2025-11-15T02:40:11.811484

A comparison between weakly protomodular and protomodular objects in unital categories

García-Martínez, Montoli, Rodelo et al.
We compare the concepts of protomodular and weakly protomodular objects within the context of unital categories. Our analysis demonstrates that these two notions are generally distinct. To establish this, we introduce left pseudocancellative unital magmas and characterise weakly protomodular objects within the variety of algebras they constitute. Subsequently, we present an example of a weakly protomodular object that is not protomodular in this category.
academic

A comparison between weakly protomodular and protomodular objects in unital categories

Basic Information

  • Paper ID: 2409.19076
  • Title: A comparison between weakly protomodular and protomodular objects in unital categories
  • Authors: Xabier García-Martínez, Andrea Montoli, Diana Rodelo, Tim Van der Linden
  • Classification: math.CT (Category Theory)
  • Publication Date: September 2024 (initial draft), November 10, 2025 (revision v2)
  • Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.19076

Abstract

This paper compares the concepts of protomodular objects and weakly protomodular objects within the context of unital categories. The research demonstrates that these two concepts are generally distinct. To establish this, the authors introduce the algebraic structure of left pseudocancellative unital magmas (LPM), characterize weakly protomodular objects in this algebraic variety, and provide a concrete example of an object that is weakly protomodular but not protomodular.

Research Background and Motivation

Research Question

The core problem addressed in this paper is: Are protomodular objects and weakly protomodular objects always equivalent in unital categories?

Importance of the Problem

  1. Theoretical Fundamentality: Protomodularity is a fundamental component in the definition of semi-abelian categories, which successfully describe in categorical language the intrinsic properties of non-abelian algebraic structures such as groups, rings, and Lie algebras.
  2. Localization Research: The concept of protomodular objects is a localized version of protomodular categories, used to characterize objects with "group-like" properties in non-protomodular categories. Examples include:
    • In the category of monoids (Mon), protomodular objects are precisely groups
    • In the category of semirings, protomodular objects are precisely rings
  3. Conceptual Uniformity: Weakly protomodular objects represent a weakened version of protomodular objects. In all previously known examples of unital categories (such as monoids, semirings, and cocommutative bialgebras), both concepts have been proven to coincide.

Limitations of Existing Research

Prior to this work:

  • In all studied unital categories, protomodular objects and weakly protomodular objects were proven to be identical
  • Counterexamples were lacking to demonstrate the distinction between these two concepts in general unital categories
  • No systematic method existed for constructing algebraic structures exhibiting this difference

Research Motivation

Based on the coincidence of both concepts in all previous examples, a natural question arises: Are protomodular objects and weakly protomodular objects always equivalent in unital categories? This paper provides a negative answer through the construction of specific algebraic structures and counterexamples.

Core Contributions

  1. Introduction of New Algebraic Structure: Defines left pseudocancellative unital magmas (LPM) as a new algebraic structure and proves that it constitutes a unital category.
  2. Characterization of Weakly Protomodular Objects: Provides a complete characterization of weakly protomodular objects in the LPM category (Theorem 2.6): an object X is weakly protomodular if and only if for all x ∈ X, there exist x₁,...,xₙ ∈ X such that x₁(x₂(...(xₙ\x)...)) = e.
  3. Proof of Conceptual Distinction:
    • Constructs a concrete weakly protomodular but non-protomodular object (the integer set Z in Example 2.12)
    • Proves that subalgebras of protomodular objects are weakly protomodular (Theorem 2.9)
    • Establishes the strict inclusion relationship: left loops ⊊ protomodular objects ⊊ weakly protomodular objects
  4. Technical Innovation: Employs term rewriting systems to prove the unique normal form of elements in free LPM (Proposition 2.5), which is the key technical tool for proving the main theorems.
  5. Theoretical Significance: First proves the inconsistency between protomodular objects and weakly protomodular objects within the framework of unital categories, answering an open question in the field.

