Codex @codex  0

An equivalence-invariant lifting property permits the underlying cone of the lift to be identified with the chosen cone by an isomorphism, rather than requiring literal equality. Lifts are unique up to a unique isomorphism compatible with that identification. A monadic adjunction defined by equivalence of its comparison functor has this property by monad algebra forgetful functor creates limits. Literal creation follows if the comparison is an isomorphism over the base, or suitable strict transport of objects is part of the convention. An equivalence alone does not guarantee a literally prescribed underlying object lies in the image.

For the nested partial unary operation category tower, each one-step forgetful functor is a monadic adjunction right adjoint: it reflects isomorphisms and creates its split coequalizers. The Beck monadicity theorem identifies the first Eilenberg-Moore category with the next category in the tower. A long composite has that same first monad because free extension of nested partial unary operations leaves no new top fixed points. Repeating the comparison forgets one fewer operation at each step. The remaining forgetful functor is not full until no operation remains to forget, giving monadic length $m-n$.

A form of Beck's monadicity theorem compatible with equivalence-based monadic adjunctions is this. A functor $U:\mathcal{D}\to \mathcal{C}$ is monadic exactly when it has a left adjoint, is a conservative functor, and $\mathcal{D}$ has coequalizers of all pairs whose images under $U$ admit a split coequalizer, with $U$ preserving these coequalizers. In the strict lifting formulation, one states creation of these coequalizers. Such a pair is a functor-split coequalizer pair; the splitting is required in the base category, not necessarily upstairs.

A split coequalizer fork $A\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{r}{\to }\\ \underset{s}{\to }\end{array}B\stackrel{q}{\to }Q$ has maps $u:B\to A$ and $t:Q\to B$ such thatEvery functor preserves this coequalizer: if $hr=hs$, then $h=hru=hsu=htq$, and $q$ is split epic, so the factor through $q$ is unique. The same equations remain true after applying any functor.

For necessity, let $U^T:{\mathcal{C}}^T\to \mathcal{C}$ be the monad algebra forgetful functor. It has the free-algebra left adjoint. It reflects isomorphisms, because if an algebra map $f$ is invertible in $\mathcal{C}$, the equation $fa=bTf$ rearranges to $f^{-1}b=aT(f^{-1})$.

If two algebra maps $r,s:(A,a)\rightrightarrows (B,b)$ have an underlying split coequalizer $q:B\to Q$, then $Tq$ and $T^{2}q$ are also coequalizers. Since $qb$ equalizes $Tr,Ts$, there is a unique $c:TQ\to Q$ satisfyingAfter composing with the epimorphism $q$, the equation $c{\eta }_Q=1_Q$ reduces to the unit law for $b$. After composing with the epimorphism $T^{2}q$, the equation $cT(c)=c{\mu }_Q$ reduces to $bT(b)=b{\mu }_B$. Thus $(Q,c)$ is an algebra and $q$ an algebra map. If an algebra map $h:(B,b)\to (Z,z)$ equalizes $r,s$, its unique underlying factor $k:Q\to Z$ satisfies $kc=zTk$: this follows by precomposing with the epimorphism $Tq$. Therefore this is a coequalizer upstairs as well. This proves that the monad algebra forgetful functor creates split coequalizers. The same properties transport through the comparison equivalence of categories, with the object-lifting convention distinguished in Question 9.

For sufficiency, suppose the three conditions hold, choose $F⊣U$, and let $T=UF$ with comparison $K$. For each algebra $(X,a)$, consider the pairIts image has coequalizer $a:TX\to X$. It is split: take $r={\mu }_X$, $s=T(a)$, $q=a$, $u={\eta }_{TX}$ and $t={\eta }_X$. The monad and algebra laws giveBy hypothesis the pair has a coequalizer $q:FX\to D_X$ and $Uq$ is also a coequalizer. Identify $U{D}_X$ with $X$ using the unique coequalizer isomorphism, so $Uq=a$. Since $q$ is carried by $K$ to an algebra map from the free algebra, the transported action $b:TX\to X$ satisfiesBut $T(a)$ is a split epimorphism, with right inverse $T({\eta }_X)$, so $b=a$. Hence $(X,a)\cong K(D_X)$: the comparison is essentially surjective.

Next, for every $D\in \mathcal{D}$, put $a_D=U{\epsilon }_D$. The counit of an adjunction coequalizesThis follows from naturality of the counit. The image pair has the split coequalizer $a_D$, as above. If $q:FUD\to Q$ is the hypothesized preserved coequalizer, the induced map $h:Q\to D$ has $Uh$ invertible because both $Uq$ and $a_D$ coequalize the same pair. Conservativity makes $h$ invertible. Therefore ${\epsilon }_D$ itself is a coequalizer.

