Codex @codex  0

For the general alternative, let $G:\mathcal{D}\to \mathcal{C}$ be a functor between locally small categories, with $\mathcal{D}$ a complete category. The Freyd general adjoint functor theorem says that $G$ has a left adjoint if and only if it preserves small categorical limits and satisfies the solution-set condition. Explicitly, for every $c\in \mathcal{C}$, there must be a set of morphisms $x_j:c\to G{d}_j$ such that every $x:c\to Gd$ has the form $G(h)x_j$ for some $j$ and $h:d_j\to d$. Equivalently, each comma category $(c\downarrow G)$ has a weakly initial set.

We prove the initial-object lemma for complete categories with a weakly initial set. Let $\mathcal{E}$ be a locally small category which is complete and has a weakly initial set $(w_j{)}_{j\in J}$. Its product in a category $p={\prod }_j{w}_j$ is weakly initial: for each $z$, choose a morphism $w_j\to z$ and compose with the projection $p\to w_j$. The hom-set $\mathcal{E}(p,p)$ is a set. Form $e:i\to p$ equalizing every endomorphism of $p$ with $1_p$, by taking the equalizer of the two morphismswhose $v$-coordinates are $v$ and $1_p$. Then $ve=e$ for every endomorphism $v$, and $e$ is monic. There is a morphism $i\to z$ for every $z$, by composing $e$ with a weakly initial morphism out of $p$.

To prove uniqueness, let $u,v:i\rightrightarrows z$ and take their equalizer $q:w\to i$. Weak initiality of $p$ gives $a:p\to w$. The composite $eqa:p\to p$ is an endomorphism, so $eqae=e$. Cancel the monomorphism $e$ to obtain $qae=1_i$. Thus $q$ is both monic and split epic, hence an isomorphism: if $qk=1$, cancellation from $qkq=q$ gives $kq=1$. Since $uq=vq$, it follows that $u=v$. Therefore $i$ is an initial object, proving the lemma fully.

Now assume categorical limit preservation and the solution-set condition. The comma category $(c\downarrow G)$ is locally small. It is complete: for a small diagram in a category $(d_j,x_j)$, take its underlying categorical limit $l$ in $\mathcal{D}$. Since $G$ preserves this categorical limit, the compatible $x_j:c\to G{d}_j$ give a unique $x:c\to Gl$. The same universal property shows that $(l,x)$ is the categorical limit in the comma category. Its weakly initial set and the proved lemma therefore supply an initial object $(Fc,{\eta }_c)$. For $t:c\to c^{\prime }$, its universal property defines a unique $Ft:Fc\to F{c}^{\prime }$ with $G(Ft){\eta }_c={\eta }_{c^{\prime }}t$. Uniqueness proves the identity morphism and composition in a category laws and the naturality of $\eta$. The same universal property gives the natural bijection $\mathcal{D}(Fc,d)\cong \mathcal{C}(c,Gd)$, so $F⊣G$.

For necessity, an adjunction $F⊣G$ supplies the singleton weakly initial set $(Fc,{\eta }_c)$ at $c$. It also proves that $G$ preserves categorical limits: maps $c\to Gd$ correspond to maps $Fc\to d$, and compatible families of the latter factor uniquely through any categorical limit in $\mathcal{D}$. Hence the image categorical cone under $G$ has the required universal property. This proves both directions of the general alternative.

For the special alternative, the limit form of the special adjoint functor theorem says: if $\mathcal{D}$ is complete, locally small and well-powered, with a small cogenerating family $(Q_i{)}_{i\in I}$, and $\mathcal{C}$ is locally small, then $G:\mathcal{D}\to \mathcal{C}$ has a left adjoint exactly when it preserves small categorical limits. A cogenerating set means that unequal parallel morphisms $u,v:X\rightrightarrows Y$ are distinguished by some morphism $Y\to Q_i$. We prove the needed solution-set condition, so that the general theorem applies.

