Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 47 references

A direction functor approach to the cohomology of small categories

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The cohomology of a small category is the set of connected components of a fibre of the direction functor.

desk verdict Solid n=1 identification of Hoff–Golasinski cohomology with direction-functor fibres; higher dimensions are sketchy and the stress-test's exactness worry is a misreading. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07380 v1 pith:F4JPYZZF submitted 2026-08-07 math.CT

Stefano Ambra , Arnaud Duvieusart , Andrea Montoli This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.CT MSC 18E1318E9908C05
keywords directionfunctorcohomologyofsmallcategoriesS-MaltsevcategoryS-protomodularSchreierpointBarr-exactcrossedmoduleBaersum
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper establishes that the cohomology of a small category, with coefficients in a module, is a fibre invariant: for each degree it is the set of connected components of a fibre of the direction functor. The setting is the category $\mathrm{Cat}_B$ of small categories with a fixed set of objects $B$, shown to be $S$-Maltsev with respect to the class of Schreier points, where a Schreier point is a split epimorphism of categories in which every arrow decomposes uniquely through the kernel followed by the chosen section. Restricting to $S$-special morphisms over a fixed $Y$ gives a Barr-exact Maltsev category whose direction functor sends an extension to the module it is built from. The paper proves that the group of extensions $\mathrm{Opext}^1(Y,A)$ is $\pi_0(d_Y^{-1}(A))$, with the Baer sum as its group operation, and that the higher extension groups $\mathrm{Opext}^{n+1}(Y,A)$ are $\pi_0(d_{n,Y}^{-1}(A))$, isomorphic to $H^{n+2}(Y,A)$. A sympathetic reader cares because the same categorical machinery that describes group and Lie-algebra cohomology now also describes the cohomology of small categories, without projective resolutions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the direction functor $d$: given an object with global support carrying an internal Maltsev operation $p$, one imposes the Chasles relation $(x,t)\sim(y,z)$ exactly when $t=p(x,y,z)$ and quotients; Barr-exactness makes the quotient an internal group, abelian when $p$ is autonomous, and the original object becomes a torsor over that group. The paper's identification in dimension one is that an $S$-special morphism $f$ admits such an operation precisely when its kernel fibres are abelian, and its direction is the $Y$-module $D_f$ with the transport action along $Y$. In higher dimensions the same functor is applied levelwise to aspherical $n$-groupoids, producing an $n$-direction whose kernel is a module; the fibres' connected components are then equipped with the abelian group structure supplied by the functor's cofibration properties. This is the mechanism that turns extension classes into cohomology classes.