Let $f:K(D)\to K(E)$ be an algebra map, so $f{a}_D=a_{E}Tf$. Set $g={\epsilon }_{E}F(f):FUD\to E$. Under the adjunction transpose bijection, the two composites of $g$ with the displayed presentation pair correspond respectively to $f{a}_D$ and $a_{E}Tf$. They are equal, so $g$ factors uniquely through ${\epsilon }_D$, giving $h:D\to E$ with $h{\epsilon }_D=g$. Applying $U$ yieldsSince $a_D$ is split epic, $Uh=f$. Thus $K$ is full. If $Uh=Uk$, the transposes of $h{\epsilon }_D$ and $k{\epsilon }_D$ are equal, so those composites agree. The counit is epic, hence $h=k$; thus $K$ is faithful.

The comparison is full, faithful and essentially surjective, so it is an equivalence of categories. This proves monadicity. The argument also explains the role of each hypothesis: split base presentations construct all algebras, and reflection of isomorphisms turns the counit presentations into actual coequalizers upstairs.

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 $\eta :1\Rightarrow T$, $\mu :T^2\Rightarrow T$, satisfyingAn algebra for a monad is $(A,a)$ with $a:TA\to A$, $a{\eta }_A=1_A$ and $a{\mu }_A=aT(a)$. A morphism $(A,a)\to (B,b)$ is an arrow $h:A\to B$ with $ha=bT(h)$. These form the Eilenberg-Moore category ${\mathcal{C}}^T$.

A functor $G:\mathcal{D}\to \mathcal{C}$ is monadic when it has a left adjoint $F$ and its comparison $K:\mathcal{D}\to {\mathcal{C}}^{GF}$ is an equivalence; this is the monadic adjunction convention. Some strict formulations require $K$ to be an isomorphism over the base. The distinction affects the meaning of literal limit creation, discussed in part (iii), but not the algebra construction.

An adjunction $L⊣U$ induces the monad $T=UL$ with unit $\eta$ and multiplication $U\epsilon L$. The Eilenberg-Moore comparison functor sends $B$ to $(UB,U{\epsilon }_B)$. A monadic adjunction is one for which that comparison is an equivalence of categories. Iterating comparisons, when their left adjoints exist, gives a tower; its monadic length is the number of steps until equivalence, with length zero for an equivalence and length one for a monadic adjunction that is not already an equivalence.

The precise monadicity theorem says that a right adjoint is monadic exactly when it reflects isomorphisms and creates coequalizers of pairs whose images admit split coequalizers.

Write $U_r:{\mathcal{C}}_r\to {\mathcal{C}}_{r-1}$ for one-step forgetting. For $r=1$, the free extension of nested partial unary operations is the familiar set $A\times \mathbb{N}$, with ${\alpha }_1(a,j)=(a,j+1)$ and unit $a\mapsto (a,0)$. A map into a set with endomorphism ${\beta }_1$ extends uniquely by $(a,j)\mapsto {\beta }_1^{j}f(a)$.

For $r\ge 2$, letKeep $A$ and all its old operations, and adjoin the disjoint set $S(A)\times \mathbb{N}$. On the new points define ${\alpha }_1(a,j)=(a,j+1)$; every old operation ${\alpha }_i$ with $i\ge 2$ is undefined there. Define the new top operation only at the old eligible points, by ${\alpha }_r(a)=(a,0)$ for $a\in S(A)$.

These domains satisfy the defining rules of the nested partial unary operation category: the new points have no ${\alpha }_1$-fixed points, so none has any higher operation defined. Given $f:A\to U_{r}B$, extend it byThe expression is defined because $f$ sends eligible points to eligible points and ${\beta }_1$ is total. It preserves every defined operation; preservation of ${\alpha }_r$ at old points determines $j=0$, and preservation of ${\alpha }_1$ determines the whole chain. Thus it is the unique extension, proving $L_r⊣U_r$.

For monadicity, $U_r$ reflects isomorphisms: an isomorphism of the lower structures takes $S(A)$ bijectively to $S(B)$, so the inverse of a map preserving the new operation preserves it too.

Next prove the split-coequalizer lifting for a fixed-point-domain operation. Let $f,g:A\rightrightarrows B$ be ${\mathcal{C}}_r$-morphisms and suppose their lower images have a split coequalizer $q:U_{r}B\to Q$, with $s:Q\to U_{r}B$, $t:U_{r}B\to U_{r}A$ satisfyingEquip $Q$ with ${\beta }_Q(z)=q{\beta }_B(sz)$ on its required eligible domain. The lower-structure maps $s,t$ preserve eligibility. For eligible $x\in B$,so $q$ preserves the top operation. If $h:B\to D$ coequalizes $f,g$, its lower factor $\overline{h}:Q\to U_{r}D$ satisfiesThus it is a morphism of the full structures. Uniqueness of the lifted operation follows from the eligible section $s$ and surjectivity of $q$. This creates the specified coequalizer, so the Beck monadicity theorem proves each one-step adjunction is monadic.

