Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2014 iii Paper 18 8 a Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-06
In a pointed category, a zero object defines zero morphisms between all objects. A categorical cokernel of is a map with such that every with factors uniquely as . Equivalently it is the coequalizer of and the zero map, so is an epimorphism.
Write , , and for the vertical arrows, with and . The left pushout in a category applied to the compatible pair and gives satisfying and . The categorical cokernel property of then gives with .
Now . Cancel the epimorphism to obtain . To prove the other identity, the two arrows agree after , because , and after , because both composites are zero. The pushout in a category uniqueness clause gives . Cancelling the epimorphism gives .
Thus is an isomorphism: cokernel invariance under pushout holds already in pointed categories with the indicated cokernels.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2016 iii Paper 119 2 ii Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-06
Apply condition with the singleton . It says that the category of elements has all finite limits, including a terminal object. The opposite category therefore has all finite colimits. In particular it is nonempty; two objects map to their binary coproduct in a category; and any parallel arrows are equalized by their coequalizer. These are precisely the conditions for a filtered category. Equivalently, every finite diagram has a cocone, obtained by reversing a categorical limit in . Thus
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2016 iii Paper 119 4 Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-06
For an adjunction with unit and counit of an adjunction , the monad induced by an adjunction is , with multiplication . Its Eilenberg-Moore comparison functor isHere is the Eilenberg-Moore category. If has reflexive coequalizers, the Left adjoint to the Eilenberg-Moore comparison functor is defined on an algebra for a monad bywhere the last arrow is a coequalizer. The parallel pair has common section , so it is a reflexive pair. The coequalizer property induces on algebra morphisms and gives .
Starting with , iterate this construction: if , put and let be its comparison. The monadic length is the least for which is an equivalence of categories. Thus an equivalence has length zero, and an already monadic adjunction whose right adjoint is not an equivalence has length one. The assumed reflexive coequalizers ensure the needed left adjoints; in the example we identify them explicitly.
For the nested partial unary operation category , writeFor the empty list of operations, take and . We use positive chain indices for new points, so the index zero already labels the copy of . This makes the free-object hint independent of the convention for .
For , the free extension of nested partial unary operations has underlying setKeep the old operations on the zero layer. On new points define onlyand leave every , , undefined there. Define the new top operation byand leave it undefined elsewhere. These are precisely the permitted domains: the first unary operation on every new point moves it, so none of the higher operations is defined there. When , take with . In either case the unit is .
For , let its operations be . Any morphism extends uniquely toThe value is defined because preserves the previous fixed-point equations. The extension respects the top operation at old fixed points and respects the first operation along each new chain; there are no other defined operations on those chains to check. Uniqueness follows from the same forced formulas. For the formula is . These extensions are natural and proveOn a morphism the free functor sends to .
Crucially, the top operation of has no fixed points: its defined old values move to new points, and it has no defined new values when ; for it is the shift. The next free extension therefore adds no points and equips the object with an everywhere-undefined next operation. The same remains true at every subsequent free extension. Hence, for , the composite left adjoint has the same first operations and underlying set as .
This agreement includes the monad structure, not just its underlying endofunctor. The units are the same zero-layer inclusions. The composite counit on an object of is the same forced extension formula, depending only on its first operations. Applying the composite forgetful functor therefore gives the same multiplication . Thus
Next prove creation of the required split coequalizers. Suppose are arrows in and their images have a split coequalizer in . Choose the splitting orientationwith , morphisms in . Denote the top operations on by . For defineSince preserves the lower operations, and this value exists. For , , so preservation by givesThus respects the top operation. The splitting and also show that this is the unique operation on its prescribed domain for which is a morphism. For all these domains mean the whole underlying set.
If is a morphism equalizing , its unique factor in satisfies, on ,where is the top operation of . Hence is a morphism. This proves creates coequalizers of -split pairs.
Moreover, reflects isomorphisms: an isomorphism of the first operations reflects their fixed-point conditions, hence the domain of the next operation; the inverse of a bijective top-operation-preserving map then preserves that operation too. The Beck monadicity theorem now givesUnder this equivalence, the first Eilenberg-Moore comparison functor for the long composite is exactly forgetting all operations after the st: its algebra structure is the top-operation extension formula already computed. Repeating the argument identifies its monadic tower with the successive categoriesAt each stage the corresponding comparison has the remaining composite of the already constructed free extensions as a left adjoint.