What would settle it

Compute $\mathrm{Opext}^1(Y,A)$ and $\pi_0(d_Y^{-1}(A))$ for a small category $Y$ with two objects and a single non-identity arrow and a non-trivial $Y$-module $A$; the paper predicts a specific isomorphism of abelian groups, so a single mismatch, or a failure of the Baer sum to agree with the monoidal product on the fibre, would refute the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the direction functor of the slice category $\mathrm{Sl}(\mathrm{Cat}_B/Y)$ computes the established cohomology theory of small categories. Since $\mathrm{Cat}_B$ is $S$-protomodular with respect to Schreier points, and the authors verify the additional condition needed for exactness, the slice of $S$-special morphisms over each $Y$ is Barr-exact and Maltsev. On this category the direction functor $d_Y$ sends an $S$-special surjective morphism $f\colon X\to Y$ with abelian kernel fibres to the $Y$-module $D_f$ whose action transports elements of those fibres along the arrows of $Y$. The paper then proves that the fibre of $d_Y$ over a module $A$ consists exactly of the extensions of $Y$ by $A$, so $\mathrm{Opext}^1(Y,A)=\pi_0(d_Y^{-1}(A))$ as abelian groups; the higher direction functors on aspherical $n$-groupoids give $\mathrm{Opext}^{n+1}(Y,A)=\pi_0(d_{n,Y}^{-1}(A))\cong H^{n+2}(Y,A)$. In other words, all these cohomology groups are connected components of fibres of one functorial construction.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the slice category of S-special morphisms over each $Y$ is Barr-exact; this is inherited from the external theorem that $\mathrm{Cat}_B$ is $S$-protomodular with respect to Schreier points together with the new verification of condition (P), and if that exactness fails, the quotients defining the direction functor are not guaranteed to exist and the fibre description of cohomology collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every small category $Y$ and module $A$, the second cohomology group $H^2(Y,A)$ is canonically $\pi_0(d_Y^{-1}(A))$, so extensions can be studied through the fibre of a single functor rather than through chosen resolutions.
  • The equality extends to all degrees: $H^{n+2}(Y,A)$ is the set of connected components of the fibre of the $n$-dimensional direction functor, so higher cohomology classes are literally $n$-fold extension classes.
  • Short exact sequences of modules induce the long exact sequence in cohomology in this non-abelian setting, yielding six-term and longer exact sequences without any projectivity assumption.
  • Because the construction is carried out inside an $S$-Maltsev category, the same fibre description produces cohomology theories for the other algebraic structures in that class, such as monoids with operations.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • One testable extension the paper leaves implicit: the fibre description makes sense for coefficients valued in groups rather than abelian groups, and the connected components would still carry a monoidal structure; checking whether this recovers known non-abelian cohomology would be a natural next step.
  • The normal-form construction in Section 5.2 suggests an explicit cocycle model for $H^n(Y,A)$; extracting a bar-style complex directly from the direction-functor fibres is an editorial extrapolation, not a claim of the paper.
  • Since the exactness of the slice rests on condition (P), the same theorem should transfer to any other $S$-Maltsev category in which that condition holds; verifying it for categories such as quandles would immediately give them the same fibre description of cohomology.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a cohomology theory for Barr-exact S-Mal'tsev categories via the direction functors of Bourn and Rodelo, and then specializes to the category Cat_B of small categories with a fixed set of objects, with S the class of Schreier points. The main claims are: (1) for every Y and every Y-module A, the fibre d_Y^{-1}(A) of the first-direction functor on Sl(Cat_B/Y) has connected components in bijection with the extensions Opext^1(Y,A), and the induced group structure coincides with the Baer sum, so that pi_0(d_Y^{-1}(A)) ≅ H^2(Y,A); (2) for n≥1, pi_0(d_{n,Y}^{-1}(A)) ≅ H^{n+2}(Y,A), realized by n-fold extensions in the sense of Hoff and Golasinski. The paper proves that Sl(Cat_B/Y) is a Barr-exact Mal'tsev category (Corollary 3.2.9), characterizes the internal Mal'tsev objects as S-special morphisms with abelian fibres (Proposition 4.1.2), and gives an explicit description d(f)=D_f in terms of the induced Y-module action on the kernel (equation (4.11)). The higher-dimensional part identifies aspherical n-groupoids with n-crossed extensions and invokes a theorem of Golasinski to conclude the cohomology isomorphism.

