Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

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

The subject line says it all, but perhaps it would be more reasonable to split the question into two parts: 1) can a pullback diagram also be a pushout diagram?; if so, 2) can necessary and sufficient conditions be given for this to happen?


share|cite|improve this question
1) Sure, a square that is both a pull-back (cartesian) and a push-out (cocartesian) is called a bicartesian square (Freyd called them push-me pull-you first, then later Doolittle diagrams...). 2) I don't think that there is a general characterization without further assumptions on the morphisms and the surrounding category. For example, in additive categories you can show that the push-out under a kernel is also a pull-back if and only if the push-out of the kernel is a monic. – t.b. Nov 12 '11 at 13:08
For the first question see also (and references give there.) – Martin Sleziak Nov 12 '11 at 13:14
I know this question is old and you are asking about the direction "pullback$\implies$pushout", but I thought to myself I just comment here what I found out recently: $\require{AMScd}$ If the square $$\small\begin{CD} A @>i>>X \\ @VVV@VVV \\ Y@>j>>Z \end{CD}$$ is a pushout and $i$ is injective, then $j$ is injective and the square is a pullback. This also holds in the category of weak Hausdorff $k$-spaces: If $i$ is a closed embedding, then so is $j$, the pushout is constructed as in the category of sets, and the square is also a pullback. – Stefan Hamcke Sep 13 '14 at 16:54
@Stephan, How can I prove this. Can you take a look at this question here – qartal Nov 6 '15 at 20:49
up vote 8 down vote accepted

$\require{amsCD}$ Yes. The most familiar setting where this happens is in abelian categories, where the commutative square

$$\begin{CD} A @>f_b>> B\\ @VVf_cV @VVg_bV\\ C @>g_c>> D \end{CD}$$

is a pullback square iff the corresponding sequence

$$0 \to A \xrightarrow{f_b \oplus f_c} B \oplus C \xrightarrow{g_c - g_b} D$$

is exact. Similarly, the square is a pushout square iff the sequence

$$A \xrightarrow{f_b \oplus f_c} B \oplus C \xrightarrow{g_c - g_b} D \to 0$$

is exact. Hence the square is both a pullback and a pushout square iff the sequence

$$0 \to A \xrightarrow{f_b \oplus f_c} B \oplus C \xrightarrow{g_c - g_b} D \to 0$$

is exact.

share|cite|improve this answer
What about Top? – Ivan Jan 7 '15 at 23:14
@Ivan: things already don't work out very well in $\text{Set}$. Looking at the cardinalities involved in a pushout vs. pullback diagram of finite sets you'll see that there are hardly any examples. – Qiaochu Yuan Jan 8 '15 at 3:30

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.