No earlier stage can be an equivalence of categories. For , take the two-point set with its first operations all identities. One extension to has every later operation the identity; another has its st operation interchange the two points, and all subsequent operations undefined. Both have the same image in , but the identity function between those images is not a morphism between the extensions. Thus forgetting from to is not full. The final comparison at is an equivalence. This proves the monadic tower for nested partial unary operations has
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2017 iii Paper 119 4 Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-05
A monad on is an endofunctor with natural transformations and satisfyingAn algebra for a monad is with and . A morphism of algebras for a monad satisfies . These form the Eilenberg-Moore category . Its free algebra functor is , and its adjunction to the forgetful functor has the explicit bijection
Write , , and let be the coproduct in a category injections. SetHere is an algebra morphism, with underlying multiplication . For an algebra , an algebra morphism corresponds to , and the transposes of are respectivelyFor the second formula, by naturality of and the monad unit law. Thus exactly when, writing ,These say precisely that and are morphisms of algebras for a monad. Consequently any coequalizer of represents pairs of algebra morphisms out of and , proving the coproduct presentation for monad algebras:Its two algebra injections have underlying morphisms and ; the equivalence just proved verifies both the algebra equations and their universal property.
The displayed pair is a reflexive pair, with common sectionIndeed by the algebra unit laws, whileNow suppose has all finite colimits and preserves reflexive coequalizers. The permitted creation theorem gives reflexive coequalizers in : the underlying pair is reflexive and its coequalizer exists and is preserved by . The preceding construction therefore gives binary algebra coproducts in a category. The initial object is , since the free algebra functor is a left adjoint and is initial in .
For any algebra pair , the augmented pairis a reflexive pair, with common section the injection of , and has exactly the same coequalizing morphisms as . Hence all coequalizers exist in . The construction of finite colimits from coproducts and reflexive coequalizers now gives
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2017 iii Paper 119 5 Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-05
A regular category has finite categorical limits, coequalizers of kernel pairs, and regular epimorphism–monomorphism image factorizations whose regular epimorphisms are stable under every pullback in a category. Equivalently, finite limits, pullback-stable regular epimorphism–monomorphism factorizations suffice. In particular, every strong epimorphism in a regular category is regular.
For the weaker hypotheses here, interpret an image factorization as with the least subobject through which factors, and a strong epimorphism. With pullback in a category constructions, the least-subobject characterization itself implies that is strong: in a lifting square against a monomorphism, pull that monomorphism back to ; since factors through this pullback, image minimality forces its mono into to be invertible, giving the required diagonal. Thus the two descriptions of images agree under the stated hypotheses.
For , define as the image factorization subobject of . For , the pullback in a category universal property and image minimality giveHenceThis is an adjunction between the posets of subobjects.
For Frobenius reciprocity for subobjects, factor through its image , and put . Its mono into represents . The pullback in a category of along the monomorphism has domain canonically , which represents . If strong epimorphisms are stable under pullback along monomorphisms, that pulled-back arrow is strong, so its composite with is an image factorization. This givesEquality here is equality of subobjects, hence an isomorphism of their representatives.
Conversely, let be a strong epimorphism and be monic. Its image is all of : in any image factorization of , the lifting property makes the mono invertible. Apply Frobenius reciprocity for subobjects to and . The induced morphism has image all of , because the image of in is . Its image factorization therefore has invertible mono, so is a strong epimorphism. This proves the converse.
We now use the glued ring categories counterexample to regularity. All rings and ring homomorphisms are unital; the zero ring, where , is allowed. It is the terminal object of , and there is no unital ring homomorphism from it to a nonzero ring. Denote the common zero ring by , and the newly adjoined strict initial object by . Nonzero objects in different copies have no morphisms between them. There is one morphism from every object to and from to every object, and no morphism into except its identity.
Finite products in a category and equalizers can be described explicitly. The terminal object is . The product in a category of two nonzero objects in one copy is their ordinary ring product; the product in a category of nonzero objects in different copies is , since only can map to both. A product with is the other factor, and one with is . For parallel morphisms between nonzero objects in the same copy, the ordinary ring equalizer works; it is nonzero because its subring contains distinct and . All other parallel pairs are equal, and their equalizer is the identity of the domain. Thus the construction of small limits from products and equalizers gives all finite categorical limits.
Within either ring copy, monomorphisms are precisely injective ring homomorphisms: maps from detect unequal elements. The only monos from outside a copy are the maps , and the only subobjects of are and . Indeed a nonzero ring is not subterminal, since can send to or to .
Ordinary ring-image factorizations remain image factorizations in the glued category. Their surjective parts remain strong epimorphisms: a lifting square into a nonzero ring stays in one copy; a square into with mono would require a nonexistent map from a noninitial domain to . Maps with domain are already monic and have identity strong part. Conversely, a strong epimorphism within a ring copy has surjective ring image, since its mono image part must be invertible. A map with is monic but noninvertible, and therefore cannot be strong. This classifies the strong epimorphisms as the identities of and the surjective homomorphisms in the copies, including maps to .
Pullback along a monomorphism within a copy preserves those surjections, using the given regularity of . Pullback along gives , and these exhaust the additional monos, including those into . Thus strong epimorphisms are stable under pullback along monos, so Frobenius reciprocity for subobjects holds.
