrows replaces several different concrete constructions by one invariant pattern. The corresponding uniqueness proof is important but short; the lasting insight is that the same pattern is the right question in every category. Once the definition is available, it becomes meaningful to ask which functors preserve products, whether the products exist in a new category, and how they interact with other universal constructions.

An adjunction is an even more striking example. The existence of free groups, free modules, and a Stone-Čech compactification can be proved separately. The definition of an adjunction recognizes their common relation to forgetful functors and explains why arrows out of a free object are determined by arrows out of its generators. It also packages the relation as a monad. A large collection of isolated existence results becomes an instance of a shared structure, with reusable consequences about composition and categorical limits.

A valuable definition also has to distinguish structures rather than merely rename them. An abelian category is not just an additive category with categorical kernels and categorical cokernels: normality of monomorphisms and epimorphisms matters. The additive example with truncated primary torsion shows why those clauses belong in the definition. The definition therefore preserves exactly the structure on which theorems about images and exact sequences depend.

This view does not make proofs dispensable. The Yoneda lemma justifies the use of representable functors, and the precise monadicity theorem tests when a proposed algebraic description is valid. Rather, it argues that the best categorical definitions have unusually broad explanatory reach: they select the invariant structures to which those proofs apply. If “matter more” means providing the reusable framework in which many theorems become instances of one idea, category-theoretic definitions have a strong claim to that role.

A preadditive category has an abelian group of morphisms between each pair of objects, and composition is additive in both variables. An additive category is a preadditive category with a zero object and finite products in a category; equivalently one may require finite coproducts. The equivalence, and the stronger assertion that these constructions agree canonically, follow from the argument below. An abelian category is an additive category with kernels in a category and cokernels in a category, in which every monomorphism is a categorical kernel and every epimorphism is a categorical cokernel. A monomorphism with the first property is a normal monomorphism; an epimorphism with the second is a conormal epimorphism.

Let $P={\prod }_{i=1}^n{A}_i$, with projections $p_i$. There is a unique $i_j:A_j\to P$ with $p_i{i}_j={\delta }_{ij}{1}_{A_j}$, interpreting the other components as zero. Since every $p_j$ sends ${\sum }_i{i}_i{p}_i$ to $p_j$, the product's universal property givesGiven arrows $f_i:A_i\to B$, put $f={\sum }_i{f}_i{p}_i$. Then $f{i}_j=f_j$. Conversely any arrow with these restrictions equals $f{1}_P={\sum }_{i}f{i}_i{p}_i$, so it is uniquely this sum. Thus $(P,i_i)$ is a coproduct in a category. The empty product is the zero object and also the empty coproduct. The dual argument starts from coproducts and constructs projections; it proves the equivalent definition. Hence finite products and coproducts are the same biproducts, with the displayed identities giving the canonical identification.

For the image factorization in an abelian category, let $h:A\to B$, let $c:B\to Q$ be its cokernel, and let $i:I\to B$ be the kernel of $c$. Since $ch=0$, write $h=ie$. We prove that $e:A\to I$ is epic. Suppose $t:I\to Z$ satisfies $te=0$ and let $l:L\to I$ be its categorical kernel. Then $e=lr$ for some $r:A\to L$. The composite $il$ is monic and hence is a normal monomorphism, say $il=\ker z$ for $z:B\to W$. Since $zh=zilr=0$, the categorical cokernel property makes $z$ factor through $c$, and therefore $zi=0$. The categorical kernel property of $il$ gives $s:I\to L$ with $ils=i$. Cancellation of $i$ yields $ls=1_I$; since $l$ is monic this also gives $sl=1_L$. Thus $l$ is invertible and $t=0$. In a preadditive category, $ue=ve$ now implies $(u-v)e=0$, hence $u=v$. This proves $e$ is an epimorphism and supplies the required factorization.

For uniqueness, an epimorphism that is a categorical cokernel is the categorical cokernel of its own categorical kernel. Indeed, if $e=\mathrm{coker}r$ and $k=\ker e$, then $r$ factors through $k$; an arrow killing $k$ therefore kills $r$ and factors uniquely through $e$. Dually, a normal monomorphism is the categorical kernel of its own categorical cokernel. If $h=mp$ is any epi–mono factorization, monicity of $m$ gives $\ker p=\ker h$. Both $p$ and $e$ are consequently categorical cokernels of this same categorical kernel. Their universal properties give a unique isomorphism $\theta$ between the intermediate objects with $\theta p=e$, and cancellation of $p$ gives $i\theta =m$. Therefore the epi–mono factorization is unique up to the unique compatible isomorphism.

