pith. sign in

arxiv: 2506.13349 · v2 · submitted 2025-06-16 · 🧮 math.CT

Torsion Theories in a Non-pointed Context

Andrea Cappelletti , Andrea Montoli This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 09:43 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.CT
keywords torsion theoriesnon-pointed categoriesmonocoreflective subcategoriesfactorization systemsGalois structureselementary toposesuniversal algebracoslices
0
0 comments X

The pith

Torsion theories can be defined without a zero object in categories equipped with a posetal monocoreflective subcategory whose coreflector inverts monomorphisms.

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

The paper defines a non-pointed version of torsion theory by assuming the ambient category carries a posetal monocoreflective subcategory in which the coreflector sends every monomorphism to an isomorphism. Under this structural hypothesis the authors construct torsion theories and show they correspond to certain factorization systems and to categorical Galois structures. The construction is illustrated in three families of examples: the dual of any elementary topos, varieties of algebras that model non-classical logics, and coslices of the category of abelian groups. A reader would care because the classical theory of torsion pairs is tied to pointed categories; removing the zero-object requirement opens the same ideas to broader classes of categories used in logic and algebra.

Core claim

In any category equipped with a posetal monocoreflective subcategory whose coreflector inverts monomorphisms, a torsion theory is a pair of full subcategories closed under the appropriate limits and colimits induced by the coreflector; such pairs are in bijection with certain factorization systems and with Galois structures whose fixed points recover the original reflective subcategory.

What carries the argument

The posetal monocoreflective subcategory whose coreflector inverts monomorphisms; it supplies the non-pointed replacement for the zero object and generates the factorization systems and Galois correspondences that organize the torsion theories.

If this is right

  • Every such torsion theory determines a factorization system whose classes are the torsion-free and torsion objects.
  • The same data yields a Galois structure whose fixed subcategory recovers the original monocoreflective subcategory.
  • The construction specializes to the dual of any elementary topos, producing torsion theories there.
  • It also produces torsion theories inside varieties of algebras for non-classical logic and inside coslices of abelian groups.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same structural assumption may allow torsion-theoretic techniques to be applied directly to categories arising in substructural logic without first embedding them into pointed categories.
  • One could test whether the correspondence with Galois structures persists when the monocoreflective subcategory is replaced by a more general reflective subcategory that still inverts monomorphisms.
  • The framework might unify existing ad-hoc torsion notions already appearing in the literature on non-classical algebras.

Load-bearing premise

The ambient category must come equipped with a posetal monocoreflective subcategory whose coreflector inverts monomorphisms.

What would settle it

Exhibit a category with a posetal monocoreflective subcategory inverting monomorphisms in which the torsion pairs constructed by the paper fail to correspond to any factorization system or Galois structure.

read the original abstract

We study a non-pointed version of the notion of torsion theory in the framework of categories equipped with a posetal monocoreflective subcategory such that the coreflector inverts monomorphisms. We explore the connections of such torsion theories with factorization systems and categorical Galois structures. We describe several examples of these torsion theories, in the dual of elementary toposes, in varieties of universal algebras used as models for non-classical logic, and in coslices of the category of abelian groups.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a non-pointed version of torsion theories in categories equipped with a posetal monocoreflective subcategory whose coreflector inverts monomorphisms. It develops the corresponding definitions, explores connections to factorization systems and categorical Galois structures, and supplies examples in the duals of elementary toposes, varieties of algebras for non-classical logic, and coslices of the category of abelian groups.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work extends classical torsion theory to a broader non-pointed setting, offering a framework that links torsion theories to factorization systems and Galois structures in a uniform way. The concrete examples in topos theory, universal algebra, and abelian group coslices demonstrate potential applicability beyond the usual pointed (e.g., abelian) context.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3, Theorem 3.4: the claimed bijection between torsion theories and certain factorization systems is stated to follow from the posetal monocoreflective assumption, but the proof sketch does not explicitly verify that the induced classes satisfy the orthogonality condition required for a factorization system; a detailed check or counterexample when the posetality is dropped would clarify the necessity of the hypothesis.
  2. [§5.2] §5.2, Example 5.7 (coslices of Ab): the verification that the coreflector inverts monomorphisms is only indicated by reference to a standard fact about coslices; an explicit computation for a representative monomorphism would make the example self-contained and confirm it satisfies the global hypotheses.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Introduction] The notation for the coreflector (sometimes denoted R, sometimes F) is used inconsistently across sections; a single symbol should be fixed in the introduction and used uniformly.
  2. [§4] Several diagrams in §4 illustrating the Galois correspondence are too small to read comfortably; increasing their size or adding labels would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. The suggestions will help improve the clarity and self-contained nature of the presentation. We address each major comment below and will make the indicated revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §3, Theorem 3.4: the claimed bijection between torsion theories and certain factorization systems is stated to follow from the posetal monocoreflective assumption, but the proof sketch does not explicitly verify that the induced classes satisfy the orthogonality condition required for a factorization system; a detailed check or counterexample when the posetality is dropped would clarify the necessity of the hypothesis.