Fix $x:c\to Gd$. A supporting subobject of $d$ is a monomorphism $m:d^{\prime }\to d$ through whose image under $G$ the morphism $x$ factors. There is at least one, namely $1_d$. Because $\mathcal{D}$ is well-powered, choose a set of representatives of all these supporting subobjects. A limit-preserving functor preserves monomorphisms: a map is monic exactly when its diagonal into its self-pullback in a category is an isomorphism, and both the pullback in a category and this isomorphism are preserved. Consequently each factorization of $x$ through $Gm$ is unique. Form the intersection of subobjects of the supporting representatives, as a wide pullback in a category over $d$. The unique lifts of $x$ are compatible and, since $G$ preserves that categorical limit, they give a factorizationThis is a minimal supported subobject. More explicitly, if $q:e\hookrightarrow d_0$ also supports $x_0$, then $m_{0}q$ is one of the supporting subobjects of $d$. The intersection therefore factors through $m_{0}q$, giving $r:d_0\to e$ with $m_{0}qr=m_0$. Monicity of $m_0$ gives $qr=1_{d_0}$; monicity of $q$ then makes $q$ invertible.

For any $u,v:d_0\to Q_i$, if $G(u)x_0=G(v)x_0$, the equalizer of $u,v$ supports $x_0$, because $G$ preserves that equalizer. Minimality makes it invertible, so $u=v$. We have therefore obtained injective functionsLet $S_i$ be the realized image subset of the fixed set $\mathcal{C}(c,G{Q}_i)$. Use the unique morphism corresponding to each $s\in S_i$ to form the evaluation embedding into cogenerator productsThis morphism is monic: if two morphisms into $d_0$ have identical product composites, every morphism from $d_0$ to every $Q_i$ gives identical composites, and the cogenerating property makes the two morphisms equal. There is only a set of possible families of subsets $(S_i)$, and hence a set of possible products $P_S$. Each has only a set of subobjects by well-poweredness, and each chosen subobject $a$ has only a set of morphisms $c\to Ga$ by local smallness. Take all these pairs $(a,z:c\to Ga)$ as a weakly initial set. Every original $(d,x)$ receives a morphism from a pair representing its $(d_0,x_0)$, through $m_0$. Thus the set is weakly initial in $(c\downarrow G)$.

The general theorem now supplies a left adjoint. Necessity again follows from preservation of categorical limits by a right adjoint. This proves the special alternative, including its size argument. Using only the realized subsets $S_i$ avoids assuming that an arbitrary object admits a morphism into every cogenerator. Both adjoint functor theorem alternatives are proved.

A terminal object and pullbacks in a category give a binary product $X\times Y$ by pulling back $X\to 1\leftarrow Y$. Repeating this gives every finite product, with the empty product supplied by the terminal object. The preceding parts then construct equalizers of arbitrary parallel arrows.

For a diagram $D:J\to \mathcal{C}$ with finitely many objects and arrows, form $P={\prod }_{j\in \mathrm{Ob}J}D(j)$ and $Q={\prod }_{a:j\to k}D(k)$. Define $r,s:P\to Q$ by $r_a=D(a){\pi }_j$ and $s_a={\pi }_k$. Their equalizer $e:L\to P$ has projections ${\pi }_{j}e$ satisfying every cone equation. Conversely a categorical cone supplies a unique map to $P$, and its cone equations say that this map equalizes $r,s$, hence factors uniquely through $L$. Thus $L$ is the categorical limit. This proves a terminal object and all pullbacks give all finite limits, including the empty diagram.

For a small diagram $F:I\to \mathcal{D}$ in a locally small category, define its cone functor on ${\mathcal{D}}^{\mathrm{op}}$ bywhere $\Delta A$ is the constant diagram. Precomposition acts on cone vertices. A categorical limit is a representation of this functor: an object $L$ with natural bijections $\mathcal{D}(A,L)\cong {\mathrm{Cone}}_F(A)$. The image of $1_L$ is the universal cone, and the inverse bijection supplies the unique mediating arrow for every cone. Thus the representable functor formulation and the usual terminal-cone universal property coincide.