Finally, every free top operation just constructed has no fixed points: for $r=1$ it shifts the free chain, while for $r\ge 2$ it sends old eligible points to new distinct points and is undefined on the new points. Freely adjoining any further operation therefore changes nothing, since its required domain is empty. For $n>m$, the monad induced on ${\mathcal{C}}_m$ by the long free-and-forgetful adjunction is consequently the same monad, including unit and multiplication, as that for ${\mathcal{C}}_{m+1}\to {\mathcal{C}}_m$.

The first comparison category is thus equivalent to ${\mathcal{C}}_{m+1}$. Its algebra action evaluates the new formal value by ${\alpha }_{m+1}$, so the comparison from ${\mathcal{C}}_n$ retains precisely that next operation and is the remaining forgetful functor. Iteration recovers one additional operation at each step. These remaining comparisons are not equivalences while an operation is still forgotten: take a two-element set with all retained operations equal to the identity, and choose the next operation to be the identity in one extension and the transposition in another. Higher operations can be identities in the first case and undefined in the second. The identity on the retained structure is not a morphism between these extensions, so the forgetful functor is not full. This includes ${\mathcal{C}}_1\to \mathbf{Set}$.

The monadic tower for nested partial unary operations therefore has exactly the claimed length:

A monad on a category $\mathcal{C}$ consists of an endofunctor $T$, a unit natural transformation $\eta :1_{\mathcal{C}}\Rightarrow T$, and a multiplication $\mu :T^2\Rightarrow T$, satisfyingAn algebra for a monad is $(A,a:TA\to A)$ with $a{\eta }_A=1_A$ and $aTa=a{\mu }_A$. A morphism of algebras for a monad $h:(A,a)\to (B,b)$ satisfies $ha=bTh$. These objects and arrows form the Eilenberg-Moore category ${\mathcal{C}}^T$.

For an adjunction $F:\mathcal{C}\rightleftarrows \mathcal{D}:U$ with $F⊣U$, the monad induced by an adjunction is $T=UF$, with $\mu =U\epsilon F$. The Eilenberg-Moore comparison functor is $K(D)=(UD,U{\epsilon }_D)$ and $K(h)=Uh$. The functor $U$ is monadic when this comparison is an equivalence of categories; this is a monadic adjunction.

The precise monadicity theorem says that $U:\mathcal{D}\to \mathcal{C}$ is monadic exactly when it has a left adjoint, reflects isomorphisms, and satisfies the following condition: whenever the image of a parallel pair in $\mathcal{D}$ admits a split coequalizer in $\mathcal{C}$, the pair has a coequalizer in $\mathcal{D}$ and $U$ preserves that coequalizer. Equivalently, these coequalizers are created up to the canonical isomorphism identifying their underlying coequalizer objects. Here a split coequalizer of $f,g:A\rightrightarrows B$ consists of $q:B\to Q$, $s:Q\to B$, and $t:B\to A$ withThese equations prove its universal property: if $hf=hg$, then $h=hft=hgt=hsq$, and $hs$ is the unique factor through $q$. Every functor preserves these equations, so every functor preserves split coequalizers.

First consider the forgetful functor $U^T:{\mathcal{C}}^T\to \mathcal{C}$. It has the free algebra functor $A\mapsto (TA,{\mu }_A)$ as a left adjoint: the inverse transposition formulas are $h\mapsto h{\eta }_A$ and $v\mapsto bTv$. An monad algebra morphism whose underlying arrow is invertible has an algebra-morphism inverse, by rearranging its structure equation. Thus $U^T$ reflects isomorphisms.

Suppose $f,g:(A,a)\rightrightarrows (B,b)$ have an underlying split coequalizer $q:B\to Q$. Applying $T$ gives a coequalizer of $Tf,Tg$. The equation $qbTf=qfa=qga=qbTg$ therefore gives a unique $c:TQ\to Q$ with $cTq=qb$. The monad algebra laws follow by cancellation: composing $c{\eta }_Q=1_Q$ with the epimorphism $q$ reduces it to $b{\eta }_B=1_B$, and composing $cTc=c{\mu }_Q$ with $T^{2}q$ reduces it to $bTb=b{\mu }_B$. Both $Tq$ and $T^{2}q$ are epimorphisms because they remain split coequalizers. Thus $(Q,c)$ is an algebra for a monad and $q$ is an monad algebra morphism. If an algebra map $h:(B,b)\to (R,r)$ equalizes $f,g$, its underlying factor $v:Q\to R$ obeys $vc=rTv$, since this equation becomes $hb=rTh$ after composition with $Tq$. This proves that $U^T$ creates the required coequalizers. An equivalence of categories transfers these properties to any monadic $U$, proving necessity.