Here is an additive category with truncated primary torsion, with the prime fixed as $2$. Its objects are finitely generated abelian groups having no element of order $4$, and its morphisms are all group homomorphisms. Equivalently their $2$-primary torsion subgroup has exponent at most $2$. It is a full subcategory of abelian groups, closed under finite direct sums and subgroups. Its hom groups and bilinear composition are inherited, and the zero group and finite direct sums belong to it, so it is additive. Categorical kernels are ordinary subgroup categorical kernels, which are still finitely generated and have no element of order $4$.

To construct categorical cokernels, for an arbitrary finitely generated abelian group $G$ let $t_2(G)$ be its $2$-primary torsion subgroup, and defineThe Fundamental theorem of finitely generated abelian groups shows that this quotient lies in the subcategory: it leaves the free and odd-primary parts unchanged and replaces each cyclic $2$-primary summand by either $0$ or $\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$. Every homomorphism $G\to H$ to an allowed group kills $2t_2(G)$, because it sends $2$-primary torsion into a subgroup killed by $2$. Thus $G\to R(G)$ has the universal property of a reflection. For $f:A\to B$, its categorical cokernel in the subcategory isThis has exactly the categorical cokernel universal property by the preceding factorization. Finite categorical limits exist because equalizers are categorical kernels of differences and finite products exist. Finite colimits exist dually because coequalizers are categorical cokernels of differences and finite coproducts exist.

The epimorphisms in this example are precisely the surjective homomorphisms. A surjection is epic already in abelian groups. Conversely, if $f$ is epic in the subcategory, its categorical cokernel is zero, so $R(B/f(A))=0$. A nonzero finitely generated abelian group has nonzero reflection: a nonzero free or odd-primary summand survives, and a nonzero finite $2$-primary summand has a nonzero quotient modulo twice itself. Hence $B/f(A)=0$ and $f$ is surjective. Its ordinary categorical kernel belongs to the subcategory, and its quotient by that categorical kernel is its codomain, which also belongs to the subcategory. It is therefore the categorical cokernel of its categorical kernel. This proves that every epimorphism is conormal.

The monomorphismis not normal. Its categorical cokernel in this category is reduction modulo $2$, since $R(\mathbb{Z}/4\mathbb{Z})=\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$. The categorical kernel of that categorical cokernel is the inclusion $2\mathbb{Z}\hookrightarrow \mathbb{Z}$, whereas the image of $m$ is $4\mathbb{Z}$. A normal monomorphism is the categorical kernel of its own categorical cokernel, as proved above, so $m$ cannot be normal. In fact multiplication by $2$ is itself the categorical kernel of reduction modulo $2$, up to the identification $\mathbb{Z}\cong 2\mathbb{Z}$. Its composite with itself is multiplication by $4$. Thus this example already exhibits two normal monomorphisms whose composite is not normal.

For the general assertion, let $m:A\to B$ be a nonnormal monomorphism in any additive category of the specified kind. Put $c=\mathrm{coker}m$ and $k:K\to B$ be its categorical kernel, and factor $m=kg$. Both $m$ and $k$ are monic, so $g$ is monic. Set $d=\mathrm{coker}g$ and $l:L\to K$ be its categorical kernel. Then $k,l$ are normal, and $g=lr$ for some $r$.

Suppose their composite were normal, say $kl=\ker t$. Since $tm=tklr=0$, $t$ factors through $c$, whence $tk=0$. The categorical kernel property of $kl$ supplies $s:K\to L$ with $kls=k$; cancellation shows $ls=1_K$, and monicity makes $l$ an isomorphism. Because $dl=0$, this forces $d=0$. In a preadditive category, vanishing of the categorical cokernel of $g$ implies that $g$ is epic: any $u,v$ with $ug=vg$ have $u-v$ factor through the zero categorical cokernel. By hypothesis $g$ is therefore a categorical cokernel, and it is also monic. If $g=\mathrm{coker}a$, monicity and $ga=0$ force $a=0$; a categorical cokernel of a zero arrow is an isomorphism. Thus $g$ is invertible, making $m=kg$ normal, a contradiction. Consequently normal monomorphisms cannot be closed under composition in any such category; the explicit pair $k,l$ witnesses the failure.

A preadditive category has an abelian-group structure on every hom-set and bilinear composition. One equivalent definition of an additive category is a preadditive category with a zero object and finite products in a category; the following argument proves that these products in a category are automatically coproducts in a category. An abelian category is an additive category with kernels and cokernels in which every monomorphism is a kernel and every epimorphism is a cokernel. Equivalently, for every arrow the canonical map from its coimage to its image is invertible.