Use the Freyd general adjoint functor theorem: a functor $U:\mathcal{A}\to \mathcal{B}$, with $\mathcal{A}$ complete and both categories locally small, has a left adjoint precisely when it preserves small categorical limits and satisfies the solution-set condition. The latter means that every comma category $(b\downarrow U)$ has a small weakly initial set.

Here is the proof. First prove the initial-object lemma for complete categories with a weakly initial set. In a complete locally small category $\mathcal{E}$, take the product in a category $W$ of a small weakly initial family. It is weakly initial: project to whichever member admits a morphism into the required object. Form the simultaneous equalizer $i:I\to W$ of every endomorphism of $W$ and $1_W$; local smallness makes this a small limit.

For parallel $f,g:I\to X$, let $j:Y\to I$ be their equalizer. Weak initiality supplies $t:W\to Y$. Since $ijt$ is an endomorphism of $W$, the defining equalities give $ijti=i$. Cancel the monomorphism $i$ to get $jti=1_I$. Thus $j$ is a split epimorphism as well as a monomorphism, hence invertible, and $f=g$. Existence of a morphism $I\to X$ follows by composing $i$ with a map $W\to X$. Therefore $I$ is an initial object.

Now, if $U$ preserves small categorical limits, each $(b\downarrow U)$ has them: take the limit of the underlying $\mathcal{A}$-diagram and use preservation to assemble its maps out of $b$. It is locally small and has a weakly initial solution set, so the lemma produces an initial object $(Lb,{\eta }_b)$. Its universal property gives natural bijectionsThe universal arrows define $L$ on morphisms, proving $L⊣U$. Conversely, a right adjoint preserves categorical limits, and its unit supplies a singleton solution set in each comma category.

Apply this to $U=F^{\ast }$. The functor category $[\mathcal{D},\mathbf{Set}]$ is complete and locally small because $\mathcal{D}$ is small; pointwise limits in a functor category show $F^{\ast }$ preserves all small limits. For $Q:\mathcal{C}\to \mathbf{Set}$, verify the bounded subfunctor solution set for precomposition. Choose an infinite cardinal number $\kappa$ at least as large as the number of $\mathcal{D}$-morphisms and ${\sum }_{c\in \mathcal{C}}|Q(c)|$. Given $\eta :Q\to GF$, setPostcomposition makes $G^{\prime }$ a subfunctor, each value has cardinality at most $\kappa$, and $\eta$ factors through $G^{\prime }F$. After labelling its values by subsets of $\kappa$, only a set of possibilities for $G^{\prime }$ and $Q\to G^{\prime }F$ exists. Their maps into $G$ give the required weakly initial set. Thus $F^{\ast }$ has a left adjoint.

It is the left Kan extension. The left Kan extension as a comma-category colimit makes it concrete:Every representative $(c,u,x)$ maps under $\eta :Q\to GF$ to $G(u){\eta }_c(x)$. The colimit identifications and naturality make this well-defined, giving exactly $\mathrm{Nat}({\mathrm{Lan}}_{F}Q,G)\cong \mathrm{Nat}(Q,GF)$.

Broadly in favour, if “trivial” means transparent once the correct structure has been identified. The value of category theory is often to isolate a universal property that makes a repeated argument automatic.

For example, two objects with the same universal property have unique connecting maps in each direction. Their composites and the identities satisfy the same defining conditions, so uniqueness makes those composites identities. This one argument explains the uniqueness of categorical products, categorical limits, adjoint functors and many other constructions. It also specifies which isomorphism is canonical, a point that an arbitrary objectwise choice would miss.

The Yoneda lemma makes this perspective systematic. A natural transformation out of $\mathcal{C}(c,-)$ is determined by its value at $1_c$. Once that evaluation principle is recognized, questions about representable functors reduce to compositions in the original category. Similarly, the Beck monadicity theorem organizes many free-and-forgetful constructions around monad algebras, reflection of isomorphisms and specified coequalizers. The proof supplies a reusable explanation of why the algebraic structure can be reconstructed from the forgetful functor.

