Beth companions of finitary essentially algebraic theories

Let R\colon {\sf D}\hookrightarrow {\sf C} be the inclusion functor, L its left adjoint, and \eta the unit of the adjunction.

For the first part of the statement, observe that the component \eta_{A} of \eta at an object A of {\sf C} is an epi-mono with domain A, hence \eta_{A} is an isomorphism whenever A is saturated. Since {\sf D} is a replete subcategory of {\sf C}, it follows that every saturated object of {\sf C} belongs to {\sf D}.

For the second part of the statement, it suffices to show that, for each object A of {\sf C}, RL(A) belongs to {\sf Sat}({\sf C}). Consider an epi-mono f\colon RL(A)\to E with E in {\sf Sat}({\sf C}). It follows from the previous part of the proof that E belongs to {\sf D}. Thus, since {\sf D} is balanced, f is an isomorphism and so RL(A) belongs to {\sf Sat}({\sf C}).

? \Rightarrow ?. If n\colon A\rightarrowtail B is an epi-extension of A satisfying m\preccurlyeq n, by Remark 3.5? there is an epi-mono h\colon E\rightarrowtail B such that n=h\circ m. As E is saturated, h is an isomorphism. Thus, m\sim n by Remark 3.5?.

? \Rightarrow ?. Suppose h\colon E\to B is an epi-mono. Since m\preccurlyeq h\circ m in \operatorname{Ext_{p}}(A), and m is maximal, we get m\sim h\circ m. Thus, h is an isomorphism by Remark 3.5?.

Let A be an object of an lfp category, and let P be the poset reflection of the preorder \operatorname{Ext_{p}}(A) of epi-extensions of A. Further, let \operatorname{Epi}(A) be the poset of subobjects of A regarded as an object of {\sf C}^{{\mathrm{op}}}. By item ? in Remark 3.5, there is an injective map P\to \operatorname{Epi}(A). Since every lfp category is well-copowered [ar94book, Theorem 1.58], \operatorname{Epi}(A) is small, and thus so is P. Note that P is non-empty because it contains the (equivalence class of) the identity of A. Moreover, every chain in P admits an upper bound, which can be obtained by computing the colimit A_{\omega} of the chain. The colimit map A\to A_{\omega} is easily seen to be epic, and it is monic by [ar94book, Proposition 1.62]. By Zorn’s Lemma, there exists a maximal element in P. In view of Lemma 3.6, such a maximal element is (represented by) an epi-extension A\to E with E saturated.

Suppose that e\colon X\to Y is an epimorphism in {\sf D}, and consider arrows f,g\colon R(Y)\rightrightarrows A in {\sf C} such that f\circ R(e) = g\circ R(e). Composing with the component of the unit at A, i.e. \eta_{A}\colon A\to RL(A), we get \eta_{A}\circ f\circ R(e) = \eta_{A}\circ g\circ R(e). Since {\sf D} is a full subcategory of {\sf C}, there exist arrows u,v\colon Y\rightrightarrows L(A) in {\sf D} such that R(u)=\eta_{A}\circ f and R(v)=\eta_{A}\circ g. It follows that

and so u\circ e = v\circ e in {\sf D} because R is faithful. As e is an epimorphism, we get u=v and therefore \eta_{A}\circ f = \eta_{A}\circ g. Using the fact that \eta_{A} is monic, we conclude that f=g, showing that R(e) is epic.

It is straightforward to see that any fully faithful functor that preserves epis must reflect extremal monos. Hence, R reflects extremal monos.

To see that R reflects regular monos, suppose that f\colon X\to Y is an arrow in {\sf D} such that R(f) is the equaliser of a pair of parallel arrows u,v\colon R(Y)\rightrightarrows A. Composing with the component \eta_{A} of the unit at A, we obtain arrows u'\coloneqq \eta_{A}\circ u and v'\coloneqq \eta_{A}\circ v. Since \eta_{A} is monic, R(f) is also the equaliser of u' and v'. As R is full, there are arrows g,h\colon Y\rightrightarrows L(A) such that R(g)=u' and R(h)=v'. Using the fact that fully faithful functors reflect limits, we conclude that f is the equaliser of g and h.

Finally, recall that, given an adjoint pair of functors, the left adjoint is faithful if, and only if, the unit of the adjunction is pointwise monic (see e.g. [ahs06book, Theorem 19.14(1)] for the dual statement). Thus, the reflector L is faithful.

The uniqueness of the Beth companion and the implication ? \Rightarrow ? are immediate consequences of Proposition 3.2.

? \Rightarrow ?. Since {\sf Sat}({\sf C}) is a reflective subcategory of an lfp category, it is complete and cocomplete.

The inclusion functor {\sf Sat}({\sf C})\hookrightarrow{\sf C} preserves limits and directed colimits, hence {\sf Sat}({\sf C}) is closed under limits and directed colimits in {\sf C}.