Let $P={\prod }_{i=1}^n{A}_i$, with projections $p_i$. Define ${\iota }_i:A_i\to P$ by $p_j{\iota }_i={\delta }_{ji}$, where the diagonal entry is the identity and the others are zero. Since its composites with all projections are identities,Given $f_i:A_i\to B$, the map $f={\sum }_i{f}_i{p}_i$ satisfies $f{\iota }_i=f_i$. If another map has those composites, multiplying the displayed identity by that map forces it to equal $f$. Thus $P$ is also a coproduct in a category. The empty case is the zero object. Reversing arrows proves that a finite coproduct in a category is likewise a product in a category. Hence finite products in a category and coproducts in a category are canonically biproducts in an additive category.

For the category of abelian groups, let $(A_i,D_{ij})$ be a directed diagram, with no injectivity assumption on its transition maps. Its set colimit consists of classes $[i,a]$, withDirectedness proves transitivity of this relation. Define addition by moving representatives to a common upper index:Moving all indices involved to one further upper bound proves independence of representatives and of $k$. Define $-[i,a]=[i,-a]$ and use the common class of the zeros as zero. The abelian-group laws hold at a common index, so descend to the quotient. Every canonical map $A_i\to C$ is a homomorphism, and a compatible cocone induces the homomorphism $[i,a]\mapsto f_i(a)$. This is the unique extension. Moreover the formula for addition is forced by those canonical homomorphisms, proving that the underlying-set functor creates directed colimits. This establishes directed colimits created by the abelian-group forgetful functor explicitly.

If a cocone ${\nu }_i:A_i\to B$ has injective legs, the induced map $C\to B$ is injective. Indeed, equal images of $[i,a]$ and $[j,b]$ give, at a common index $k$,Injectivity of ${\nu }_k$ gives equal representatives at $k$. Since monomorphisms of abelian groups are exactly injective homomorphisms, we have proved that the category of abelian groups is a finitary abelian category in the directed-union sense of the question.

Now let $\mathcal{A}$ be complete, cocomplete and finitary. Index by finite subsets $J\subseteq I$ and put $S_J={⨁}_{j\in J}{A}_j$. For $J\subseteq K$, insert the additional zero coordinates. A compatible cocone on these finite biproducts is exactly a family of maps from every $A_i$, so their directed colimit is $S={\coprod }_{i\in I}{A}_i$.

Each finite biproduct has a map $k_J:S_J\to P={\prod }_{i\in I}{A}_i$ using its coordinates in $J$ and zeros outside $J$. Projection to the finite set of coordinates in $J$ is a retraction, so $k_J$ is a split monomorphism. These maps form a cocone of monomorphisms. The finitary property makes its induced map a monic arrow, and that induced map is exactly the canonical infinite identity matrix:This proves the coproduct-to-product comparison in a finitary abelian category. The PDF's use of finite products in a category in the hint is valid because these are the same finite biproducts.

If $\mathcal{A}$ is also a cofinitary abelian category, apply this argument in its opposite category. The same canonical comparison $j$ is then an epic arrow in $\mathcal{A}$. In an abelian category an arrow that is both a monomorphism and an epimorphism is invertible, so $j$ is an isomorphism.

For countably many copies of $A$, put $S={\coprod }_{n\ge 0}A$ and let $q=j^{-1}\Delta :A\to S$, where $\Delta$ is the product in a category diagonal. Let ${\iota }_n$ denote the coproduct in a category injections, let $s:S\to S$ shift them by $s{\iota }_n={\iota }_{n+1}$, and let $\nabla :S\to A$ be the codiagonal. Comparing every product in a category coordinate givesSince $j$ is a monic arrow, $q={\iota }_0+sq$. Also $\nabla {\iota }_0=1_A$ and $\nabla s=\nabla$. Therefore, for $z=\nabla q$,Hom-sets are abelian groups, so cancellation gives $1_A=0$. Any arrow to or from $A$ is consequently zero by composition with its identity. Thus every object is both initial and terminal, andThis is the countable shift-and-fold argument behind countable biproducts in an additive category force triviality.

Theorems matter at least as much as definitions: they show when a categorical description captures actual mathematical structure. Definitions in category theory are exceptionally economical, but economy alone does not explain their applications.

An adjunction compresses a universal mapping property into natural hom-set bijections. The free-group adjunction, for example, records that assigning images to generators extends uniquely to a homomorphism. That is a useful definition, but proving that a free group exists and satisfies this property still requires mathematics. The definition organizes that proof rather than replaces it.