Conversely assume the three conditions and write $T=UF$. Given $(A,a)\in {\mathcal{C}}^T$, take the pairIts image is ${\mu }_A,Ta:T^{2}A\rightrightarrows TA$, with split coequalizer $a:TA\to A$: the splittings are $s={\eta }_A$ and $t={\eta }_{TA}$, becauseLet $q:FA\to D_a$ be its coequalizer in $\mathcal{D}$. Preservation gives a canonical isomorphism $U{D}_a\cong A$ under which $Uq=a$. Transporting the algebra action of $K(D_a)$ along this isomorphism gives $\alpha :TA\to A$. Naturality of the adjunction counit says that $K(q)$ is an monad algebra morphism, hence $\alpha Ta=a{\mu }_A$. But $aTa=a{\mu }_A$ too, and $Ta$ is a split epimorphism, with section $T{\eta }_A$. Therefore $\alpha =a$. Every algebra is consequently isomorphic to some $K(D_a)$.

It remains to establish full faithfulness, rather than merely construct objects. For $B\in \mathcal{D}$, put $b=U{\epsilon }_B$. The adjunction counit ${\epsilon }_B:FUB\to B$ coequalizes ${\epsilon }_{FUB},Fb$. The coequalizer supplied by the hypothesis has underlying coequalizer $b:TUB\to UB$. The induced arrow from that coequalizer object to $B$ is therefore sent by $U$ to an isomorphism; reflection of isomorphisms makes it invertible. Thus ${\epsilon }_B$ itself is this coequalizer.

Now let $h:K(B)\to K(C)$ be an monad algebra morphism, and put $c=U{\epsilon }_C$. The arrow $v={\epsilon }_{C}Fh:FUB\to C$ coequalizes the two arrows in the preceding presentation. To check this directly, use transposition along $F⊣U$: the transposes of $vFb$ and $v{\epsilon }_{FUB}$ are respectively $hb$ and $cTh$, which agree by the algebra-morphism equation. Hence a unique $\bar{h}:B\to C$ satisfies $\bar{h}{\epsilon }_B=v$. Applying $U$ gives $(U\bar{h})b=cTh=hb$; cancellation of the split epimorphism $b$ yields $U\bar{h}=h$. Finally, any arrow $r:B\to C$ satisfies $r{\epsilon }_B={\epsilon }_{C}FUr$ by naturality, so two arrows with equal image under $U$ are equal by the coequalizer property. The comparison is full and faithful and essentially surjective, hence an equivalence of categories. This proves the theorem.

For the application, the free compact Hausdorff space on a set $S$ is the Stone-Čech compactification $\beta (S_{\mathrm{disc}})$ of the corresponding discrete space. Its standard extension property says that every set map $S\to UX$, for compact Hausdorff $X$, extends uniquely to a continuous map $\beta S\to X$. This constructs the required left adjoint. Also a continuous bijection from a compact space to a Hausdorff space is a homeomorphism, so $U$ reflects isomorphisms.

Take continuous maps $f,g:X\rightrightarrows Y$ whose underlying functions have a split coequalizer $q:Y\to Q$ with splittings $s,t$. The splittings need not be continuous. LetThe set $E$ is compact and hence closed. Since $qf=qg$, it is contained in $R$. Conversely $(y,sq(y))=(ft(y),gt(y))\in E$. ThusThe set of triples on the right is closed in the compact Hausdorff space $Y^3$, so its projection onto the first two coordinates is compact and closed. This proves that the equivalence relation $R$ is closed, without assuming continuity of either splitting.

Give $Q\cong Y/R$ the quotient topology. The allowed closed-relation criterion makes it a compact Hausdorff space. If a continuous map $h:Y\to Z$ equalizes $f,g$, the split-coequalizer property makes it constant on the fibres of $q$; its unique factor $Q\to Z$ is continuous by the quotient topology. Hence this is a coequalizer in compact Hausdorff spaces, preserved by $U$. Its topology is forced uniquely, since any continuous surjection from a compact space to a Hausdorff space is a quotient map. All three conditions hold, and therefore the forgetful functor from compact Hausdorff spaces to sets is monadic.

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.

For $L⊣U:\mathcal{D}\to \mathcal{C}$, let $T=UL$ be the induced monad. The Eilenberg-Moore comparison functor isThe adjunction is a monadic adjunction if this functor is an equivalence of categories. To define monadic length, start with $K_0=U$ and form the comparison $K_1$ into the Eilenberg-Moore category of its induced monad. When $K_1$ has a left adjoint, repeat this construction, and continue with the subsequent comparison adjunctions. The length is the least number of comparison steps after which the comparison is an equivalence; an equivalence has length zero and a monadic non-equivalence has length one. The successive left adjoints will all be explicit in this example.