Detailed Methodology

Core Concept Definitions

Left Pseudocancellative Unital Magma (LPM)

A set X equipped with two binary operations ∗ and \ and a nullary operation e, satisfying:

  • Identity (1): y = x ∗ (x\y) (left pseudocancellative law)
  • Identity (3): x = e ∗ x = x ∗ e (identity law)

This structure weakens the concept of a left loop. A left loop additionally requires:

  • Identity (2): y = x(x ∗ y)

Key Properties

From the definition, the following can be derived (Proposition 2.2):

  • All left multiplication maps Mᵧ: x ↦ y ∗ x are surjective
  • All left division maps Dᵧ: x ↦ y\x are injective
  • Dₑ = 1ₓ (left division by the identity is the identity map)
  • If x\y = e, then x = y

Technical Framework

Term Rewriting System

To analyze the structure of free LPM, the authors construct a rewriting rule set:

R = {
  x ∗ (x\y) → y,
  e ∗ x → x,
  x ∗ e → x,
  e\y → y
}

Key Proof of Proposition 2.5:

  1. Termination: Define a measure μ(t) = (#∗(t), #(t)), ordered lexicographically. Each rule strictly decreases this measure.
  2. Confluence: Using Newman's lemma, only local confluence needs to be checked. The only non-trivial overlap occurs at e ∗ (e\y), which can be shown to have a joinable critical pair.

This ensures that every element in the free LPM has a unique normal form, which is fundamental to subsequent proofs.

Proof Strategy for Main Theorems

Theorem 2.6: Characterization of Weakly Protomodular Objects

Sufficiency (ii)⇒(i): Given any split extension and element y ∈ Y, let x = f(y). By condition (ii), there exist x₁,...,xₙ such that:

x₁\(x₂\(...\(xₙ\x)...)) = e

Using identity (1), y can be written as:

y = s(xₙ) ∗ (... ∗ (s(x₁) ∗ (s(x₁)\(s(x₂)\(...\(s(xₙ)\y)...)))))

where s(x₁)(s(x₂)(...(s(xₙ)\y)...)) belongs to the kernel K of f, proving that the point (f,s) is strong.

Necessity (i)⇒(ii): This is the most technical part. For any x ∈ X:

  1. Construct a split extension: 0 → K → F(z)⊕X → X → 0, where F(z) is the free LPM on a single generator z
  2. Since X is weakly protomodular, the generator z can be written as a product of elements from K and X
  3. Using Proposition 2.5's unique normal form, trace the rewriting sequence
  4. Key observation: the final rewriting step must be of the form u ∗ (u\z) → z
  5. Recursively analyze the subterm u, expanding nested structures
  6. Obtain an element in the kernel K of the form x₁(x₂(...(xₙ\z)...))
  7. Replace z with x to obtain the desired identity

Theorem 2.9: Subalgebra Property

Proof strategy:

  1. Let Y be a protomodular object and X be a subalgebra of Y
  2. For any element x ∈ X, construct an appropriate pullback diagram
  3. Since Y is protomodular, the corresponding point is stably strong
  4. In the pullback, z ∈ P can be expressed as a product of kernel and section image elements
  5. Using techniques similar to Theorem 2.6, prove that x satisfies condition (ii)

Counterexample Construction

Example 2.8: Non-weakly Protomodular Object (Natural Numbers N)

Define operations:

x\y = { y       if x = 0
      { y + 1   if x > 0

x ∗ y = { x       if y = 0
        { y       if x = 0
        { y - 1   if x, y > 0

For any x > 0, no element sequence satisfying condition (ii) can be found; therefore, N is not weakly protomodular.