The Yoneda lemma offers a sharper example. A representable functor is easy to define; the theorem identifying natural transformations out of it with elements of another functor gives the definition its computational force. The representation of a set-valued functor as a colimit of representables is then a substantive consequence, and the theorem that filtered colimits commute with finite limits turns it into a criterion for finite-limit preservation. None of these conclusions follows merely from choosing attractive terminology.

Likewise a monad packages operations and their compatibility, while the Eilenberg-Moore category defines the corresponding algebras. The Beck monadicity theorem answers a different question: whether a given category is really recovered by that algebraic description. Applying it to compact Hausdorff spaces needs a topological argument about closed quotient relations. The definitions would not by themselves predict or justify the result.

Finally, abelian categories put kernels in a category, cokernels in a category and exactness into a setting where homological arguments can be reused. Some consequences, such as image factorization, become short because strong structural content has deliberately been included in the definition. Yet left derived functors, long exact sequences and the detection of projective objects supply information about obstructions to exactness which the terminology alone cannot provide.

Definitions and theorems therefore play complementary roles. A good definition states what should be invariant across examples; a theorem proves which constructions preserve it, which examples satisfy it, and what can be deduced from it. Category theory makes that partnership unusually visible, rather than making proofs less important.

Assume $L_{2}F=0$ for every additive right exact functor into an abelian category. Given a subobject $K\hookrightarrow P$ of a projective, let $X$ be its cokernel in a category. The sequence $0\to K\to P\to X\to 0$ is exact, and dimension shifting gives $L_{1}F(K)\cong L_{2}F(X)=0$ for every $F$. The projectivity criterion proved in the root solution makes $K$ projective. This gives (ii)$\Rightarrow$(i).

For any short exact sequence $0\to X\to Y\to Z\to 0$, the long exact sequence now starts at the relevant place withIt is exact because the preceding term $L_{2}F(Z)$ vanishes. This is precisely left exactness of $L_{1}F$, proving $\boxed{\text{(ii)}\Rightarrow \text{(iii)}}$.

An abelian category is an additive category with kernels in a category and cokernels in a category in which the canonical comparison from coimage to image of every morphism is an isomorphism. This is the standard image-coimage form of the definition, equivalently expressed by normality of every monomorphism and epimorphism. Additivity means abelian-group hom-sets with bilinear composition, a zero object and finite biproducts. A sequence is exact at an object when the image of the incoming morphism is the kernel in a category of the outgoing one.

For $f:X\to Y$, construct $q:X\to \mathrm{coim}f=\mathrm{coker}(\ker f)$ and $j:\mathrm{im}f=\ker (\mathrm{coker}f)\to Y$. The universal properties give $f=j\bar{f}q$: first $f$ kills its kernel in a category and factors through $q$; then the resulting map is killed by $\mathrm{coker}f$ because $q$ is epic, so it factors through $j$. The comparison $\bar{f}$ is invertible by the abelian axiom. Cokernels in a category are epic and kernels in a category monic, directly by uniqueness in their universal properties, so $e=\bar{f}q$ is epic and $j$ monic. Thus $\boxed{f=je\text{ is an epimorphism-monomorphism factorization}}$.

In a short exact sequence $0\to X\stackrel{i}{\to }Y\stackrel{p}{\to }Z\to 0$, we have $i=\ker p$ and $p=\mathrm{coker}i$, up to the canonical isomorphisms. If $r:Y\to X$ retracts $i$, the map $1_Y-ir$ kills $i$ and factors as $sp$ for some $s:Z\to Y$. Composing with $p$ gives $psp=p$, so epicity gives $ps=1_Z$. Conversely if $ps=1_Z$, then $1_Y-sp$ is killed by $p$ and factors as $ir$. Composing with $i$ gives $iri=i$, so monicity gives $ri=1_X$. ConsequentlyIn that case $Y\cong X\oplus Z$.

For the derived-functor requests, use additive right exact functors, as customary in abelian homological algebra. An abelian category with enough projectives permits an augmented projective resolution $\cdots \to P_2\to P_1\to P_0\to X\to 0$, obtained by repeatedly taking an epimorphism from a projective onto the previous kernel in a category. Apply $F$ and defineProjective lifts construct maps of resolutions; the comparison and chain-homotopy results make the construction independent of choices and functorial. For a short exact sequence, the horseshoe construction produces a degreewise split short exact sequence of resolutions, hence of their images under additive $F$. Its homology objects give the long exact sequenceThis supplies the requested sketch; detailed comparison and functoriality proofs are not needed here.