Significance. If the main claims are correct, the paper gives a genuine conceptual unification: the cohomology of small categories with coefficients in a module is described as the set of connected components of a fibre of a direction functor, exactly as in the classical cases of groups and Lie algebras. The explicit verification of Bourn's 2-regularity condition (P) in Proposition 3.2.8 is concrete and valuable, and the explicit computation of the direction of an S-special morphism as D_f is a useful contribution. The proof of the H^2 identification is largely carried out by explicit formulas and is more convincing than the higher-dimensional part. However, the paper as it stands has a significant gap in the application of the abstract direction-functor machinery and in the passage from the object-level correspondence in Section 5.1 to a bijection of connected components; these issues affect the central claim and need to be repaired.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.1 (after Corollary 3.2.9) and Theorem 2.2.5] The paper invokes the properties of Theorem 2.2.5 (cofibration, finite-product preservation, conservativity, etc.) for the direction functor d_Y : Mal(Sl(Cat_B/Y))_g → Ab(Sl(Cat_B/Y)). However, Theorem 2.2.5 is stated only for a Barr-exact naturally Mal'tsev category C, with domain C_g. The paper proves that Sl(Cat_B/Y) is Barr-exact and Mal'tsev, but not that the full subcategory Mal(Sl(Cat_B/Y)) of objects admitting an internal Mal'tsev operation is Barr-exact, nor does it state a version of Theorem 2.2.5 for d : Mal(C_g) → Ab(C) with only C Barr-exact. Since the group structure on π_0(d_Y^{-1}(A)) in Section 4.2 and the whole higher-dimensional construction in Section 5 rest on Proposition 2.3.1 applied to d_Y, the missing verification is load-bearing. A proof that Mal(Sl(Cat_B/Y)) is closed under finite limits and regular epimorphisms, hence Barr-exact, or an explicit reference to a theorem covering this case, should be supplied.
  2. [Section 5.1, especially around (5.5) and (5.6)] The central higher-dimensional identification Opext^{n+1}(Y,A) = π_0(d_{n,Y}^{-1}(A)) is asserted after showing that an aspherical n-groupoid 'corresponds to' an n-crossed extension. But the paper does not prove that this correspondence descends to a bijection between connected components of the fibre d_{n,Y}^{-1}(A) and equivalence classes of n-fold extensions in the sense of [26]. For n=1, one would need to show that two aspherical groupoids are connected by a zig-zag in the fibre if and only if their associated crossed sequences are equivalent; for n>1 this is not even formulated. Citing [26, Theorem 1.4] is not sufficient, because that theorem concerns n-fold extensions and says nothing about direction functors. This is the main theorem of Section 5, so the missing component-level comparison must be proved explicitly.
  3. [Section 4.2, equations (4.13) and (4.14)] The proof that the Baer sum coincides with the abstract monoidal product on π_0(d_Y^{-1}(A)) is compressed into the sentence 'since d=d_Y is a conservative cofibration we conclude...'. To make this rigorous, the authors must show that the morphism µ : P → Q constructed via the coequalizer is exactly the cocartesian morphism over the addition map A×A → A, not merely a morphism whose image under d is the addition map. Conservativity alone does not identify the coequalizer construction with the pushforward used in Proposition 2.3.1. Since the group structure on Opext^1(Y,A) is a central claim, this step should be expanded.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2.1, Definition] The phrase 'for every y∈Y the arrows(y)∈X' appears to contain a typesetting error; it should read 'the arrow s(y)∈X'.
  2. [Section 5.1, paragraph after (5.6)] The phrase 'an-fold extension' should be 'an n-fold extension'.
  3. [Section 4.1, first paragraph] The notation 'Mal(C_g)=AMal(C_g)' is potentially confusing because not every object of Sl(Cat_B/Y) admits an internal Mal'tsev operation (as Proposition 4.1.2 shows). A sentence clarifying that Mal(Sl(Cat_B/Y)) is the full subcategory of objects admitting the (unique) operation, and explaining in which sense the direction functor of Section 2 is being applied, would help the reader and would also address the concern raised about Theorem 2.2.5.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the direction-functor cohomology is computed directly and compared with an external Hoff–Golasinski theory, not defined to match it.

full rationale

The paper's central comparison is not circular. The direction functor d(f)=D_f on Mal(Sl(Cat_B/Y))_g is computed by an explicit Chasles-quotient construction and a simply transitive action (Section 4.1, especially (4.7)–(4.11)); it is not defined as Hoff–Golasinski cohomology. The identification of the fibre d^{-1}(A) with the set of extensions by A follows from the computed form of D_f together with the description of extensions as S-special regular epimorphisms, and the nontrivial group-structure comparison is carried out by showing that the Baer-sum pushforward map µ satisfies d(µ)=+ (Section 4.2, using Remark 4.1.4). The higher-dimensional identification in Section 5 likewise computes the n-direction as the kernel module of an aspherical n-groupoid and then invokes the external theorem [26, Theorem 1.4] relating n-fold extensions to H^{n+2}; it does not assume the direction-functor group operation is the Baer sum by definition. The self-citations present, chiefly [1] for actions, semidirect products and crossed semimodules in Cat_B, and [20] (Bourn–Montoli) for the Barr-exactness criterion, supply auxiliary structural tools rather than the target cohomology comparison; they are not restatements of the paper's conclusion. The reader's concern about Barr-exactness of Mal(Sl(Cat_B/Y)) would be a correctness or verification gap, not a circularity: no equation or definition in the paper reduces the claimed cohomology identification to its own input. There are no fitted parameters renamed as predictions, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors to force the chosen construction, and no known result merely relabelled as a direction-functor result.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters appear: the paper introduces no fitted constants or hand-chosen numbers. The mathematical payload comes from imported theorems from Barr, Bourn, Bourn-Rodelo, Golasinski, and Ambra, plus one new verification of condition (P) and explicit computations in Cat_B. The central claim therefore rests on the cited external results, not on adjustable inputs.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption For every set B, the fibre Cat_B is Barr-exact and change-of-base functors are exact.
    Invoked in Section 3.2 from [5]; this is needed for the effectiveness of Chasles relations and for the exactness properties used throughout.
  • domain assumption Cat_B is S-protomodular, hence S-Mal'tsev, with respect to the class of Schreier points.
    Theorem 3.2.5, cited to [15]; the entire S-special machinery and the Mal'tsev property of Sl(Cat_B/Y) depend on it.
  • domain assumption The class of Schreier points in Cat_B satisfies Bourn's 2-regularity condition (P).
    Proved as Proposition 3.2.8 and used in Corollary 3.2.9 to obtain Barr-exactness of Sl(Cat_B/Y). If this fails, the direction functor cannot be applied.
  • domain assumption The direction-functor theory of Bourn and Bourn-Rodelo, including pseudo-cofibration, fibre group structure, and long exact sequences, is valid.
    Sections 2.2 and 2.3 import the full cohomological package from [9] and [21]; the paper's contribution is to instantiate it in Cat_B.
  • domain assumption Golasinski's theorems identify Opext^n(Y,A) with the Hoff cohomology groups H^{n+1}(Y,A).
    Invoked as [26], Theorems 1.2 and 1.4 at the end of Sections 4.1 and 5.1; this is the step that upgrades the fibre computation to the named cohomology theory.
  • domain assumption Ambra's results on actions, semidirect products, crossed semimodules, and Schreier groupoids in Cat_B are correct.
    Proposition 3.2.3, Proposition 5.1.2, and the adjunctions K and P, Lambda and Sigma are imported from [1]; they are used to identify fibres with extensions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A direction functor approach to the cohomology of small categories." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F4JPYZZF