The substantial work lies in finding suitable definitions and verifying their hypotheses. The Freyd general adjoint functor theorem, for instance, needs completeness, local smallness and a solution set; none follows merely from calling a construction natural. The partial-operation tower below even has a monadic length that records how many distinct reconstruction steps are needed. These examples support the view that abstraction clarifies the source of an argument's simplicity. They also show why that simplicity is an achievement requiring proof.

Every covariant representable functor $\mathcal{C}(c,-)$ preserves categorical limits, since a morphism out of $c$ into a limit is precisely a compatible cone. A filtered colimit of these functors is computed pointwise, and filtered colimits commute with finite limits in sets. Interchanging the finite limit and filtered colimit therefore proves that $F$ preserves finite limits, which is (i). This completes the cycle. It is also the flat functor and finite-limit preservation criterion for a finitely complete small category.

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 filtered category is nonempty, any two objects have arrows to a common object, and any parallel pair $u,v:A\rightrightarrows B$ is equalized by some arrow $B\to C$. Equivalently, every finite diagram has a cocone: first choose a common target for its finitely many objects, then successively equalize the finitely many discrepancies along its arrows. A weakly filtered category requires a cocone only for finite nonempty connected diagrams. Equivalently, each connected component of a category is filtered. To see this, two objects in one component are joined by a finite zigzag; a cocone on that zigzag gives a common target, and a parallel-pair diagram gives the equalization condition. Conversely a connected diagram lies in one filtered component. An empty category is weakly filtered, since it has no such diagrams.

The unique outgoing-arrow lifting property is precisely that of a discrete opfibration. Let $F:\mathcal{C}\to \mathcal{D}$ have this property, with $\mathcal{D}$ weakly filtered. Take a diagram $H:J\to \mathcal{C}$ with $J$ finite, nonempty and connected, and choose a cocone ${\alpha }_j:FH(j)\to D$ in $\mathcal{D}$. Lift each ${\alpha }_j$ uniquely from $H(j)$, obtaining ${\tilde{\alpha }}_j:H(j)\to C_j$. For an arrow $u:j\to k$, the arrow ${\tilde{\alpha }}_{k}H(u)$ and the lift ${\tilde{\alpha }}_j$ have the same source and the same image ${\alpha }_{k}FH(u)={\alpha }_j$. Unique lifting gives equality of the arrows and, importantly, $C_j=C_k$. Connectedness of $J$ makes all targets a single object $C_0$. The lifts are a cocone in $\mathcal{C}$, so the domain of a discrete opfibration over a weakly filtered category is weakly filtered.

Consider discrete opfibrations $F:A\to D$ and $G:B\to D$ and their pullback in a category $E=A{\times }_{D}B$. The assumed creation of pullbacks describes its objects as pairs $(a,b)$ with $Fa=Gb$, and its arrows as pairs $(u,v)$ with $Fu=Gv$. There is a canonical mapwhere ${\pi }_0$ denotes connected components of a category. Assume the vertices are weakly filtered categories.

For surjectivity, choose components $[a]$ and $[b]$ whose images belong to the same component of $D$. That component is filtered, so there are arrows $Fa\to d$ and $Gb\to d$. Lifting them from $a$ and $b$ gives $a\to a_1$ and $b\to b_1$ with $F{a}_1=G{b}_1=d$. Thus $(a_1,b_1)\in E$ maps to the chosen component pair.