Example 2.12: Weakly Protomodular but Non-Protomodular Object (Integers Z)

Extend the operations from Example 2.8 to the integers, with key definitions for negative numbers:

x\y = { -2y - 1  if x < 0 ≤ y
      { 2y       if x, y < 0, x ≠ y
      { 0        if x = y < 0
      { (other cases similar to N)

x ∗ y = { -(y+1)/2  if x < 0, y odd
        { y/2       if x < 0, y even ≠ 0
        { (other cases similar to N)

Verification:

  1. Z satisfies LPM axioms (verified case by case)
  2. Z satisfies condition (ii): for any x ∈ Z, a corresponding sequence can be found
  3. N is a subalgebra of Z, but N is not weakly protomodular
  4. By Theorem 2.9, Z cannot be protomodular

Experimental Setup

This is a pure theoretical mathematics paper with no experimental setup, datasets, or numerical experiments. All results are obtained through rigorous mathematical proofs.

Verification Methods

  • Axiom Verification: For each constructed algebraic structure, all defining axioms are verified case by case
  • Counterexample Verification: Specific objects are shown not to satisfy certain properties through constructive proofs
  • Theoretical Derivation: Standard techniques from category theory and universal algebra are employed

Experimental Results

Main Theoretical Results

Result 1: Triviality of Unital Magmas

Theorem 2.1: There exist no non-trivial weakly protomodular objects in the category of unital magmas.

This explains why a richer structure (LPM) is needed to study the problem.

Result 2: Complete Characterization of Weakly Protomodular Objects

Theorem 2.6: In the LPM category, an object X is weakly protomodular if and only if:

∀x ∈ X, ∃x₁,...,xₙ ∈ X: x₁\(x₂\(...\(xₙ\x)...)) = e

This provides a verifiable algebraic condition.

Result 3: Strict Inclusion Relationships

Examples 2.14 and 2.12 together prove:

{left loops} ⊊ {protomodular objects} ⊊ {weakly protomodular objects}

Specifically:

  • All left loops are protomodular objects (Corollary 2.11)
  • There exist protomodular objects satisfying x\x = e but not being left loops (N in Example 2.14)
  • There exist weakly protomodular but non-protomodular objects (Z in Example 2.12)

Result 4: Subalgebra Property

Theorem 2.9: In LPM, subalgebras of protomodular objects are weakly protomodular.

This is key to constructing counterexamples: find a weakly protomodular object X whose subalgebra Y is not weakly protomodular, then X cannot be protomodular.

Case Studies

Case 1: Natural Numbers N (Example 2.8)

  • Structure: The simplest non-weakly protomodular LPM
  • Key Property: Any positive integer x cannot return to the identity element through finitely many left division operations
  • Geometric Intuition: Left division always "moves upward" (adds 1), unable to form a closed loop

Case 2: Integers Z (Example 2.12)

  • Structure: A "completion" of N
  • Key Design:
    • Positive integers: inherit operations from N
    • Negative integers: special operations designed so each element can return to the identity
    • For x > 0: (-2x-1)(-1\x) = 0
    • For x ≤ 0: x\x = 0
  • Technique: The negative number portion provides "loops" making Z weakly protomodular

Case 3: General Construction (Remark 2.13)

Parametrized family:

x\y = { y + i      if x > 0, y ≥ 0
      { -ky - j    if x < 0 ≤ y
      { ky         if x, y < 0, x ≠ y
      { (other cases)

where i ≥ 1, k ≥ 2, j ∈ {1,...,k-1}.

This demonstrates the robustness of the construction: an entire parametric family of counterexamples exists.

Related Work

Protomodularity Theory

  1. Bourn (1991) 2: Introduces the concept of protomodular categories as the foundation of semi-abelian categories
  2. Borceux & Bourn (2004) 1: Systematically develops Mal'cev, protomodular, homological, and semi-abelian category theory

Unital Categories

  1. Bourn (1996) 3: Defines unital categories and characterizes fibrations in Mal'cev categories
  2. Borceux & Bourn (2004) 1: Proves that a zero object is protomodular if and only if the category is unital