@misc{pith2026260807380,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A direction functor approach to the cohomology of small categories},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F4JPYZZF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07380}
}
read the original abstract

We show how the direction functors can be used to develop a cohomology theory for Barr-exact and S-Maltsev categories, where S is a suitable class of split epimorphisms with a fixed section. Using the fact that, for any set B, the category of small categories with B as set of object is S-Maltsev with respect to the class of Schreier points, we show that the cohomology theory of small categories arising from the direction functors coincides with the one introduced by Hoff and Golasinski.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [26]

    Golasi´ nski,n-fold extensions and cohomologies of small categories, Math´ ematica – Revue d’Analyse Num´ erique et de Th´ eorie de l’Approximation

    M. Golasi´ nski,n-fold extensions and cohomologies of small categories, Math´ ematica – Revue d’Analyse Num´ erique et de Th´ eorie de l’Approximation. Math´ ematica, 31 (1989), 53–59

    work page 1989

  2. [1]

    Actions, semidirect products and crossed semimodules in the category of small categories with a fixed set of objects

    S. Ambra,Actions, semidirect products and crossed semimodules in the category of small categories with a fixed set of objects, preprint arXiv:2606.09796 (2026)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  3. [15]

    Bourn,Mal’tsev reflection, S-Mal’tsev and S-protomodular categories, preprint Cahiers LMPA, n

    D. Bourn,Mal’tsev reflection, S-Mal’tsev and S-protomodular categories, preprint Cahiers LMPA, n. 497 (2014)

    work page 2014

  4. [2]

    Barr,Exact categories, in Lecture Notes in Mathematics 236, Springer-Verlag (1971)

    M. Barr,Exact categories, in Lecture Notes in Mathematics 236, Springer-Verlag (1971)

    work page 1971

  5. [3]

    Borceux, D

    F. Borceux, D. Bourn,Mal’cev, protomodular, homological and semi-abelian categories, Mathematics and its Applications 566, Kluwer (2004)

    work page 2004

  6. [4]

    Borceux, M

    F. Borceux, M. M. Clementino, M. Gran, L. Sousa,Protolocalisations of homological categories, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra, 212 (2008), 1898–1927 A DIRECTION FUNCTOR APPROACH TO THE COHOMOLOGY OF SMALL CATEGORIES 35

    work page 2008

  7. [5]

    Bourn,La tour de fibrations exactes des n-cat´ egories, Cahiers de topologie et g´ eom´ etrie diff´ erentielle cat´ egoriques, 25 (1984), 327-351

    D. Bourn,La tour de fibrations exactes des n-cat´ egories, Cahiers de topologie et g´ eom´ etrie diff´ erentielle cat´ egoriques, 25 (1984), 327-351

    work page 1984

  8. [6]

    Bourn,The tower ofn-groupoids and the long cohomology sequence, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra, 62 (1989), 137-183

    D. Bourn,The tower ofn-groupoids and the long cohomology sequence, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra, 62 (1989), 137-183

    work page 1989

Show all 47 references
  1. [7]

    Bourn,Normalization equivalence, kernel equivalence and affine categories, Springer Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1488 (1991), 43-62

    D. Bourn,Normalization equivalence, kernel equivalence and affine categories, Springer Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1488 (1991), 43-62