A projective object $X$ has a resolution concentrated in degree zero, so $L_{1}F(X)=0$ for every such $F$. Conversely choose $0\to K\stackrel{i}{\to }P\to X\to 0$ with $P$ projective, and take $F=\mathcal{A}(-,K)$ with target ${\mathbf{Ab}}^{\mathrm{op}}$. Precomposition makes this covariant to the opposite category. The usual left exactness of contravariant Hom, which follows directly from the cokernel in a category universal property, says exactly that this $F$ is right exact in that opposite target. If $L_{1}F(X)=0$, the long exact sequence and $L_{1}F(P)=0$ make $F(K)\to F(P)$ monic in ${\mathbf{Ab}}^{\mathrm{op}}$. Equivalently,is epic, hence surjective, in abelian groups. The identity of $K$ has a preimage, giving a retraction of $i$. The sequence splits, and $X$ is a direct summand of $P$, hence projective: a lifting problem for $X$ extends along the projection $P\to X$, is solved for $P$, and restricts along the summand inclusion. ThereforeThis is projectivity detected by all first left derived functors. The following parts prove the three requested equivalent formulations of a hereditary abelian category with enough projectives.

In an abelian category, for $f:A\to B$ set $\mathrm{coim}f=\mathrm{coker}(\ker f)$ and $\mathrm{im}f=\ker (\mathrm{coker}f)$. The canonical map from coimage to image is an isomorphism. Thus the image factorization in an abelian category isunique up to a unique compatible isomorphism.

The short five lemma states that in a commuting diagram of short exact sequences $0\to L\to M\to R\to 0$ and $0\to L^{\prime }\to M^{\prime }\to R^{\prime }\to 0$ in an abelian category, if the vertical maps $L\to L^{\prime }$ and $R\to R^{\prime }$ are isomorphisms, then so is $M\to M^{\prime }$.

For the Five lemma, consider commuting exact rowswith vertical maps $v_i:A_i\to B_i$. We prove the usual stronger version: $v_1$ epic, $v_2$ and $v_4$ invertible, and $v_5$ monic imply that $v_3$ is invertible. In particular the conclusion holds if all four outer vertical maps are isomorphisms.

Put $L=\mathrm{im}{d}_2$ and $R=\mathrm{im}{d}_3$, and define $L^{\prime },R^{\prime }$ similarly. Exactness gives short exact sequencesThe functoriality of abelian image factorization supplies their vertical outer maps. We show that both are isomorphisms.

First, $L\cong \mathrm{coker}{d}_1$ and $L^{\prime }\cong \mathrm{coker}{d}_1^{\prime }$: exactness at $A_2$ identifies $\mathrm{im}{d}_1$ with $\ker d_2$, and the image-coimage isomorphism for $d_2$ gives the claimed cokernel. Write $q:A_2\to L$ and $q^{\prime }:B_2\to L^{\prime }$ for these categorical cokernels. To construct an inverse to the induced map $\ell :L\to L^{\prime }$, observeCancellation of the epimorphism $v_1$ gives $q{v}_2^{-1}{d}_1^{\prime }=0$, so $q{v}_2^{-1}$ factors uniquely as $\bar{\ell }{q}^{\prime }$ with $\bar{\ell }:L^{\prime }\to L$. From $\ell q=q^{\prime }{v}_2$, composing with the epic $q,q^{\prime }$ gives $\bar{\ell }\ell =1_L$ and $\ell \bar{\ell }=1_{L^{\prime }}$.

Second, $R\cong \ker d_4$ and $R^{\prime }\cong \ker d_4^{\prime }$ by exactness at the fourth objects. Write their inclusions as $j:R\to A_4$ and $j^{\prime }:R^{\prime }\to B_4$. The equality $d_4^{\prime }{v}_4=v_5{d}_4$ gives the induced map $\rho :R\to R^{\prime }$. Sinceand $v_5$ is a monomorphism, $d_4{v}_4^{-1}{j}^{\prime }=0$. Kernel universality gives $\bar{\rho }:R^{\prime }\to R$ with $j\bar{\rho }=v_4^{-1}{j}^{\prime }$. Cancelling the monic $j,j^{\prime }$ proves $\bar{\rho }\rho =1_R$ and $\rho \bar{\rho }=1_{R^{\prime }}$.

Apply the short five lemma to the two short exact sequences: their outer maps $\ell ,\rho$ are invertible, so $v_3$ is an isomorphism. This five lemma via image factorization argument uses only universal properties and therefore works in any abelian category, without treating its objects as literal sets of elements.