# Start a new discussion

## Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

## Site Tag Cloud

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

• CommentRowNumber1.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeAug 24th 2012

touched five lemma

• CommentRowNumber2.
• CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
• CommentTimeAug 24th 2012

I added some remarks, one pertaining to the category of groups, and another to topological abelian groups. Feel free to stick those remarks elsewhere in the article, if you think they’re not well-placed.

• CommentRowNumber3.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeAug 24th 2012

Thanks!

1. I rearranged the proof very slightly to make it constructively acceptable and added a remark on how to avoid the use of the embedding theorem.

• CommentRowNumber5.
• CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
• CommentTimeAug 24th 2012

Of course, part of the beauty of the embedding theorem, either for abelian categories or for regular categories (Freyd-Scedrov, p. 77), is that it implies that you don’t have to worry about making proofs constructive – they assure one that proofs can be made constructive. (Here we mean proofs of Horn sentences written in the defining predicates of the theory.)

2. That’s a nice way to put it! Of course, your point is even stronger, considering that it’s not enough to make proofs constructive; they need to be formulated in such a way as to only use regular logic.

• CommentRowNumber7.
• CommentAuthorTobyBartels
• CommentTimeAug 25th 2012

I still appreciate an explicitly constructive proof, since then I know that the theorem also holds in constructive mathematics.

• CommentRowNumber8.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeSep 30th 2012

At five lemma I have now made also the short five lemma explicit.

3. “Here is direct proof” => “Here is a direct proof”

Mark S Davis