    1991

  2. [8]

    Bourn,Mal’cev Categories and Fibration of Pointed Objects, Applied Categorical Structures 4 (1996), 307-327

    D. Bourn,Mal’cev Categories and Fibration of Pointed Objects, Applied Categorical Structures 4 (1996), 307-327

    1996

  3. [9]

    Bourn,Baer sums and fibered aspects of Mal’cev operations, Cahiers de topologie et g´ eom´ etrie diff´ erentielle cat´ egoriques, 40 (1999), 297-316

    D. Bourn,Baer sums and fibered aspects of Mal’cev operations, Cahiers de topologie et g´ eom´ etrie diff´ erentielle cat´ egoriques, 40 (1999), 297-316

    1999

  4. [10]

    Bourn,Normal subobjects and abelian objects in protomodular categories, Journal of Algebra, 228 (2000), 143-164

    D. Bourn,Normal subobjects and abelian objects in protomodular categories, Journal of Algebra, 228 (2000), 143-164

    2000

  5. [11]

    Bourn,Aspherical abelian groupoids and their directions, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra, 168 (2002), 133-146

    D. Bourn,Aspherical abelian groupoids and their directions, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra, 168 (2002), 133-146

    2002

  6. [12]

    Bourn,Baer sums in homological categories, Journal of Algebra, 308 (2007), 414-443

    D. Bourn,Baer sums in homological categories, Journal of Algebra, 308 (2007), 414-443

    2007

  7. [13]

    Bourn,Trait´ e de g´ eom´ etrie affine,´Editions Ellipses (2012)

    D. Bourn,Trait´ e de g´ eom´ etrie affine,´Editions Ellipses (2012)

    2012

  8. [14]

    Bourn,On the monad of internal groupoids, Theory and Applications of Categories, Vol

    D. Bourn,On the monad of internal groupoids, Theory and Applications of Categories, Vol. 28, n. 5 (2013) 160-165

    2013

  9. [16]

    Bourn,Partial Mal’tsevness and partial protomodularity, preprint arXiv:1507.02886v1 (2015)

    D. Bourn,Partial Mal’tsevness and partial protomodularity, preprint arXiv:1507.02886v1 (2015)

    2015 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Bourn, G

    D. Bourn, G. Janelidze,Extensions with abelian kernels in protomodular categories, Georgian Mathematical Journal, Vol. 11, n°4 (2004), 645-654

    2004

  11. [18]

    Bourn, N

    D. Bourn, N. Martins-Ferreira, A. Montoli, M. Sobral,Schreier split epimorphisms in monoids and in semir- ings, Textos de Matem´ atica (S´ erie B), vol. 45, Departamento de Matem´ atica da Universidade de Coimbra (2013)

    2013

  12. [19]

    Bourn, N

    D. Bourn, N. Martins-Ferreira, A. Montoli, M. Sobral,Monoids and pointed S-protomodular categories, Ho- mology, Homotopy and Applications, 18 (2016), 151-172

    2016

  13. [20]

    Bourn, A

    D. Bourn, A. Montoli,The3×3lemma in theΣ-Mal’tsev andΣ-protomodular settings: applications to monoids and quandles, Homology, Homotopy and Applications, 21 (2019), 305–332

    2019

  14. [21]

    Bourn, D

    D. Bourn, D. Rodelo,Cohomology without projectives, Cahiers de topologie et g´ eom´ etrie diff´ erentielle cat´ egoriques, 48 (2007), 104-153

    2007

  15. [22]

    Brown, C

    R. Brown, C. B. Spencer,G-groupoids, crossed modules and the fundamental groupoid of a topological group, Proc. Konink. Nederl. Akad. Wetensch. 79 (1976), 296-302

    1976

  16. [23]

    Carboni, J

    A. Carboni, J. Lambek, M. C. Pedicchio,Diagram chasing in Mal’cev categories, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra, 69 (1991), 271–284

    1991

  17. [24]

    Eilenberg, S

    S. Eilenberg, S. Mac Lane,Cohomology Theory in Abstract Groups, I, Annals of Math. 48 (1947), 51-78

    1947

  18. [25]

    Ehresmann,Produit crois´ e de cat´ egories, C

    C. Ehresmann,Produit crois´ e de cat´ egories, C. R. Acad. Sciences Paris, 258 (1964), 2461-2464

    1964

  19. [27]

    Gran,Internal categories in Mal’cev categories, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra, 143 (1999), 221-229

    M. Gran,Internal categories in Mal’cev categories, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra, 143 (1999), 221-229