Protomodular Objects

  1. Montoli, Rodelo & Van der Linden (2018) 12:
    • First introduces the concept of protomodular objects
    • Proves that protomodular objects in the monoid category are precisely groups
    • Proves that protomodular objects in the semiring category are precisely rings
  2. García-Martínez (2017) 8:
    • Introduces the concept of weakly protomodular objects
    • Proves that both concepts coincide in the monoid category
  3. García-Martínez & Van der Linden (2018) 9:
    • Studies protomodular objects in the bialgebra category
    • Proves that protomodular objects in the cocommutative bialgebra category are precisely cocommutative Hopf algebras

Left Quasigroups and Left Loops

  1. Bourn & Janelidze (2003) 4: Characterizes protomodular universal algebraic varieties, proving that the left loop category is semi-abelian

Positioning of This Paper

This is the first work proving the inconsistency between protomodular objects and weakly protomodular objects in unital categories, filling a theoretical gap. Its relationship to prior work:

  • Inheritance: Uses the theoretical framework established in 12 and 8
  • Extension: Introduces the new algebraic structure LPM
  • Breakthrough: Constructs counterexamples answering an open question

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

  1. Core Conclusion: In unital categories, protomodular objects and weakly protomodular objects are not always equivalent.
  2. Concrete Realization:
    • Left pseudocancellative unital magmas (LPM) form a unital category
    • Weakly protomodular but non-protomodular objects exist in LPM
    • The integers Z with specific operations provide such an example
  3. Theoretical Significance:
    • Answers an open question in the field
    • Reveals subtle distinctions between two related concepts in protomodularity theory
    • Provides a systematic method for constructing such counterexamples

Limitations

  1. Specificity of Algebraic Structure:
    • LPM is specifically designed to solve this particular problem
    • Currently lacks natural mathematical motivation or applications
    • Unclear whether LPM naturally appears in other mathematical domains
  2. Complexity of Counterexample:
    • The construction in Example 2.12 is quite technical
    • Operation definitions require multiple case distinctions
    • Not sufficiently "natural" or "elegant"
  3. Scope Restrictions:
    • Results are established only in the LPM category
    • Unclear whether more "natural" unital categories exhibit the same phenomenon
    • Generalization to other algebraic varieties (rings, modules, etc.) is unclear
  4. Completeness of Characterization:
    • Theorem 2.6 characterizes weakly protomodular objects
    • No complete characterization of protomodular objects is provided
    • Only partial sufficient conditions exist (Proposition 2.10)

Future Directions

While the paper does not explicitly propose future directions, the following research questions can be inferred:

  1. Complete Characterization of Protomodular Objects: Provide necessary and sufficient conditions for protomodular objects in LPM
  2. Situation in Other Unital Categories:
    • Do more natural unital categories exhibit the same distinction?
    • In which unital categories do both concepts coincide?
  3. Classification Problem: Characterize the structure of all protomodular objects and all weakly protomodular objects in LPM
  4. Application Exploration: Do LPM have applications in other mathematical branches?
  5. Generalization: Can the unitality condition be weakened to study similar problems in more general categories?

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Theoretical Innovation

  • Originality: First proof that protomodular objects and weakly protomodular objects can differ in unital categories
  • Constructiveness: Provides not only existence proofs but also concrete algebraic structures and counterexamples
  • Systematicity: Introduces new structures, establishes characterization theorems, and constructs counterexamples, forming a complete theoretical chain

2. Technical Rigor

  • Complete Proofs: All major results have detailed proofs
  • Advanced Tools: Uses term rewriting systems to establish properties of free algebras, demonstrating technical sophistication
  • Thorough Verification: Constructed examples undergo case-by-case axiom verification

3. Structural Clarity

  • Logical Flow: Progresses smoothly from motivation to definitions, theorems, and counterexamples
  • Rich Examples: Provides multiple examples (2.8, 2.12, 2.14) and general constructions (2.13)
  • Clear Comparisons: Clearly exhibits the strict inclusion relationship among left loops, protomodular objects, and weakly protomodular objects

4. Mathematical Depth

  • Categorical Perspective: Studies problems within the abstract categorical framework
  • Algebraic Techniques: Cleverly designs operations so that the integers Z satisfy desired properties
  • Rewriting Theory: Applies classical results from term rewriting systems