However, let be the surjective ring homomorphism in the first copy, and pull it back along in the other copy. The resulting arrow isIt is not even an epimorphism, since the distinct evaluation ring homomorphisms and to agree after composing with . Since is strong, it would be a regular epimorphism in a regular category, whose pullbacks must be regular, in particular epic. Therefore the glued category has finite limits and images and satisfies Frobenius reciprocity, but is not regular.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2018 iii Paper 119 3 i Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-05
A reflexive pair has a common section with . Form the pushout in a category of and , and write its two maps from as . Its relation , composed with , gives . Thus . Any with gives the compatible pair for this pushout and therefore factors uniquely through . This proves the coequalizer of a reflexive pair from a pushout construction.
There is a genuine transcription difference: the original PDF says finite products in the finite-colimit assertion, while the TeX says finite coproducts. The PDF assertion is false with products. Even retaining a pushout-existence assumption, the full subcategory of the Category of sets on nonempty sets has finite products, pushouts, and all coequalizers, but no initial object, hence no empty colimit. Regard the poset with elements , orderand incomparable as a category. It has finite meets and top , hence finite products in a category. Every reflexive pair in a poset is an equal pair and has its identity as a coequalizer. But have no least upper bound, so they have no coproduct in a category.
For the corrected construction using finite coproducts, let be a finite diagram in a category. PutDefine on the summand indexed by as and . Maps with are exactly cocone under a diagram data on . Hence their universal coequalizer is its colimit. Replace by the reflexive pairwhose common section is the second injection and whose coequalizer is unchanged. This proves construction of finite colimits from coproducts and reflexive coequalizers, including the empty diagram via the empty coproduct:
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2018 iii Paper 119 5 iv Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-05
Let be a tiny object of , and let be the initial object of . The representable functor is the terminal functor, since each of its values is a singleton. The exponential adjunction and the Yoneda lemma giveSince is tiny, is itself a left adjoint, so preserves all colimits. Evaluation at also preserves colimits, because they are pointwise in a set-valued functor category. Therefore preserves the coproduct construction.
It also preserves epimorphisms. Indeed, every such epimorphism is a pointwise epimorphism in a functor category, hence the coequalizer of its kernel pair, as can be checked pointwise in sets. A left adjoint preserves that coequalizer and therefore sends it to a regular epimorphism, which is an epimorphism; evaluation at zero preserves surjectivity. Thus is an irreducible projective in a set-valued functor category.
A Cauchy-complete category is one in which every idempotent morphism splits. By the characterization allowed in the question, irreducible projectives are representable functors for such an indexing category. Applying it to proves the tiny covariant functor on a Cauchy-complete category with an initial object is representable conclusion:
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2019 iii Paper 119 1 Solution 2026-10-03
A regular epimorphism is the coequalizer of some parallel pair . A strong epimorphism has the left lifting property against every monomorphism: in every commutative squarewith monic, there is satisfying and .
If coequalizes , then . Monicity gives , so the coequalizer property gives a unique with . Now ; every coequalizer is epic, hence . This proves that every regular epimorphism has the lifting property of a strong epimorphism.
For an arbitrary , form its kernel pair and let be its coequalizer. There is a unique with . To show monic, suppose for . Pull back along , obtaining an epic and with . Pull back along , obtaining an epic and with . Thenso factors through the kernel pair of . Since coequalizes that pair, , and hence . The composite is epic, so . This proves the regular-epimorphism-monomorphism factorization from kernel pairs.
If is strong, apply its lifting property to :A diagonal satisfies . Since is also monic, , so is an isomorphism and is regular.
For the category of small categories, let have objects , nonidentity arrows and , and no other nonidentity generators. Send it to the ordinal category by identifying with and sending to the two generating arrows. The image generates , so this is a strong epimorphism in the category of small categories, but it is not full because the composite has no preimage; therefore it is not regular.
Every functor factors through the subcategory of its codomain generated by its image. The first functor is strong epic and the inclusion is monic, so strong-epi--mono factorizations always exist in . Regular-epi--mono factorizations do not always exist: the displayed strong nonregular functor would make its monic factor an isomorphism by strongness, forcing the original functor to be regular.
For a coreflexive pair with equalizer , direct image along the mono satisfies and . Thus any map equalizing obeys . Since , the map is their coequalizer. These identities hold for parameterized subobjects in any elementary topos.
Reflexive coequalizer 2026-10-05
A reflexive coequalizer is a coequalizer of a reflexive pair, meaning a parallel pair with a common section satisfying . A functor preserves reflexive coequalizers when it takes every such coequalizer to a coequalizer of the image pair.
Every algebra for a monad is the coequalizer, in the Eilenberg-Moore category, of with underlying arrows and , followed by . The pair has common section . If an algebra morphism equalizes the pair, the unique induced algebra morphism is . This explicit proof does not require general colimits of algebras.
Regular epimorphism 2026-09-28
A regular epimorphism is a morphism that is the coequalizer of some parallel pair. Every regular epimorphism is a strong epimorphism.
Split coequalizer 2026-10-06
For parallel arrows , a split coequalizer consists of and arrows , with , , , and . These equations prove the coequalizer property: if , then , so is the unique factor through . Every functor preserves this split coequalizer because it preserves these equations.