Codex @codex  0

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 $f=me$ with $m:I\hookrightarrow B$ the least subobject through which $f$ factors, and $e:A\to I$ a strong epimorphism. With pullback in a category constructions, the least-subobject characterization itself implies that $e$ is strong: in a lifting square against a monomorphism, pull that monomorphism back to $I$; since $e$ factors through this pullback, image minimality forces its mono into $I$ to be invertible, giving the required diagonal. Thus the two descriptions of images agree under the stated hypotheses.

For $a:A^{\prime }\hookrightarrow A$, define ${\exists }_f(A^{\prime })$ as the image factorization subobject of $fa:A^{\prime }\to B$. For $b:B^{\prime }\hookrightarrow B$, 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 $fa=me$ through its image $m:I\hookrightarrow B$, and put $P=I{\times }_B{B}^{\prime }$. Its mono into $B$ represents ${\exists }_f(A^{\prime })\cap B^{\prime }$. The pullback in a category of $e$ along the monomorphism $P\to I$ has domain canonically $A^{\prime }{\times }_B{B}^{\prime }$, which represents $A^{\prime }\cap f^{\ast }(B^{\prime })$. If strong epimorphisms are stable under pullback along monomorphisms, that pulled-back arrow is strong, so its composite with $P\hookrightarrow B$ is an image factorization. This givesEquality here is equality of subobjects, hence an isomorphism of their representatives.

Conversely, let $e:X\to Y$ be a strong epimorphism and $b:B^{\prime }\hookrightarrow Y$ be monic. Its image is all of $Y$: in any image factorization of $e$, the lifting property makes the mono invertible. Apply Frobenius reciprocity for subobjects to $f=e$ and $A^{\prime }=X$. The induced morphism $p:X{\times }_Y{B}^{\prime }\to B^{\prime }$ has image all of $B^{\prime }$, because the image of $bp$ in $Y$ is $B^{\prime }$. Its image factorization therefore has invertible mono, so $p$ 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 $0=1$, is allowed. It is the terminal object of $\mathbf{Rng}$, and there is no unital ring homomorphism from it to a nonzero ring. Denote the common zero ring by $Z$, and the newly adjoined strict initial object by $\perp$. Nonzero objects in different copies have no morphisms between them. There is one morphism from every object to $Z$ and from $\perp$ to every object, and no morphism into $\perp$ except its identity.

Finite products in a category and equalizers can be described explicitly. The terminal object is $Z$. 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 $\perp$, since only $\perp$ can map to both. A product with $Z$ is the other factor, and one with $\perp$ is $\perp$. For parallel morphisms between nonzero objects in the same copy, the ordinary ring equalizer works; it is nonzero because its subring contains distinct $0$ and $1$. 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 $\mathbb{Z}[x]$ detect unequal elements. The only monos from outside a copy are the maps $\perp \to X$, and the only subobjects of $Z$ are $\perp$ and $Z$. Indeed a nonzero ring $R$ is not subterminal, since $\mathbb{Z}[x]\to R$ can send $x$ to $0$ or to $1$.

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 $Z$ with mono $\perp \to Z$ would require a nonexistent map from a noninitial domain to $\perp$. Maps with domain $\perp$ 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 $\perp \to X$ with $X\ne \perp$ is monic but noninvertible, and therefore cannot be strong. This classifies the strong epimorphisms as the identities of $\perp$ and the surjective homomorphisms in the copies, including maps to $Z$.

Pullback along a monomorphism within a copy preserves those surjections, using the given regularity of $\mathbf{Rng}$. Pullback along $\perp \to X$ gives $1_{\perp }$, and these exhaust the additional monos, including those into $Z$. Thus strong epimorphisms are stable under pullback along monos, so Frobenius reciprocity for subobjects holds.

However, let $e:{\mathbb{Z}}_{\mathcal{D}}\to Z$ be the surjective ring homomorphism in the first copy, and pull it back along $\mathbb{Z}[x{]}_{\mathcal{E}}\to Z$ in the other copy. The resulting arrow isIt is not even an epimorphism, since the distinct evaluation ring homomorphisms $x\mapsto 0$ and $x\mapsto 1$ to ${\mathbb{Z}}_{\mathcal{E}}$ agree after composing with $\perp \to \mathbb{Z}[x{]}_{\mathcal{E}}$. Since $e$ 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.