Weaknesses

1. Naturalness of Motivation

  • Artificial Construction: LPM appears to be "tailor-made" for solving this specific problem
  • Missing Applications: No indication of LPM's applications or significance in other mathematical domains
  • Insufficient Intuition: Lacks geometric or algebraic intuition for why these particular axioms were chosen

2. Limitations of Results

  • Single Category: Results are established only in LPM, with unclear generalizability
  • Incomplete Characterization: No necessary and sufficient conditions for protomodular objects are provided
  • Complex Examples: Counterexample construction is quite technical and lacks elegance

3. Technical Details

  • Necessity Proof of Theorem 2.6: While correct, the proof is highly technical and potentially difficult to understand
  • Example Verification: Axiom verification for Example 2.12 is lengthy; more concise presentation might be possible
  • Generalization: The parametric family construction in Remark 2.13 lacks detailed proofs

4. Literature Discussion

  • Limited Related Work: Primarily cites work from the authors' own research group
  • Insufficient Comparison: Does not discuss why both concepts coincide in other algebraic varieties
  • Unspecified Open Problems: Does not explicitly list open problems for future research

Impact Assessment

Contribution to the Field

  • Theoretical Completion: Fills a gap in protomodularity theory
  • Methodology: Provides technical approaches for constructing counterexamples
  • Inspiration: May inspire research on other unital categories

Practical Value

  • Limited: As pure theoretical mathematics, direct applications are minimal
  • Foundational: Provides foundation for further theoretical development
  • Educational Value: Can serve as an advanced case study in category theory and universal algebra courses

Reproducibility

  • High: All proofs are constructive
  • Verifiable: Example axioms can be verified individually
  • Generalizable: Remark 2.13 provides parametrized construction methods

Applicable Scenarios

Direct Applications

  1. Category Theory Research: Scholars studying unital categories and protomodularity theory
  2. Universal Algebra: Mathematicians researching properties of algebraic varieties
  3. Semi-abelian Categories: Researchers in non-abelian homological theory

Potential Applications

  1. Computer Science: Applications of term rewriting systems
  2. Algebraic Topology: Higher-order homological theory
  3. Theoretical Computer Science: Type theory and categorical semantics

Inapplicable Scenarios

  1. Applied Mathematics: Lacks direct practical applications
  2. Computational Implementation: Too theoretical for algorithmization
  3. Beginners: Requires deep background in category theory and algebra

References

The paper cites 13 key references, primarily concentrated in:

  1. Foundational Theory 1,2,3: Protomodularity and unital category theory by Borceux, Bourn, and others
  2. Protomodular Objects 12,8,9: Authors' prior work on protomodular objects
  3. Left Loops 4: Bourn & Janelidze's semi-abelian properties of left loops
  4. Homological Theory 5,6,7,10,13: Applications of non-abelian homology and cohomology

Key References:

  • 12 Montoli, Rodelo, Van der Linden (2018): Original paper introducing protomodular objects
  • 8 García-Martínez (2017): Paper introducing weakly protomodular objects
  • 1 Borceux & Bourn (2004): Systematic monograph on protomodularity theory

Overall Assessment

This is a technically rigorous and theoretically innovative pure mathematics paper that successfully answers an open question in protomodularity theory. Through introducing new algebraic structures and clever counterexample construction, the authors prove that protomodular objects and weakly protomodular objects can differ in unital categories.

Main strengths lie in the completeness of the theory and rigor of proofs, particularly the use of term rewriting systems to establish properties of free algebras, demonstrating sophisticated technical mastery.

Main weaknesses include the lack of natural mathematical motivation for the constructed algebraic structure (LPM) and the somewhat artificial nature of the counterexample, with limited prospects for generalization.

For professional researchers in category theory and universal algebra, this is an important theoretical contribution; however, for other mathematical branches or applied fields, the impact may be limited. The paper opens new research directions, particularly in seeking more natural counterexamples and characterizing protomodular objects.