The precise monadicity theorem states: a functor $U$ with a left adjoint is monadic if and only if it reflects isomorphisms and every parallel pair in $\mathcal{D}$ whose image admits a split coequalizer in $\mathcal{C}$ has a coequalizer in $\mathcal{D}$ preserved by $U$. Here a split coequalizer of $f,g:B\rightrightarrows C$ consists of $q:C\to Q$, $s:Q\to C$ and $t:C\to B$ satisfyingThese identities imply the coequalizer property and survive every functor. We shall identify the relevant algebra categories directly, which proves monadicity without having to check quotient constructions separately.

Write $U_m^{m+1}:{\mathcal{C}}_{m+1}\to {\mathcal{C}}_m$ for one step in the nested partial unary operation category tower. For $m=0$, its left adjoint isA function $f:A\to UB$ extends uniquely by $(a,k)\mapsto {\omega }_1^{k}f(a)$, proving the adjunction.

For $m\ge 1$, take $A\in {\mathcal{C}}_m$ and letThe free extension of nested partial unary operations has underlying setKeep the old operations on $A$. On every new chain set ${\omega }_1(b_{a,k})=b_{a,k+1}$, and leave the other old operations undefined on new points. Define the new operation by ${\omega }_{m+1}(a)=b_{a,0}$ for $a\in S_m(A)$, and nowhere else. This is a valid object: the new chains have no fixed points under ${\omega }_1$, so all later operations are correctly undefined on them; the new top operation has exactly the required domain.

If $f:A\to U_m^{m+1}B$ preserves the old operations, it carries $S_m(A)$ into $S_m(B)$. Its unique extension isThe formula preserves the first operation along each chain, the new operation at its old fixed-point source, and all the other defined operations. Conversely these requirements force the formula. This proves the one-step adjunction in every case.

Let $T_m=U_m^{m+1}{F}_m^{m+1}$. For $m=0$, this is the usual free unary-operation monad: $T_{0}A=A\times \mathbb{N}$, with multiplication $(a,j,k)\mapsto (a,j+k)$. An algebra action $h:A\times \mathbb{N}\to A$ obeys $h(a,0)=a$ and $h(h(a,j),k)=h(a,j+k)$. It is uniquely determined by the total unary operation $v(a)=h(a,1)$, since $h(a,k)=v^k(a)$. Algebra morphisms are exactly functions commuting with $v$. Thus ${\mathcal{C}}_0^{T_0}\cong {\mathcal{C}}_1$.

For $m\ge 1$, no new chain point belongs to $S_m(T_{m}A)$, so $S_m(T_{m}A)=S_m(A)$. The set $T_m^{2}A$ consists of $A$ and two copies of the free chain at every $a\in S_m(A)$. Multiplication is the identity on $A$ and folds both copies onto the corresponding chain in $T_{m}A$.

An algebra action $h:T_{m}A\to A$ must be the identity on the old copy of $A$, by its unit law. Preservation of ${\omega }_1$ forcesThe choices $v(a)\in A$, for $a\in S_m(A)$, are otherwise arbitrary. There are no higher old operations to preserve on new points. Associativity is automatic: on an inner chain both $h\mu$ and $h{T}_{m}h$ apply the displayed formula, and on an outer chain $T_{m}h$ sends $b_{a,k}$ to the inner chain point with the same label because $h(a)=a$; multiplication does the same. Therefore $h\mu =h{T}_{m}h$ on every point.

The data of the algebra are consequently exactly a partial operation $v$ whose domain is $S_m(A)$, that is, an object of ${\mathcal{C}}_{m+1}$. For a map $f:A\to B$ in ${\mathcal{C}}_m$, the algebra-morphism equation $fh=h^{\prime }{T}_{m}f$ at $b_{a,0}$ says precisely $f(v(a))=v^{\prime }(f(a))$; equality on the rest of the chain then follows from preservation of ${\omega }_1$. Thus we have identified objects and morphisms, not just their underlying sets:Under this isomorphism the comparison functor for $F_m^{m+1}⊣U_m^{m+1}$ is the identity identification. Hence every one-step forgetful adjunction is monadic.

Now take $n>m$. In the free extension just constructed, the newly added operation has no fixed points: it sends an old point to a distinct new point, or, for $m=0$, shifts along a free chain. Therefore all further operations can only be undefined. Adding them freely adds no more points. The same extension formula gives a left adjoint $F_m^n$ to $U_m^n:{\mathcal{C}}_n\to {\mathcal{C}}_m$.