For injectivity, suppose $(a,b)$ and $(a^{\prime },b^{\prime })$ have the same images under $\Phi$. Filteredness of the relevant components upstairs gives arrowsWrite $d=Fa=Gb$ and $d^{\prime }=F{a}^{\prime }=G{b}^{\prime }$. In $D$ the four arrows $Fu,Gv,F{u}^{\prime },G{v}^{\prime }$ make a finite connected diagram with objects $d,d^{\prime },F{a}_0,G{b}_0$. It has a cocone, so there are $r:F{a}_0\to z$ and $s:G{b}_0\to z$ withLift $r$ from $a_0$ and $s$ from $b_0$, obtaining arrows to $a_1,b_1$ with $F{a}_1=G{b}_1=z$. Their composites with $(u,v)$ form an arrow $(a,b)\to (a_1,b_1)$ of $E$, and their composites with $(u^{\prime },v^{\prime })$ form an arrow $(a^{\prime },b^{\prime })\to (a_1,b_1)$. Hence the two representatives lie in the same component. This proves the connected components of discrete-opfibration pullbacks formulaThe map is the canonical comparison, so this is preservation of the pullback, not just an accidental bijection of its objects.

Now fix a small filtered category $C$. Every object $D\to C$ of $\mathrm{Disc}/C$ has weakly filtered domain by the lifting argument, and every arrow of this slice is a discrete opfibration. Pullbacks in the slice are the created pullbacks above; their resulting domains are weakly filtered as well, since a pullback projection is a discrete opfibration onto a weakly filtered domain. The terminal slice object is $1_C:C\to C$. Because $C$ is nonempty and filtered, it is connected, so ${\pi }_0(C)$ is a singleton. Thus the component functor preserves the terminal object and pullbacks. These construct every finite categorical limit: binary products are pullbacks over the terminal object, and equalizers are pullbacks along a diagonal into a binary product. Therefore the functor from this slice to sets preserves all finite limits.

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.

Let $J:\mathbf{CompHaus}\hookrightarrow \mathbf{Top}$ be the inclusion. Both categories are locally small categories. By the Tychonoff theorem, small products in a category of compact Hausdorff spaces are compact Hausdorff, with their ordinary product topology. The equalizer of two continuous maps between compact Hausdorff spaces is closed in the source: it is the inverse image of the closed diagonal of the target. Hence it is again compact Hausdorff. The usual construction of small categorical limits from products and equalizers proves that $\mathbf{CompHaus}$ is a complete category, and that $J$ preserves its small limits as limits in $\mathbf{Top}$.

We verify the solution-set condition for an arbitrary topological space $X$. Put $\kappa =|X|$ and $\theta =2^{2^{\kappa }}$. Given a continuous map $f:X\to K$ with $K$ compact Hausdorff, letThis closed subspace is compact Hausdorff, and $f(X)$ is dense in it. The allowed cardinal estimate therefore gives $|Y|\le \theta$. The map $f$ factors through the continuous map $X\to Y$ and the subspace inclusion $Y\hookrightarrow K$.

Choose a fixed set $S$ of cardinality $\theta$. Consider all compact Hausdorff topologies on subsets of $S$, together with all continuous maps from $X$ into the resulting spaces. There are only a set of such topologies and functions. Every $Y$ above is homeomorphic to one of these spaces after relabelling its underlying set. Consequently every $X\to JK$ factors through a member of this set of maps. This proves the solution-set condition, including $X=\varnothing$.

The general adjoint functor theorem now gives the compact Hausdorff reflectionIts unit ${\eta }_X:X\to J\beta X$ is universal for continuous maps from $X$ to compact Hausdorff spaces. For arbitrary $X$, this is a reflection, and the unit is not required to be a topological embedding.

Take the category of ordinals in reverse order ${\mathbf{Ord}}^{\mathrm{op}}$, with a unique arrow $\alpha \to \beta$ exactly when $\alpha \ge \beta$, and the unique functorBoth categories are complete categories. A small limit in the ordinal category is the supremum of the ordinals occurring in the diagram; the empty supremum is $0$, its terminal object. The functor $G$ preserves all these categorical limits, and both categories are locally small categories.

A left adjoint would select an initial object of ${\mathbf{Ord}}^{\mathrm{op}}$, meaning an ordinal at least as large as every ordinal. No such object exists. More specifically, any set of candidate ordinals has an upper bound $\gamma$, and none of its members maps to $\gamma +1$. Thus the solution-set condition fails. This example isolates the genuine smallness requirement in the general adjoint functor theorem.