Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. 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

Let $\mathscr C$ be a cartesian category with subobject classifier $\Omega$ and generic subobject $\tau:I\to\Omega$. Consider the following pullback square:

$\require{AMScd} \begin{CD} P @>{\bar f}>> C\\ @V{\bar g}VV @V{g}VV \\ A @>{f}>> B \end{CD}$

I proved that for any $p:A\to\Omega$ the statement $\exists_{\bar f}(p\circ\bar g)\implies \exists_f(p)\circ g$ is true.

What about the converse: $\exists_f(p)\circ g\implies\exists_{\bar f}(p\circ\bar g)$?

My attempts to prove it in such a category fails. On the other hand, it seems to be intuitively true in a topos.

What assumptions are necessary in order to make it true?

Note that a similar question arises for the universal quantificator. In particular, $\forall_f(p)\circ g\implies\forall_{\bar f}(p\circ\bar g)$ is true. On the other hand, I found a proof for the converse $\forall_{\bar f}(p\circ\bar g)\implies \forall_f(p)\circ g$ when $g$ is monic.

share|cite|improve this question
Is $\bar{g} p$ supposed to be $p \circ \bar{g}$ here? – Zhen Lin May 2 '14 at 13:13
up vote 2 down vote accepted

The equivalence $\exists_{\bar f}(p\circ\bar g)\iff \exists_f(p)\circ g$ means that the pullback preserve images. Thus that equivalence holds if and only if the categor is regular.

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.