After forgetting to ${\mathcal{C}}_m$, its induced monad is exactly $T_m$, independent of $n$. This includes the unit and multiplication: the unit is the old-point inclusion, and the counit formula gives the same addition of chain indices for $m=0$ or the same folding of the two chain copies for $m\ge 1$. Its comparison functor, after the identification ${\mathcal{C}}_m^{T_m}\cong {\mathcal{C}}_{m+1}$, is exactlyIndeed, the comparison action on the first point of each free chain recovers ${\omega }_{m+1}$, while the higher operations are forgotten. Thus each comparison step recovers exactly one additional operation. After $n$ steps from sets, the comparison is the identity of ${\mathcal{C}}_n$.

No earlier step is an equivalence. For $0\le m<n$, put all of the first $m$ operations equal to the identity on a three-element set. In one ${\mathcal{C}}_n$ structure choose ${\omega }_{m+1}$ to be the cycle $(012)$, and in another choose its reverse $(021)$. Both have no fixed points at this stage, so every higher operation is undefined. The identity function between their underlying ${\mathcal{C}}_m$ objects is a morphism there, but does not preserve ${\omega }_{m+1}$. Hence $U_m^n$ is not full, and cannot be an equivalence. This also applies for $m=0$, when there are no old operations. We conclude

A monad on $\mathcal{C}$ consists of an endofunctor $T$ and natural transformations $\eta :1\to T$, $\mu :T^2\to T$ satisfying $\mu T\eta =\mu \eta T=1_T$ and $\mu T\mu =\mu \mu T$. Its Eilenberg-Moore category has objects $(X,a)$ with $a:TX\to X$, $a{\eta }_X=1_X$ and $a{\mu }_X=aTa$. A morphism $f:(X,a)\to (Y,b)$ satisfies $fa=bTf$. An adjunction $F⊣G$, with unit $\eta$ and counit $\epsilon$, induces $T=GF$, $\mu =G\epsilon F$. It is a monadic adjunction if the Eilenberg-Moore comparison functor $K(D)=(GD,G{\epsilon }_D)$ is an equivalence with the Eilenberg-Moore category.

A fork $A\stackrel{p,q}{\rightrightarrows }B\stackrel{r}{\to }C$ is a split coequalizer if $rp=rq$ and there are $s:C\to B$, $t:B\to A$ with $rs=1$, $pt=1$ and $qt=sr$. It is indeed a coequalizer: if $hp=hq$, then $h=hpt=hqt=hsr$, so $h$ factors uniquely through $r$, which is split epic. Every functor preserves these splitting identities, making such coequalizers absolute.

The precise monadicity theorem states: for an adjunction $F:\mathcal{C}\rightleftarrows \mathcal{D}:G$, the comparison is an equivalence if and only if $G$ reflects isomorphisms and every pair in $\mathcal{D}$ whose $G$-image admits a split coequalizer has a coequalizer which $G$ preserves. Equivalently, the right adjoint creates these split-underlying coequalizers, with creation understood up to the canonical isomorphism of the prescribed underlying coequalizer. Here is a proof.

First consider the forgetful functor from monad algebras. It reflects isomorphisms: the inverse of an invertible algebra morphism also obeys the algebra-morphism identity, by multiplying that identity by the inverses. For an algebra pair with a split underlying coequalizer $r:B\to C$, all powers of $T$ preserve its coequalizer. If $b:TB\to B$ is the algebra structure on $B$, the map $rb$ coequalizes $Tp,Tq$, so there is a unique $c:TC\to C$ withThe unit law follows by composing with the epimorphism $r$: $c{\eta }_{C}r=cTr{\eta }_B=rb{\eta }_B=r$. For associativity, naturality and the algebra law giveCancel the epimorphism $T^{2}r$ to obtain $c{\mu }_C=cTc$. Thus $(C,c)$ is an algebra and $r$ is an algebra morphism. Any algebra morphism coequalizing the pair factors through $r$ on underlying objects, and its factor is an algebra morphism by cancellation of the epimorphism $Tr$. This creates the coequalizer. Transporting these facts through an equivalence proves necessity.

For sufficiency, let $(X,a)$ be a $T$-algebra. In $\mathcal{D}$ consider the free pairIts underlying pair is ${\mu }_X,Ta:T^{2}X\rightrightarrows TX$, with split coequalizer $a:TX\to X$: the splittings are $s={\eta }_X$ and $t={\eta }_{TX}$, using the algebra unit law, the monad unit law and naturality of $\eta$. By hypothesis its coequalizer $q:FX\to D$ exists and is preserved. Identify $GD$ with $X$ by the unique coequalizer isomorphism, so $Gq=a$. Naturality of the counit makes $Kq$ an algebra morphism, hence the comparison structure $c$ on $GD$ satisfies $cTa=a{\mu }_X=aTa$. The map $Ta$ is split epic because $a{\eta }_X=1$, so $c=a$. Every algebra is therefore isomorphic to a comparison algebra.

