MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I'm wondering about categorifications of Zorn's lemma along the following lines.

Lemma: if $\mathbf{C}$ is a small category in which every directed diagram of monomorphisms has a cocone of monomorphisms, then there is an object $A$ such that any monomorphism $A \rightarrowtail B$ splits.

Proofsketch: If there were no such object, we could use the axiom of choice to define a function $f$ that assigns to each directed diagram $D$ of monomorphisms, a monomorphism with domain $\mathop{cocone}(D)$ that does not split. Define an ordinal-indexed diagram $D$ by setting $D(\alpha) = f\big( D(\beta) \mid \beta<\alpha \big)$. Because $D$ consists of monomorphisms that don't split, it cannot contain any cycles. But this contradicts smallness of $\mathbf{C}$.

Can this be generalised? (E.g. do we need smallness and monics?) Are other versions known? Are there similar categorical existence statements that are provable without the axiom of choice?

share|cite|improve this question
If the colimits coproiection are monorphisms then your statements follow clearly, do these follow also in general? – Buschi Sergio Nov 19 '12 at 20:12
Good spot. It needs that every directed diagram of monomorphisms has a cocone of monomorphisms. I've edited the question, thanks. – Chris Heunen Nov 19 '12 at 20:21
Tom Leinster has some remarks about Zorn's lemma, wherein he notes that by being very careful with the hypotheses one can prove a (formally weaker) version without choice: – Zhen Lin Nov 19 '12 at 22:19
Aren't you just considering the subcategory of $C$ consisting of monomorphisms, which is then a preorder? A monomorphism that splits in this will be an isomorphism, which is intuitively what Zorn's lemma would give you (a top element, unique up to isomorphism). I don't know if I'd call this categorification, imprecise though that word can be. I would consider taking a (2,3)-category and trying to formulate a Zorn-style result as categorification (what you have, with my spin on it, is a (1,2)-category). – David Roberts Nov 19 '12 at 22:41
David, left-cancellative categories (i.e. categories in which every morphism is monic) are not necessarily preorders; think of any groupoid. Having said that, it would definitely be interesting to "derive" a lemma such as that in the question from Zorn's actual lemma applied on a "higher" categorical level; could you make that more precise? – Chris Heunen Nov 19 '12 at 23:04

In their book Categories and Sheaves, M. Kashiwara and P. Schapira prove the following theorem (Theorem 9.4.2) :

Let $C$ be an essentially small non empty category which admits small filtrant inductive limits. Then $C$ has a quasi-terminal object, that is, an object $X$ such that every morphism with source $X$ has a left inverse.

It seems to me that the hypothesis is stronger than yours, but the conclusion is also stronger. (What about considering the subcategory $C'$ of $C$ whose arrows are monomorphisms of $C$?)

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.