? \Rightarrow ?. By [MP1987, Corollary 2.4] (see also [ar94book, Corollary 2.48]), a full subcategory of an lfp category {\sf C} is itself lfp provided that it is closed in {\sf C} under limits and directed colimits. Hence, {\sf Sat}({\sf C}) is lfp and the inclusion functor {\sf Sat}({\sf C})\hookrightarrow{\sf C} is right adjoint by [ar94book, Theorem 1.66]. As every object of {\sf C} admits a saturated epi-extension by Lemma 3.7, {\sf Sat}({\sf C}) is a (full and replete) mono-reflective subcategory of {\sf C}. To conclude that {\sf Sat}({\sf C}) is a Beth companion of {\sf C}, it remains to show that {\sf Sat}({\sf C}) has the ES property. In turn, this follows from the fact that the inclusion {\sf Sat}({\sf C})\hookrightarrow {\sf C} reflects extremal monomorphisms by Lemma 3.8.

We already observed that, if they exist, strong Beth companions are unique.

? \Rightarrow ?. It suffices to show that {\sf Sat}({\sf C})\subseteq{\sf Abs}({\sf C}), since the converse is always true. Note that, if {\sf C} admits a strong Beth companion, then the latter coincides with {\sf Sat}({\sf C}) by Theorem 3.9. Thus, {\sf Sat}({\sf C}) is a strong Beth companion of {\sf C}.

Let X be a saturated object of {\sf C}, and let m\colon X\rightarrowtail Y be a mono in {\sf C}. Since {\sf Sat}({\sf C}) is a mono-reflective subcategory of {\sf C}, composing m with the component \eta_{Y}\colon Y \rightarrowtail Y^{*} of the unit at Y, we obtain a monomorphism g\coloneqq \eta_{Y}\circ m \colon X\rightarrowtail Y^{*} in {\sf C} between saturated objects. As {\sf Sat}({\sf C}) satisfies SES, g is a regular mono in {\sf Sat}({\sf C}). The inclusion functor {\sf Sat}({\sf C})\hookrightarrow{\sf C} preserves limits because it is right adjoint, so g is a regular monomorphism in {\sf C}. Since \eta_{Y} is monic, it follows that m is a regular mono. That is, X is absolutely closed in {\sf C}.

? \Rightarrow ?. By Theorem 3.9, if {\sf C} admits a Beth companion, then {\sf Sat}({\sf C}) is a Beth companion of {\sf C}. If {\sf Sat}({\sf C})={\sf Abs}({\sf C}), then the latter is also a Beth companion of {\sf C}. As observed above, {\sf Abs}({\sf C}) is a Beth companion of {\sf C} precisely when it is a strong Beth companion.

? \Rightarrow ?. Clear.

We start by proving that EAP implies the following 2-out-of-3 property for epi-monos: given a composite arrow g\circ f in {\sf C}, if both g\circ f and f are epi-monos, then so is g. Clearly, g is always epic. To see that it is monic, note that EAP entails the existence of monomorphisms u,v making the following diagram commute.

As f is epic, the equality u\circ f = v\circ g\circ f implies u= v\circ g. Since u is monic, so is g.

Now, let R\colon {\sf D}\hookrightarrow{\sf C} be a full mono-reflective subcategory, with reflector L\colon {\sf C}\to{\sf D}, and write \eta for the unit of the adjunction L\dashv R. For any arrow f\colon X\to Y in {\sf C}, there is a naturality square as displayed below.

Since {\sf D} is a mono-reflective subcategory of {\sf C}, the components of \eta are epi-monic. If f is an epi-mono, then so is the composite \eta_{Y}\circ f = RL(f)\circ \eta_{X}. It follows from the 2-out-of-3 property established above that RL(f) is an epi-mono. The functor R reflects epi-monos because it is faithful; therefore L(f) is epi-monic.

Let R\colon {\sf D}\hookrightarrow{\sf C} be the inclusion functor, L\colon {\sf C}\to{\sf D} the reflector, and \eta the unit of the adjunction L\dashv R.

? \Rightarrow ?. If f is an epi-mono in {\sf C}, then L(f) is an epi-mono in {\sf D} by Lemma 5.3. As {\sf D} is balanced, it follows that L(f) is an isomorphism.

? \Rightarrow ?. It suffices to show that the inclusion R\colon {\sf D}\hookrightarrow{\sf C} preserves epi-monos. In turn, this follows at once from the fact that R preserves epimorphisms by Lemma 3.8, and it preserves monomorphisms because it is right adjoint.

If X\in {\mathcal{X}}^{\perp}, and m\colon X\to Y is an epi-mono in {\sf C}, then there is an arrow r making the following diagram commute.

It follows that m is both a section and an epimorphism, hence an isomorphism. Thus, X is saturated.

Let {\sf D}\hookrightarrow {\sf C} be a mono-reflective subcategory, with reflector L. Every full and replete reflective subcategory is the localisation at the collection of arrows inverted by the reflector; thus we can identify {\sf D} with the localisation of {\sf C} at \mathcal{W}\coloneqq L^{-1}(\text{isos}).

The functor L is faithful by Lemma 3.8, so it reflects epis and monos. It follows that f is epi-mono whenever L(f) is an isomorphism. That is, \mathcal{W}\subseteq \mathcal{X}.