    Authors: We agree that the proof sketch in Theorem 3.4 would benefit from an explicit verification of the orthogonality condition. In the revised manuscript we will expand the argument to include a detailed check that the classes induced by a torsion theory satisfy the required orthogonality for the corresponding factorization system. We will also add a brief discussion of the necessity of the posetality hypothesis, including an indication of the obstruction that arises when this assumption is dropped. revision: yes

  2. Referee: §5.2, Example 5.7 (coslices of Ab): the verification that the coreflector inverts monomorphisms is only indicated by reference to a standard fact about coslices; an explicit computation for a representative monomorphism would make the example self-contained and confirm it satisfies the global hypotheses.

    Authors: We accept the suggestion to make Example 5.7 more self-contained. In the revised version we will insert an explicit computation verifying that the coreflector inverts a representative monomorphism in the coslice category, using the standard properties of coslices of Ab to keep the argument concise yet complete. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper defines a non-pointed torsion theory inside an explicitly stated structural assumption (a posetal monocoreflective subcategory whose coreflector inverts monomorphisms) and then derives its links to factorization systems and Galois structures using standard category-theoretic constructions. All claims are scoped to categories satisfying the given hypotheses, and the supplied examples (duals of elementary toposes, varieties for non-classical logic, coslices of Ab) serve only as illustrations within that scope. No equations, predictions, or central results reduce by construction to fitted parameters, self-definitions, or load-bearing self-citations; the derivation chain remains independent of its own outputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The development rests on the standard axioms of category theory plus one domain-specific structural assumption that defines the ambient setting.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The category is equipped with a posetal monocoreflective subcategory such that the coreflector inverts monomorphisms.
    This is the explicit framework stated in the abstract on which the entire notion of non-pointed torsion theory is built.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5592 in / 1254 out tokens · 28156 ms · 2026-05-19T09:43:52.806661+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Pretorsion theories in prenormal categories

    math.CT 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Extends torsion theory results to pretorsion theories in prenormal categories, recovering characterizations of subcategories and correspondences with closure operators and factorization systems.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Borceux, D

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

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    Bourn, Normalization equivalence, kernel equivalence and affine categories, Category the- ory (Como, 1990), Lecture Notes in Math., vol

    D. Bourn, Normalization equivalence, kernel equivalence and affine categories, Category the- ory (Como, 1990), Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 1488, Springer, Berlin, 1991, 43–62

    work page 1990

  3. [3]

    Bourn, M

    D. Bourn, M. Gran, Torsion theories in homological categories, J. Algebra 305 (2006), 18-47

    work page 2006

  4. [4]

    Cappelletti, A Galois theory and a pretorsion theory in MV-algebras, arxiv preprint (2023) arXiv:2310.11006