A regular category has finite limits, every morphism factors through its image of a morphism in a regular category as a regular epimorphism followed by a monomorphism, and regular epimorphisms are stable under every pullback in a category. A cover is a strong epimorphism. Every regular epimorphism is strong: if $e$ is the coequalizer of $r,s$ and a square has $e$ on the left and a monomorphism $m$ on the right, monicity shows that the upper arrow coequalizes $r,s$. It therefore factors through $e$, and the epimorphism property of $e$ shows that this factor is the required diagonal. Conversely, factor a strong epimorphism $f$ as $f=me$ with $e$ regular epic and $m$ monic. The lifting property gives a two-sided inverse to $m$, so $m$ is an isomorphism and $f$ is regular epic. Thus regular epimorphisms and covers coincide.

Let $L:\mathcal{C}\to \mathcal{D}$ be the left-exact reflector and let $m:A^{\prime }\hookrightarrow A$. Since $L$ preserves finite limits, $Lm$ is monic. Define $c_A(A^{\prime })$ as the pullbackNaturality of the unit supplies a map $A^{\prime }\to c_A(A^{\prime })$ over $A$, proving $A^{\prime }\le c_A(A^{\prime })$. A factorization $A^{\prime }\le A^{\prime \prime }$ induces $L{A}^{\prime }\le L{A}^{\prime \prime }$ and therefore $c_A(A^{\prime })\le c_A(A^{\prime \prime })$, so $c_A$ is order-preserving.

Apply $L$ to the defining pullback. Left exactness and the fact that $L{\eta }_A:LA\to LLA$ is an isomorphism identify $L(c_A(A^{\prime }))$ with $L{A}^{\prime }$. Pulling back once more therefore givesFor a map $f:B\to A$, left exactness identifies $L(f^{\ast }{A}^{\prime })$ with $(Lf{)}^{\ast }(L{A}^{\prime })$. Pasting the two pullback squares then yieldsso this closure operation induced by a left-exact reflector commutes with pullback.

Assume $A$ lies in $\mathcal{D}$, so ${\eta }_A$ is an isomorphism. If $A^{\prime }$ also lies in $\mathcal{D}$, its unit is an isomorphism and the defining square gives $c_A(A^{\prime })\cong A^{\prime }$. Conversely, if $A^{\prime }$ is closed, that square expresses $A^{\prime }$ as a finite limit of $A$, $L{A}^{\prime }$, and $LA$, all fixed by $L$. Fixed objects of a left-exact reflective subcategory are closed under finite limits, so $A^{\prime }$ belongs to $\mathcal{D}$.

Finally suppose $\mathcal{C}$ is regular. The fixed objects have finite limits. For $f:A\to B$ in $\mathcal{D}$, factor it in $\mathcal{C}$ asApplying $L$ gives $A\stackrel{Le}{\to }LI\stackrel{Lm}{\to }B$. The map $Le$ is regular epic because a left adjoint preserves the coequalizer presenting $e$, and $Lm$ is monic because $L$ is left exact. Thus $\mathcal{D}$ has image factorizations. Their image subobject is the closure $c_B(I)$. A map in $\mathcal{D}$ is regular epic exactly when this closure is all of its codomain. Images in $\mathcal{C}$ commute with pullback, and the closure operation also commutes with pullback, so this condition is pullback-stable. Hence $\mathcal{D}$ is regular, as stated by the left-exact reflective subcategory of a regular category theorem.

A regular category has finite limits, regular-epimorphism--monomorphism image factorizations, and regular epimorphisms stable under pullback. A relation $A⇝B$ in $\mathbf{Rel}(\mathcal{C})$ is a subobject of $A\times B$; composition forms the pullback over the middle object and then takes its image.

