Codex @codex  0

A local operator, also called a Lawvere-Tierney topology, is a map $j:\Omega \to \Omega$ which internally satisfiesThe closure operation of a local operator sends a mono with characteristic map $\chi$ to the subobject classified by $j\chi$. It is inflationary, idempotent and pullback-stable. A mono is j-dense if its closure is its whole codomain, and j-closed if it equals its closure. A j-sheaf $S$ is an object for which restrictionis a bijection for every j-dense mono $A\hookrightarrow B$; requiring only injectivity defines a j-separated object.

Here is a construction underlying the sheaf reflector for a local operator. The closed-subobject classifier ${\Omega }_j=\{p:jp=p\}$ is a j-sheaf: closed subobjects on a dense subobject extend uniquely by taking their closure in the larger object. Powers ${\Omega }_j^X$ are also sheaves, because products of a dense mono with $X$ remain dense. A j-closed subobject of a sheaf is a sheaf: first extend a map into the ambient sheaf, then use density to force its image into the closed subobject.

Close the diagonal of $X$. Its j-closure is an equivalence relation, using preservation of finite meets and pullback-stability to verify transitivity. The effective quotient $X\twoheadrightarrow X_s$ is the separated reflection: every map from $X$ into a separated object identifies that closed diagonal and factors uniquely. For separated $X_s$, the closed-singleton mapis monic. Its j-closed image closure $a_{j}X$ is a sheaf, and $X_s\hookrightarrow a_{j}X$ is dense. Unique extension across that mono, following the separated quotient factorization, provesfor every sheaf $S$. This proves reflectivity. The closure construction is pullback-stable; equivalently, separated quotients and the subsequent dense embeddings commute with the finite limiting comparisons, giving the usual left-exact sheaf reflector.

Finite limits of sheaves are computed in $\mathcal{E}$, because unique extensions can be taken componentwise. If $S$ is a sheaf, $S^T$ is a sheaf for any $T$, by the same product-with-dense-mono argument. Thus sheaf exponentials are the ambient exponentials. Monos between sheaves have j-closed images: their closure is a sheaf, and the dense inclusion into it splits by the extension property, hence is an isomorphism. Therefore ${\Omega }_j$ classifies precisely their subobjects. These observations establish ${\mathbf{sh}}_j(\mathcal{E})$ is a reflective topos.

Now let $u:1\to \Omega$ classify the given subterminal object. Its open local operator and closed local operator areThe Heyting algebra identities verify all local-operator axioms: implication by fixed $u$ preserves meets and is idempotent, while adjoining $u$ preserves meets by distributivity and is idempotent.

For a mono in $B$ with characteristic predicate $p$, closedness for $c(U)$ means $u\vee p=p$, or $u\le p$. Density for $o(U)$ means $(u\Rightarrow p)=\top$, again $u\le p$. Thus the c(U)-closed monos are exactly the o(U)-dense monos.

Both densities together force $u\le p$ and $u\vee p=\top$, hence $p=\top$: the only jointly dense monos are isomorphisms. More explicitly, the meet of these operators is pointwise andso $o(U)\wedge c(U)={\mathrm{id}}_{\Omega }$.

For their join, every mono $A\hookrightarrow B$ factors through the union with the pullback $U_B=U\times B$:The first mono is c(U)-dense, because adjoining $U$ fills its codomain; the second is o(U)-dense, because its image contains $U_B$. Any local operator above both must therefore make every mono dense, since its dense monos are closed under composition. It is the largest operator $p\mapsto \top$. ConsequentlyThese are the complementary open and closed local operators in the ordered lattice of local operators, with order given by pointwise implication.

A first-order signature specifies sorts, function symbols with specified input and output sorts, and relation symbols with specified input sorts. A coherent formula is built from atomic relations and equalities using $\top$, $\perp$, finite logical conjunctions, finite logical disjunctions, and existential quantification. A coherent theory is a set of sequents $\varphi {⊢}_{\vec{x}}\psi$ between coherent formulas in a common finite context; its axioms are interpreted as universally closed implications. Neither general negation nor universal quantification is allowed inside coherent formulas.

One complete presentation of coherent logic consists of the following axiom and rule schemes, together with the theory's sequents. All displayed formulas have compatible sorts and contexts, and bound variables can be renamed.