    1999

  20. [28]

    A. Grothendieck et al.,Revˆ etements ´Etales et Groupe Fondamental, S´ eminaire de G´ eometrie Alg´ ebrique du Bois Marie 1960/61 (SGA 1), Lecture Notes in Mathematics 224, Springer-Verlag (1971)

    1971

  21. [29]

    Hoff,On the cohomology of categories, Rend

    G. Hoff,On the cohomology of categories, Rend. Mat. (6) 7, (1974), 169–192

    1974

  22. [30]

    Hoff,Cohomologies et extensions de cat´ egories, Math

    G. Hoff,Cohomologies et extensions de cat´ egories, Math. Scand., 74 (1994), 191-207

    1994

  23. [31]

    D. F. Holt,An Interpretation of the Cohomology GroupsH n(G, M),Journal of Algebra, 60 (1979), 307-320

    1979

  24. [32]

    Huebschmann,Crossedn-fold extensions of groups and cohomology, Comment

    J. Huebschmann,Crossedn-fold extensions of groups and cohomology, Comment. Math. Helvetici, 55 (1980), 302-314

    1980

  25. [33]

    P. T. Johnstone,Affine categories and Naturally Mal’cev categories, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra, 61 (1989), 251-256

    1989

  26. [34]

    Joyal, R

    A. Joyal, R. Street,Braided Monoidal Categories, preprint Macquarie Mathematics Reports, n. 860081 (1986) 36 S. AMBRA, A. DUVIEUSART, AND A. MONTOLI

    1986

  27. [35]

    Joyce,A classifying invariant of knots, the knot quandle, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra, 23 (1982), 37-65

    D. Joyce,A classifying invariant of knots, the knot quandle, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra, 23 (1982), 37-65

    1982

  28. [36]

    Kock,The algebraic theory of moving frames, Cahiers de topologie et g´ eom´ etrie diff´ erentielle cat´ egoriques, 23-4 (1982), 347-362

    A. Kock,The algebraic theory of moving frames, Cahiers de topologie et g´ eom´ etrie diff´ erentielle cat´ egoriques, 23-4 (1982), 347-362

    1982

  29. [37]

    F. E. J. Linton,Autonomous equational categories, J. Math. Mech., 15 (1966), 637-642

    1966

  30. [38]

    Mac Lane,Homology, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1963)

    S. Mac Lane,Homology, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1963)

    1963

  31. [39]

    Martins-Ferreira, A

    N. Martins-Ferreira, A. Montoli, M. Sobral,Semidirect products and crossed modules in monoids with opera- tions, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra, 217 (2013), 334– 347

    2013

  32. [40]

    Martins-Ferreira, A

    N. Martins-Ferreira, A. Montoli, M. Sobral,Semidirect products and Split Short Five Lemma in normal categories, Appl. Categ. Struct. 22 (2014), 687–697

    2014

  33. [41]

    Martins-Ferreira, A

    N. Martins-Ferreira, A. Montoli, M. Sobral,The Nine Lemma and the push forward construction for special Schreier extensions of monoids with operations, Semigroup Forum 97 (2018), 325–352

    2018

  34. [42]

    S. V. Matveev,Distributive groupoids in knot theory, Mat. Sb. (N.S) 119 (161) No.1 (1982), 78-88

    1982

  35. [43]

    Patchkoria,Crossed semimodules and Schreier internal categories in the category of monoids, Georgian Math

    A. Patchkoria,Crossed semimodules and Schreier internal categories in the category of monoids, Georgian Math. Journal (5) No.6 (1998), 575-581

    1998

  36. [44]

    M. C. Pedicchio, W. Tholen (ed.),Categorical Foundations: Special Topics in Order, Topology, and Sheaf Theory, Cambridge Univ. Press (2004)

    2004

  37. [45]

    J. D. H. Smith,Mal’cev Varieties, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 554, Springer-Verlag (1976)

    1976

  38. [46]

    J. H. C. Whitehead,On adding relations to homotopy groups, Annals of Mathematics, 42, 1941, 409-428

    1941

  39. [47]

    Federigo Enriques

    J. H. C. Whitehead,Note on a previous paper entitled ”On adding relations to homotopy groups”, Annals of Mathematics, 47, 1946, 806-810 Email address:stefano.ambra@unimi.it Email address:arnaud.duvieusart@uclouvain.be Email address:andrea.montoli@unimi.it (Stefano Ambra)Dipart...

    1946

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.