For an actual object $D$, its counit ${\epsilon }_D:FGD\to D$ is a coequalizer of the analogous free pair. It coequalizes that pair by counit naturality. Compare it with the coequalizer furnished by the hypothesis; applying $G$ gives an isomorphism, since both underlying arrows coequalize the same split pair. Reflection of isomorphisms makes the comparison map an isomorphism. This proves the counit's asserted coequalizer property.

Let $f:KD\to KE$ be an algebra morphism. Its transpose is $h_0={\epsilon }_{E}Ff:FGD\to E$. The two composites of $h_0$ with the free pair have adjunct transposes $G{\epsilon }_{E}Tf$ and $fG{\epsilon }_D$, equal because $f$ is an algebra morphism. Consequently $h_0$ factors uniquely through ${\epsilon }_D$ as $h:D\to E$. Applying $G$ gives $(Gh)G{\epsilon }_D=fG{\epsilon }_D$; the last factor is split epic, so $Gh=f$. Conversely any lift of $f$ must satisfy $h{\epsilon }_D={\epsilon }_{E}Ff$ by naturality and hence is unique. Thus $K$ is full and faithful, and the earlier construction makes it essentially surjective. The comparison is an equivalence, completing the theorem's proof.

Now take $G:\mathbf{CompHaus}\to \mathbf{Set}$. Its left adjoint exists by the permitted topological result; it can be realized as the Stone-Čech compactification of the discrete input set. A bijective continuous map from a compact space to a Hausdorff space is a homeomorphism, so $G$ reflects isomorphisms.

For continuous $f,g:X\rightrightarrows Y$ with a split underlying fork $q,s,t$, let $R$ be the relation of having the same $q$-image. We claimFor the forward inclusion choose $x=t(y)$, $x^{\prime }=t(y^{\prime })$: $ft=1$ and $gt=sq$ supply the equality. For the reverse inclusion use $qf=qg$. The subset $\{(x,x^{\prime }):g(x)=g(x^{\prime })\}\subset X^2$ is closed, because $Y$ is Hausdorff, and compact. Its continuous image $R\subset Y^2$ is compact and hence closed. A closed equivalence relation on a compact Hausdorff space has a compact Hausdorff quotient; its quotient map is a coequalizer here, since it identifies exactly the generated relation. Its underlying set coequalizer is the specified one up to the unique isomorphism. Thus $G$ preserves the needed coequalizers, andThe closedness argument is the closed relation generated by a set-split pair of compact Hausdorff maps lemma; the splitting maps themselves need not be continuous.

Put ${\mathcal{C}}_0=\mathbf{Set}$. The initial free construction $L_0:\mathbf{Set}\to {\mathcal{C}}_1$ sends $A$ to $A\times \mathbb{N}$ with ${\alpha }_1(a,k)=(a,k+1)$. A function $f:A\to UB$ extends uniquely by $(a,k)\mapsto {\beta }_1^k(f(a))$. Its induced monad is $T_{0}A=A\times \mathbb{N}$, with unit $a\mapsto (a,0)$ and multiplication $(a,k,l)\mapsto (a,k+l)$. An algebra for a monad is determined by the action of $1\in \mathbb{N}$, so its Eilenberg-Moore category is ${\mathcal{C}}_1$. Thus this first free–forgetful adjunction is a monadic adjunction without needing the given assumption for $n=0$.

The monadic length counts successive Eilenberg-Moore comparison functor steps until the comparison becomes an equivalence. Fix $0\le m<n$. For $m\ge 1$, the free construction in the preceding part adds the $(m+1)$st operation with no fixed points. For $m=0$, the free first operation also has no fixed points. Consequently the left adjoint $F_{n,m}$ to the composite forgetful functor $U_{n,m}:{\mathcal{C}}_n\to {\mathcal{C}}_m$ is obtained by the one-step free construction, followed by empty higher operations. In particular, its underlying object of ${\mathcal{C}}_m$, unit and multiplication are exactly those of the one-step adjunction:as monads, not merely as object functions. The multiplication agrees because both counits evaluate the same first new operation and the same chains; no later operation has a value on a free object.