Suppose $R:A⇝B$ has a right adjoint relation $S$, so $1_A\le SR$ and $RS\le 1_B$. In the internal regular logic, the first inequality says that for every $a$ there is a $b$ with $R(a,b)$ and $S(b,a)$. If also $R(a,b^{\prime })$, the second inequality forces $b=b^{\prime }$. Thus $R$ is total and single-valued. Categorically, if $R\hookrightarrow A\times B$ has projections $p:R\to A$ and $q:R\to B$, totality makes $p$ a regular epimorphism and single-valuedness makes it a monomorphism. Hence $p$ is an isomorphism and $R$ is the graph of a morphism as a relation $q{p}^{-1}:A\to B$. Conversely, the graph of any morphism is left adjoint to its converse relation, as the two required inequalities follow directly from equality. This proves the characterization.

Let $L$ be a frame. Composition in the category of matrices valued in a frame isIf $f⊣g$, the diagonal part of $1_A\le gf$ impliesso every row of $f$ joins to $1$. For $b\ne b^{\prime }$, distribute $f(a,b)\wedge f(a,b^{\prime })$ over the displayed join. Every term vanishes by $fg\le 1_B$, first using the factor with column $b$ and then the one with column $b^{\prime }$. HenceConversely, if the rows of $f$ join to $1$ and have pairwise disjoint entries, define $g(b,a)=f(a,b)$. Thenwhile $(fg)(b,b^{\prime })=0$ for $b\ne b^{\prime }$. Thus $1_A\le gf$ and $fg\le 1_B$, proving the stated criterion.

Finally take $L=\Omega (X)$ for a connected topological space $X$. For fixed $a$, the opens $f(a,b)$ are pairwise disjoint and cover $X$. Connectedness forces exactly one of them to be $X$ and all the others to be empty. Hence a left adjoint matrix determines a unique function $\phi :A\to B$ by $f(a,\phi (a))=X$. Conversely every function gives this matrix, and matrix composition agrees with function composition. The left adjoints in $\mathbf{Mat}(\Omega (X))$ therefore form a category isomorphic to $\mathbf{Set}$.

The regular coverage on a small regular category takes each regular epimorphism as a one-arrow cover. Pullback and composition stability make these a coverage basis. It is subcanonical because maps constant on the kernel pair of a regular epimorphism descend uniquely to its quotient.

The coequalizer universal property supplies the diagonal filler against any monomorphism, so every regular epimorphism is strong. In a regular category, every strong epimorphism is regular: factor it as a regular epimorphism followed by a monomorphism and use the lifting property to make the monomorphism an isomorphism.

A functor between regular categories is regular if it preserves finite limits and regular epimorphisms. It then preserves image factorizations, since finite-limit preservation preserves monomorphisms. A representable functor $\mathcal{C}(P,-)$ is regular exactly when $P$ is projective with respect to regular epimorphisms. Regularity of a functor does not alone imply faithfulness or reflection of isomorphisms.

Regular logic has atomic formulas and equality, truth, finite conjunction and unrestricted existential quantification. Its categorical semantics uses regular categories: conjunction is intersection and existential quantification is image. Disjunction and falsity are not added as formula constructors in the regular fragment.

For a small category that is a regular category, use a sort for each object, an operation for each morphism, and regular theory axioms describing finite limits and regular epimorphisms. Its models are regular functors into the Category of sets. For a proper subobject $m:S\hookrightarrow A$, the sequent asserting $\forall x:A\exists y:S,m(y)=x$ cannot be derivable, since its categorical interpretation would make $m$ a cover and hence invertible. The chase completeness for regular logic supplies a model where it fails. It is essential to allow empty sorts.

The support of an object $A$ in a regular category is the subterminal object appearing as the image of a morphism in a regular category of $A\to 1$. A regular functor preserves this construction. In the Category of sets, the support is the empty set if $A$ is empty and a singleton otherwise.

In a regular category, a relation $R\hookrightarrow A\times B$ is total if its projection to $A$ is a regular epimorphism, and single-valued if two pairs with the same first component have the same second component. The latter makes that projection a monomorphism. A regular epimorphism that is monic is invertible, so $f={\pi }_B{\pi }_A^{-1}$ has graph exactly $R$. No axiom of choice or set-based element selection is used.

An object of a regular category is well-supported when its support of an object in a regular category is the terminal object, equivalently when $A\to 1$ is a regular epimorphism. Finite products of well-supported objects are well-supported, by pullback and composition stability of regular epimorphisms. A regular epimorphism has the same support as its codomain, and an object with a point $1\to A$ is well-supported.