Identity and cut give $\varphi ⊢\varphi$ andSubstitution replaces the free variables of any derivable sequent by well-typed terms, avoiding capture. Contexts can be enlarged by unused variables, and permuted or renamed.

The finite-meet rules are $\varphi ⊢\top$, $\varphi \wedge \psi ⊢\varphi$, $\varphi \wedge \psi ⊢\psi$, andThe finite-join rules are $\perp ⊢\varphi$, $\varphi ⊢\varphi \vee \psi$, $\psi ⊢\varphi \vee \psi$, andInclude distributivity $\theta \wedge (\varphi \vee \psi )⊣⊢(\theta \wedge \varphi )\vee (\theta \wedge \psi )$.

Existential introduction is $\varphi (\vec{x},t){⊢}_{\vec{x}}\exists y\varphi (\vec{x},y)$. Existential elimination iswhere $y$ is absent from $\psi$. Equivalently, the quantifier is left adjoint to weakening along the context projection. Include the Frobenius rule in coherent logicIt can also be derived from the usual coherent natural-deduction rules.

Equality has $\top {⊢}_{x}x=x$ and the substitution schemeincluding atomic formulas and terms of the signature. Symmetry, transitivity and congruence for all functions and relations follow. These schemes impose no unintended inhabitedness axiom on a sort.

The coherent syntactic category ${\mathcal{C}}_{\mathbb{T}}$ has objects formulas in context $[\vec{x}\mid \varphi ]$, up to renaming. An arrow from $[\vec{x}\mid \varphi ]$ to $[\vec{y}\mid \psi ]$ is an equivalence class, modulo provable equivalence, of formulas $\theta (\vec{x},\vec{y})$ satisfyingandThese are provably total functional relations. The identity is the equality graph restricted by $\varphi$. If $\theta$ and $\rho$ are consecutive arrows, their composite is represented by $\exists \vec{y}(\theta \wedge \rho )$. Equality, cut and existential rules give the category laws.

A coherent category has finite limits, pullback-stable regular-epi/mono image factorizations, and finite unions of subobjects stable under pullback. We verify these structures syntactically. The terminal object is the empty-context truth formula. Products conjoin formulas in disjoint contexts; equalizers add equality of the two output tuples. For a functional relation $\theta$, its image in the target is represented by $\exists \vec{x}\theta$. Its factor onto that image is regular epic: two arrows out of the image agreeing on the source agree by existential elimination, and the same argument with the kernel pair gives the coequalizer property. Frobenius makes these image factorizations stable under pullback.

Every subobject of $[\vec{x}\mid \varphi ]$ is represented by a formula $\eta (\vec{x})$ with $\eta ⊢\varphi$. Indeed, take the existential image of a monic functional relation; uniqueness makes its map to that image an isomorphism. Subobject inclusion is exactly provable implication. Finite unions are consequently disjunctions, with bottom as the empty subobject; distributivity and substitution make them pullback-stable. Hence ${\mathcal{C}}_{\mathbb{T}}$ is coherent.

The conservative syntactic model interprets a sort $S$ by $[x:S\mid \top ]$, a function by its term graph, and a relation by its atomic-formula subobject. Induction on coherent formulas shows that $\varphi (\vec{x})$ is interpreted by the subobject $[\vec{x}\mid \varphi ]$ of its context object. It satisfies every theory axiom by construction. Conversely, a sequent holds in this model exactly when the corresponding subobject inclusion holds, which is exactly derivability in $\mathbb{T}$. ThereforeThis is conservativity for coherent sequents, not a claim about non-coherent formulas.

The required condition is the common-refinement condition for nonempty-sieve coverage: for every pair $f:V\to U$, $g:W\to U$, there are arrows $h:T\to V$, $k:T\to W$ withNecessity follows by pulling back the nonempty sieve generated by $f$ along $g$: a member $k$ of the pullback sieve supplies such an $h$. Conversely, this condition makes the pullback of every nonempty sieve on a category nonempty. The maximal sieve is nonempty, and the transitivity axiom holds: if a sieve $S$ is locally covering along every member of a nonempty covering sieve $R$, choose $f\in R$ and then $g\in f^{\ast }S$; their composite is in $S$. Hence the nonempty sieves form a Grothendieck topology, called the atomic topology.

