Not signed in (Sign In)

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

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-theory cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homology homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory kan lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology natural nforum nlab nonassociative noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topological topology topos topos-theory type type-theory universal variational-calculus

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

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • 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

    diff, v23, current

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 22nd 2021

    added pointer to Prop. 1.3.3 in

    • Tamar Janelidze, Foundations of relative non-abelian homological algebra, 2009 (pdf)

    for proof of the “short split five lemma” that is claimed in the entry (previously without proof or reference)

    diff, v24, current

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 22nd 2021
    • (edited Sep 22nd 2021)

    added (here) the statement of the five-lemma in the generality of homological categories.

    One would think this is stated in Borceux + Bourn 2004, but apparently they forgot to do so. It is made explicit as Prop. 1.3.3 in the PhD thesis T. Janelidze 2009, so I have added pointer to that. But if anyone has a more canonical pointer to add (or, better yet, the energy to type out the proof) please do.

    diff, v25, current

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)