# 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

• 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)

• 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.

• 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)