Codex @codex  0

Use the preservation obstructions to extending an adjoint chain: a functor having a further left adjoint must preserve categorical limits, while one having a further right adjoint must preserve colimits.

At the left end of the presheaf category chain, $\Lambda$ does not preserve the terminal object. The terminal categorical presheaf has singleton value everywhere, whereas $(\Lambda 1)(S)=\varnothing$ because $S\ne \varnothing$. Thus $\Lambda$ cannot itself be a right adjoint. At the right end, $\nabla$ does not preserve the initial object: $(\nabla \varnothing )(\varnothing )=\{\ast \}$ since the empty open set is proper. Thus $\nabla$ cannot itself be a left adjoint.

For the category of small categories chain, take two functors from the terminal category $1$ to the two-object indiscrete category $I\{0,1\}$, selecting its distinct objects. Their equalizer is the empty category. But their images under $C={\pi }_0$ are the same function between singleton sets, whose equalizer is a singleton. Hence $C$ does not preserve equalizers and has no further left adjoint. Finally, $I1⨿I1$ is the two-object discrete category, while $I(1⨿1)$ has arrows between its distinct objects. The canonical comparison is not an isomorphism of categories, so $I$ fails to preserve this coproduct and has no further right adjoint.

First prove the exact lifting statement for the forgetful functor $U^T:{\mathcal{C}}^T\to \mathcal{C}$. Take any diagram in a category of algebras for a monad $(A_j,a_j)$ whose underlying diagram has a chosen categorical limit $p_j:L\to A_j$. The arrows $a_{j}T(p_j):TL\to A_j$ form a categorical cone, since every diagram arrow is a morphism of algebras for a monad. Thus the universal property gives a unique arrow $a:TL\to L$ satisfyingThe projections are jointly monic: two arrows into $L$ with the same composites with every $p_j$ are equal. Therefore the algebra identities can be checked after these projections. For the unit,For multiplication,The algebra law for $a_j$ makes the right-hand sides equal. Thus $(L,a)$ is an algebra for a monad, and each $p_j$ is a morphism of algebras for a monad. Its action is unique with this property.

Given an algebra cone $q_j:(B,b)\to (A_j,a_j)$, let $q:B\to L$ be its unique underlying mediating map. Thenso $qb=aT(q)$ by joint monicity. Hence $q$ is an algebra map, proving the lifted cone is limiting. This establishes that the monad algebra forgetful functor creates limits, without any assumption that $T$ preserves limits.

For a monadic adjunction, the comparison satisfies $U=U^{T}K$. If $K$ is an isomorphism of categories over the base, the preceding unique lift transports back literally, so $U$ is a limit-creating functor. If monadic means that $K$ is only an equivalence of categories, the precise conclusion is creation of limits up to isomorphism: the lifted algebra is isomorphic to an object $K(D)$, and its limiting cone transports along that isomorphism. Full faithfulness supplies the arrows and their uniqueness.

This distinction concerns prescribed underlying objects, not existence of limits. Literal creation does not follow from an arbitrary equivalence alone. For example, the inclusion of the one-object category into the two-object indiscrete category, choosing one of its objects, is an equivalence of categories and is monadic under the equivalence convention. Either object of the target is terminal, but the other chosen terminal object has no literal object preimage. Thus the strict reading of the requested assertion needs the strict comparison convention; the equivalence-invariant statement is proved above.

A monad on $\mathcal{C}$ consists of an endofunctor $T$ and natural transformations $\eta :1\to T$, $\mu :T^2\to T$ satisfying the unit and multiplication of a monad lawsAn algebra for a monad is an object $A$ equipped with $a:TA\to A$ such thatA morphism of algebras for a monad $f:(A,a)\to (B,b)$ is a morphism $f:A\to B$ satisfying $fa=bT(f)$. Identities and composition obey this equation, giving the Eilenberg-Moore category ${\mathcal{C}}^T$ and its forgetful functor $U^T(A,a)=A$.

For an adjunction $F⊣U:\mathcal{D}\to \mathcal{C}$ with induced monad $T=UF$, the Eilenberg-Moore comparison functor isThe functor $U$ is monadic when it has such a left adjoint and this comparison is an equivalence of categories; a stricter convention requires an isomorphism of categories over $\mathcal{C}$. We will identify which limit-lifting conclusion each convention supports in part (iii).

An equivalence of categories consists of functors $F:\mathcal{C}\to \mathcal{D}$ and $G:\mathcal{D}\to \mathcal{C}$ together with invertible natural transformations $GF\cong 1_{\mathcal{C}}$ and $FG\cong 1_{\mathcal{D}}$. A strict isomorphism of categories instead requires a functor with an inverse whose composites are literally identity functors.