For all functions between nonempty finite sets, the two maps from a singleton to different points of a two-point set have no common refinement. Every potential domain remains nonempty, so the two constant composites cannot agree. The condition fails.

For surjections it holds: $V{\times }_{U}W$ is nonempty and both projections are surjective. Work from now on in a small skeleton $\mathcal{D}$ of nonempty finite sets and surjections. Every morphism $f:P\twoheadrightarrow U$ is a regular epimorphism, with kernel pair $P{\times }_{U}P\rightrightarrows P$, and is the coequalizer of that pair in $\mathcal{D}$.

A matching family in a representable $yV$ on the sieve generated by $f$ is determined by a surjection $t:P\to V$ equalizing that kernel pair. It factors uniquely through a function $U\to V$, which is surjective because $t$ is. This gives the unique amalgamation. A general nonempty covering sieve contains such an $f$; after amalgamating there, common refinements with any other member force agreement on the entire sieve. Therefore every representable is a sheaf, so this atomic site is subcanonical.

For any sheaf $F$, every restriction $F(f)$ is injective: equality after a covering arrow forces equality by the separated part of the sheaf condition. We shall also use descent along any surjection $q:n\twoheadrightarrow k$:is an equalizer of sets. These are the descent identities for the atomic finite-surjection site.

Consider primitive $x\in F(m)$, $y\in F(n)$ with a common restriction along $\alpha :P\twoheadrightarrow m$, $\beta :P\twoheadrightarrow n$. Suppose $a,b\in P$ have $\alpha (a)=\alpha (b)$ but $\beta (a)\ne \beta (b)$. Let $q:n\twoheadrightarrow n-1$ identify just the two points $\beta (a),\beta (b)$. Define the finite nonempty setBoth projections $t_1,t_2:T\twoheadrightarrow P$ are surjective, since $T$ contains every diagonal pair. There is also a surjectionIndeed the target consists of diagonal pairs, which are reached because $\beta$ is surjective, and the two off-diagonal pairs corresponding to $\beta (a),\beta (b)$, reached by $(a,b)$ and $(b,a)$.

Since $\alpha t_1=\alpha t_2$, the common-restriction equality gives $F(\beta t_1)y=F(\beta t_2)y$. If ${\pi }_1,{\pi }_2$ are the target kernel-pair projections, this isInjectivity of $F(h)$ gives the kernel-pair matching condition on $y$. Descent along $q$ then writes $y=F(q)y^{\prime }$, contradicting primitivity. Thus $\ker \alpha \subseteq \ker \beta$; interchange the roles to obtain equality. This is the primitive-element kernel rigidity lemma.

Equal kernels produce a unique bijection $\gamma :m\to n$ with $\beta =\gamma \alpha$. Now $F(\alpha )x=F(\alpha )F(\gamma )y$, and injectivity impliesIn particular equivalent primitive elements have the same cardinality and differ only by transport along a bijection.

Every element $z\in F(p)$ descends to a primitive one: whenever it is not primitive, descend along a surjection reducing the cardinality by one; this process terminates at or before cardinality one. Kernel rigidity shows that all primitive ancestors of $z$ lie in one equivalence class. Let $F_C(P)$ be the elements with primitive-ancestor class $C$. Restriction along a surjection preserves this class, so each $F_C$ is a subfunctor andpointwise. Each $F_C$ is a sheaf. A matching family glues in $F$, and one member along a nonempty covering arrow already determines the primitive class of the glued element; it must be $C$.

Choose a representative primitive $x\in F(m)$ of $C$. The Yoneda map $ym\to F$ named by $x$ has image exactly $F_C$. It reaches all descendants of $x$, and every equivalent primitive ancestor is its transport along a bijection. It is therefore pointwise surjective onto $F_C$ and is epic as a map of sheaves. We obtain the primitive decomposition of an atomic finite-surjection sheafThis includes the empty coproduct for an empty sheaf.

Each nonempty $F_C$ is an atom in a topos. If a sheaf subobject $S\hookrightarrow F_C$ has an element $F(\alpha )x$ at some $P$, membership descends along the covering surjection $\alpha :P\to m$, so $x$ belongs to $S$. All its restrictions then belong to $S$, giving $S=F_C$. Thus every subobject of any $F$ selects entire components of this coproduct, and its complementary selection is again a sheaf subobject. Its characteristic map sends selected components to $\top$ and all others to $\perp$.