    A. Cappelletti, A Galois theory and a pretorsion theory in MV-algebras, arxiv preprint (2023) arXiv:2310.11006

    work page arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Cappelletti, A

    A. Cappelletti, A. Montoli, Homological Lemmas in a Non-pointed Context , arXiv preprint (2024) arXiv:2405.11038. TORSION THEORIES IN A NON-POINTED CONTEXT 47

    work page arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    R. L. Cignoli, I. M. d’Ottaviano, and D. Mundici, Algebraic foundations of many-valued reasoning, volume 7, Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    Cigoli, A

    A.S. Cigoli, A. Montoli, Characteristic subobjects in semi-abelian categories , Theory Appl. Categ. 30 (2015), 206-228

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Dickson, A torsion theory for abelian categories , Trans

    S.C. Dickson, A torsion theory for abelian categories , Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 21 (1966), 223-235

    work page 1966

  9. [9]

    Ehresmann, Sur une notion g´ en´ erale de cohomologie, C

    C. Ehresmann, Sur une notion g´ en´ erale de cohomologie, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 259 (1964), 2050–2053

    work page 1964

  10. [10]

    C. Ehresmann, Cohomologie ` a valeurs dans une cat´ egorie domin´ ee, Extraits du Colloque de Topologie, Bruxelles, 1964, in: Oeuvres Compl` etes et Comment´ ees, Partie III-2 (1980), 531-590

    work page 1964

  11. [11]

    Everaert, M

    T. Everaert, M. Gran, Homology of n-fold groupoids Theory Appl. Categ, 23 n.2 (2010), 270-286

    work page 2010

  12. [12]

    Everaert, M

    T. Everaert, M. Gran, Monotone-light factorisation systems and torsion theories , Bulletin des Sciences Math’ematiques, 137 n.8 (2013), 996–1006

    work page 2013

  13. [13]

    Everaert, M

    T. Everaert, M. Gran, Protoadditive functors, derived torsion theories and homology, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 219 n.8 (2015), 3629-3676

    work page 2015

  14. [14]

    Facchini, C

    A. Facchini, C. Finocchiaro, Pretorsion theories, stable category and preordered sets , Annali di Matematica Pura ed Applicata 199 n.3 (2020), 1073-1089

    work page 2020

  15. [15]

    Facchini, C

    A. Facchini, C. Finocchiaro, M.Gran, Pretorsion theories in general categories, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 225 n.2 (2021), 106503

    work page 2021

  16. [16]

    Grandis, G

    M. Grandis, G. Janelidze, From torsion theories to closure operators and factorization sys- tems, Categ. Gen. Algebr. Struct. Appl. 12(1) (2020), 89–121

    work page 2020

  17. [17]

    Janelidze, Pure Galois theory in categories , Journal of Algebra, 132 n.2 (1990), 270-286

    G. Janelidze, Pure Galois theory in categories , Journal of Algebra, 132 n.2 (1990), 270-286

    work page 1990

  18. [18]

    Janelidze, Ideally exact categories, Theory Appl

    G. Janelidze, Ideally exact categories, Theory Appl. Categ. 41 n.11 (2024), 414-425

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    Janelidze, G

    G. Janelidze, G. M. Kelly, Galois theory and a general notion of central extension , Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra, 97 n.2 (1994), 135–161

    work page 1994

  20. [20]

    Janelidze, W

    G. Janelidze, W. Tholen, Characterization of torsion theories in general categories, Contemp. Math. 431 (2007), 249-256

    work page 2007

  21. [21]

    Federigo Enriques

    Z. Janelidze, The pointed subobject functor, 3 × 3 lemmas and subtractivity of spans , Th. Appl. Categ. 23 (2010), 221–242. (Andrea Cappelletti) Dipartimento di Matematica, Universit`a degli Studi di Salerno, Via Giovanni Paolo II 132, 84084 Fisciano (SA), Italy Email address: acappelletti@unisa.it (Andrea Montoli) Dipartimento di Matematica “Federigo Enr...

    work page 2010