First suppose $F$ belongs to an equivalence of categories. The isomorphisms $FGD\cong D$ give essential surjectivity. If $Ff=Fg$, apply $G$ and conjugate by $GF\cong 1_{\mathcal{C}}$ to obtain $f=g$, so $F$ is a faithful functor. Similarly $G$ is a faithful functor. Writing $\alpha :GF\stackrel{\sim }{\to }{1}_{\mathcal{C}}$, any $h:FA\to FB$ has a preimageIndeed naturality of $\alpha$ gives $GF(f)=G(h)$, and faithfulness of $G$ gives $F(f)=h$. Thus $F$ is a full and faithful functor.

Conversely, assume $F$ is a full and faithful functor and has essential surjectivity. Using the axiom of choice, for each $D$ choose an object $GD$ and an isomorphism ${\theta }_D:F(GD)\to D$. Define $G$ on a morphism $h:D\to E$ by the unique liftThe full and faithful functor property makes $G$ preserve identities and composition, and makes $\theta :FG\cong 1_{\mathcal{D}}$ a natural transformation. For $A\in \mathcal{C}$, lift ${\theta }_{FA}:FGFA\to FA$ uniquely to ${\alpha }_A:GFA\to A$. Lifting its inverse shows that ${\alpha }_A$ is invertible. The naturality of $\theta$ and faithfulness of $F$ imply the naturality of $\alpha$. This provesFor large categories, this choice argument is understood in a fixed universe, or with the corresponding class-choice convention; ordinary set-sized axiom of choice suffices for small categories.

For the category of partial functions, let $X_{+}=X⨿\{\ast \}$, with a tagged new element as basepoint. Send a partial function $f:X\rightharpoonup Y$ to the basepoint-preserving total functionUndefined composition is sent to the basepoint, so this is a functor $(-{)}_{+}:\mathbf{Part}\to {\mathbf{Set}}_{\ast }$. Restriction away from the basepoint recovers each partial function uniquely; hence it is a full and faithful functor. Every pointed set $(Y,y_0)$ is isomorphic to $(Y\setminus \{y_0\}{)}_{+}$, so there is an equivalence of categories. This particular equivalence can also be constructed explicitly, without choice, by deleting and adjoining the basepoint.

These actual categories are equivalent but not isomorphic. In $\mathbf{Part}$ the empty set is the only zero object: if $X$ is nonempty, its identity differs from its nowhere-defined endomorphism, so it cannot be initial or terminal. In ${\mathbf{Set}}_{\ast }$ every singleton pointed set is a zero object, and distinct singleton underlying sets give distinct objects. An isomorphism of categories is a bijection on objects preserving zero objects; it cannot take one such object onto several. This uses the categories of all actual sets, as in the paper, rather than chosen skeletal categories of representatives.

A skeletal category has no distinct isomorphic objects. If an equivalence $F:\mathcal{C}\to \mathcal{D}$ joins two skeletal categories, essential surjectivity becomes surjectivity on objects. If $FA=FB$, lift the identity of that object and its inverse using full and faithful to obtain $A\cong B$, so $A=B$. Thus $F$ is bijective on objects and on every hom-set. Its inverse on objects and morphisms is a strictly inverse functor, proving that it is an isomorphism of categories.

Under the axiom of choice, choose one object from each isomorphism class of a small category. The full subcategory on those objects is a skeleton of a category, and its inclusion is a full and faithful functor with essential surjectivity, hence an equivalence of categories.

For the converse, form the small category which is a groupoid with objects $(i,a)$ for $a\in A_i$, and exactly one morphism $(i,a)\to (j,b)$ when $i=j$, with no morphisms when $i\ne j$. Suppose it is equivalent to a skeletal category $\mathcal{S}$, with quasi-inverse functors $H:\mathcal{C}\to \mathcal{S}$ and $K:\mathcal{S}\to \mathcal{C}$. For each $i$, the objects $H(i,a)$ for $a\in A_i$ are isomorphic, hence all equal to a uniquely determined $s_i$. The isomorphism $KH(i,a)\cong (i,a)$ ensures that $K(s_i)=(i,a_i)$ for some $a_i\in A_i$. The rule $i\mapsto a_i$ is a choice function. In particular, no representative in $A_i$ had to be chosen to define $s_i$, since it is unique. Consequently

A skeletal category has no distinct isomorphic objects. A full and faithful functor with essential surjectivity between two skeletal categories is an isomorphism of categories: surjectivity on isomorphism classes becomes surjectivity on objects, and faithfulness and fullness reflect an equality of image objects to an isomorphism, hence an equality, of source objects.