The constant two-element presheaf is a sheaf: a matching family on a nonempty sieve has the same value on all its arrows, since any two have a common refinement. The value extends uniquely. It therefore supplies these characteristic maps, with truth the inclusion of the $\top$ value. Equivalently, a J-closed sieve here is either empty or maximal, because every nonempty sieve covers. Hence

Work in the domain-classifying site of part (ii), with generic domain $K=a_{J}U$. For finitely presented rings $A$, the object $a_{J}yA$ is an available stage. Tuples of sections of $K$ are locally represented by tuples of actual elements of $A$, because $U\to a_{J}U$ is locally surjective and sheafification preserves finite products. It is therefore enough to prove the requested implication on such representatives.

We first note the empty-cover criterion for the domain-classifying site: $a_{J}yB$ is initial if and only if the finitely presented ring $B$ is the zero ring. One direction is the generating empty cover. Conversely, any nonzero ring has a maximal ideal and hence a homomorphism to a field. That field is a set-based integral domain and defines a point of the classifying topos. The inverse image of $a_{J}yB$ at this point is ${\mathrm{Hom}}_{\mathrm{Ring}}(B,L)$, which is nonempty for the chosen field $L$. It therefore cannot be the inverse image of an initial object. This uses only the ordinary maximal-ideal existence principle externally, not excluded middle in the internal logic.

Suppose $a_1,\dots ,a_n\in A$ represent a tuple lying in the negation of the all-units subobject. Write $t=a_1\cdots a_n$ and consider the finitely presented localization of a ringEvery $a_i$ is invertible in $B$, since $({\prod }_{j\ne i}{a}_j)z$ is an inverse. But the pulled-back tuple still lies in the negation of the all-units subobject. Thus the whole stage $a_{J}yB$ maps into both that subobject and its negation, forcing this stage to be initial. The empty-cover criterion gives $B=0$.

The localization $A[1/t]$ is zero precisely when $t^N=0$ in $A$ for some integer $N\ge 1$, by the equality criterion in localization. Repeated use of the generating zero-product covers now gives a covering familyIndeed, splitting $t^N=t{t}^{N-1}=0$ and inducting first forces $t=0$ locally; splitting the product $a_1\cdots a_n=0$ then forces one $a_i=0$ locally. More formally the two inductions are coherent derivations from the zero-product axiom, so their quotient families belong to the generated topology. The sheaf semantics of disjunction consequently givesThis is the finite-tuple weak-field property of the generic integral domain. The argument is intuitionistically valid inside the topos, although its description of the site uses ordinary external set theory. There is no appeal to preservation of negation by an arbitrary geometric inverse image.

For the converse assertion, let $R$ be any internally nontrivial commutative unital ring satisfying the $n=2$ implication. Assume $xy=0$. If $x$ and $y$ were both units, multiplying by their two inverses would give $0=1$, contradicting nontriviality. ThereforeThe assumed two-variable implication then gives $x=0\vee y=0$. Together with nontriviality this is exactly the internal integral-domain axiom. Hence a nontrivial ring satisfying the two-variable case is an integral domain.

For example, the ordinary integral domain $\mathbb{Z}$ fails the one-variable implication at $2$. This does not contradict the generic result: the displayed implication uses negation and is non-coherent, so it need not survive the inverse image that classifies an arbitrary set-based domain.

The Special adjoint functor theorem says: if $\mathcal{C}$ is a locally small category, a complete category, a well-powered category, and has a small cogenerating family, then a functor $U:\mathcal{C}\to \mathcal{D}$ into any locally small category has a left adjoint if and only if it preserves small categorical limits.

A small cogenerating family $(Q_i{)}_{i\in I}$, with $I$ a set, distinguishes unequal parallel morphisms by postcomposition: for $f\ne g:A\to B$, some $q:B\to Q_i$ has $qf\ne qg$. Being well-powered means that the subobjects of each object form a set up to the usual equivalence of monomorphisms. These hypotheses make the solution-set condition automatic.

The dual formulation uses a cocomplete category, being a well-copowered category and having a small generating family, and concludes that every small-colimit-preserving functor has a right adjoint.