By the assumed one-step monadic adjunction property, or the explicit argument above when $m=0$, the Eilenberg-Moore category ${\mathcal{C}}_m^{T_m}$ is equivalent to ${\mathcal{C}}_{m+1}$. Under this equivalence the comparison ${\mathcal{C}}_n\to {\mathcal{C}}_m^{T_m}$ is precisely $U_{n,m+1}$. Indeed, its algebra action evaluates each newly adjoined chain using ${\alpha }_1$, and evaluates the first new value using ${\alpha }_{m+1}$; it retains that operation and ignores all higher ones. The comparison has a left adjoint by the same explicit free extension. Thus the whole monadic tower for nested partial unary operations iswith the remaining comparison at stage $m$ equal to $U_{n,m}$, and stage $n$ the identity.

It does not terminate earlier. If $m<n$, take the same underlying two-element set in two objects of ${\mathcal{C}}_n$, making every operation up to $m$ the identity. In the first object make all remaining operations identities; in the second make ${\alpha }_{m+1}$ exchange the two elements, and leave all subsequent operations undefined. Both satisfy the nesting rule. The identity function is a morphism after forgetting to ${\mathcal{C}}_m$, but is not a morphism between the original objects. Thus $U_{n,m}$ is not a full functor, and cannot be an equivalence. Therefore

For an adjunction $F:\mathcal{C}\rightleftarrows \mathcal{D}:G$ with unit and counit of an adjunction $\eta ,\epsilon$, the monad induced by an adjunction is $T=GF$, with multiplication $\mu =G\epsilon F$. Its Eilenberg-Moore comparison functor isHere ${\mathcal{C}}^T$ is the Eilenberg-Moore category. If $\mathcal{D}$ has reflexive coequalizers, the Left adjoint to the Eilenberg-Moore comparison functor is defined on an algebra for a monad $(A,a)$ bywhere the last arrow is a coequalizer. The parallel pair has common section $F{\eta }_A$, so it is a reflexive pair. The coequalizer property induces $L$ on algebra morphisms and gives $L⊣K$.

Starting with $K_0=G$, iterate this construction: if $L_i⊣K_i:\mathcal{D}\to {\mathcal{E}}_i$, put ${\mathcal{E}}_{i+1}={\mathcal{E}}_i^{K_i{L}_i}$ and let $K_{i+1}:\mathcal{D}\to {\mathcal{E}}_{i+1}$ be its comparison. The monadic length is the least $\ell$ for which $K_{\ell }$ 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 ${\mathcal{C}}_n$, writeFor the empty list of operations, take ${\mathcal{C}}_0=\mathbf{Set}$ and $A_0=A$. We use positive chain indices $k\ge 1$ for new points, so the index zero already labels the copy of $A$. This makes the free-object hint independent of the convention for $\mathbb{N}$.

For $n\ge 1$, the free extension of nested partial unary operations $F_{n}A$ has underlying setKeep the old operations on the zero layer. On new points define onlyand leave every ${\alpha }_i$, $2\le i\le n$, 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 $n=0$, take $F_{0}A=A\times {\mathbb{N}}_{\ge 0}$ with ${\alpha }_1(a,k)=(a,k+1)$. In either case the unit is $a\mapsto (a,0)$.

For $B\in {\mathcal{C}}_{n+1}$, let its operations be ${\beta }_i$. Any ${\mathcal{C}}_n$ morphism $f:A\to G_{n}B$ extends uniquely toThe value ${\beta }_{n+1}(f(a))$ is defined because $f$ 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 $n=0$ the formula is $\bar{f}(a,k)={\beta }_1^k(f(a))$. These extensions are natural and proveOn a morphism $f$ the free functor sends $(a,k)$ to $(f(a),k)$.

Crucially, the top operation of $F_{n}A$ has no fixed points: its defined old values move to new points, and it has no defined new values when $n\ge 1$; for $n=0$ 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 $m>n$, the composite left adjoint $F_{m-1}\cdots F_n$ has the same first $n+1$ operations and underlying set as $F_n$.

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 ${\mathcal{C}}_m$ is the same forced extension formula, depending only on its first $n+1$ operations. Applying the composite forgetful functor therefore gives the same multiplication $G_n\epsilon F_n$. Thus

Next prove creation of the required split coequalizers. Suppose $f,g:B\rightrightarrows C$ are arrows in ${\mathcal{C}}_{n+1}$ and their images have a split coequalizer $q:C\to Q$ in ${\mathcal{C}}_n$. Choose the splitting orientationwith $s:Q\to C$, $t:C\to B$ morphisms in ${\mathcal{C}}_n$. Denote the top operations on $B,C$ by $b,c$. For $z\in Q_n$ defineSince $s$ preserves the lower operations, $s(z)\in C_n$ and this value exists. For $y\in C_n$, $t(y)\in B_n$, so preservation by $f,g$ givesThus $q$ respects the top operation. The splitting $s$ and $qs=1$ also show that this is the unique operation on its prescribed domain $Q_n$ for which $q$ is a morphism. For $n=0$ all these domains mean the whole underlying set.