As the reflector {\sf C} \to {\mathcal{X}}^{\perp} inverts all epi-monos, hence all arrows in \mathcal{W}, we get {\mathcal{X}}^{\perp}\subseteq {\sf D}.

If, in addition, {\sf C} satisfies EAP and {\sf D} is balanced, then \mathcal{X}\subseteq \mathcal{W} by Lemma 5.4. It follows that {\mathcal{X}}^{\perp}= {\sf D}.

The implication ? \Rightarrow ? is an immediate consequence of Proposition 5.6.

The implications ? \Rightarrow ? and ? \Rightarrow ? are completely analogous to the corresponding ones in Theorem 3.9. In particular, for ? \Rightarrow ?, observe that {\mathcal{X}}^{\perp} is always closed under limits in {\sf C} (see e.g. [ar94book, Observation 1.34]), and the assumption that every object of {\sf C} admits an extension with codomain in {\mathcal{X}}^{\perp} implies that {\mathcal{X}}^{\perp} is a mono-reflective subcategory of {\sf C}. To show that {\mathcal{X}}^{\perp} is a balanced category, we reason as in the proof of Theorem 3.9, using the fact that {\mathcal{X}}^{\perp}\subseteq {\sf Sat}({\sf C}) by Lemma 5.5.

? \Leftrightarrow ?. As every object of an lfp category has a saturated (epi-)extension by Lemma 3.7, the implication ? \Rightarrow ? is immediate. For the converse implication, suppose that every object of {\sf C} admits an extension with codomain in {\mathcal{X}}^{\perp}. Then {\mathcal{X}}^{\perp} is a mono-reflective subcategory of {\sf C}. The unit of this mono-reflection is component-wise epi-monic, hence its component at any saturated object is an isomorphism. It follows that {\sf Sat}({\sf C})\subseteq {\mathcal{X}}^{\perp}, and so {\sf Sat}({\sf C})={\mathcal{X}}^{\perp} by Lemma 5.5.

? \Leftrightarrow ?. Suppose that {\mathcal{X}}^{\perp} = {\sf Sat}({\sf C}). We claim that {\sf C} has transferable epi-monos. Consider an epi-mono m\colon Y\to W and an arrow f\colon Y\to X. Since {\sf C} is lfp, X admits a saturated epi-extension n\colon X\to Z. As {\sf Sat}({\sf C})\subseteq {\mathcal{X}}^{\perp}, there is an arrow g making the following diagram commute. Thus, {\sf C} has transferable epi-monos.

Conversely, we claim that if {\sf C} has transferable epi-monos, then {\mathcal{X}}^{\perp} = {\sf Sat}({\sf C}) (for this, we do not need to assume that {\sf C} is lfp).

Suppose that X is a saturated object of {\sf C}, and consider a span f,m as displayed below, with m epi-mono.

Since {\sf C} has transferable epi-monos, there exist arrows h,n, with n epi-mono, making the above square commute. As X is saturated, n is an isomorphism. Hence, g\coloneqq n^{-1}\circ h\colon W\to X satisfies g\circ m = f, showing that X is orthogonal to m. This proves that {\sf Sat}({\sf C})\subseteq {\mathcal{X}}^{\perp}; the other inclusion follows from Lemma 5.5.

? \Rightarrow ?. Let A be any object of {\sf C}, and let D_{A} be the canonical (directed) diagram of finitely presentable objects of {\sf C} satisfying A\cong \operatornamewithlimits{colim}{D_{A}}. Recall that {\mathcal{X}}^{\perp} is mono-reflective in {\sf C} by Proposition 2.10 and Lemma 5.9. Write R\colon {\mathcal{X}}^{\perp}\hookrightarrow {\sf C} for the inclusion functor, L for its left adjoint, and \eta for the unit of this adjunction. Then \eta_{A} is the colimit, in the category of arrows of {\sf C}, of the arrows \eta_{B}, where B ranges over the image of the diagram D_{A}. Just observe that colimits in the arrow category are computed componentwise, and both L and R preserve directed colimits.

The class of arrows inverted by the reflector {\sf C} \to \mathcal{X}^{\perp}_{\mathrm{fpd}} contains each arrow of the form \eta_{B} and is closed under colimits in the arrow category; therefore, it contains all components of the unit \eta. It follows that {\mathcal{X}}^{\perp}, which can be identified with the localisation at the components of \eta, coincides with \mathcal{X}^{\perp}_{\mathrm{fpd}}.

? \Rightarrow ?. Each arrow in \mathcal{X}_{\mathrm{fpd}} is an epimorphism with a finitely presentable domain, hence \mathcal{X}^{\perp}_{\mathrm{fpd}} is closed in {\sf C} under directed colimits (this follows from a straightforward adaptation of [ar94book, Proposition 1.35]). Thus, so is {\mathcal{X}}^{\perp}.

By Lemma 5.9, we can assume throughout the proof that {\sf Sat}({\sf C})={\mathcal{X}}^{\perp}.

? \Rightarrow ?. This is an immediate consequence of Theorem 3.9.

? \Rightarrow ?. By Theorem 2.14, it suffices to prove that {\sf Sat}({\sf C}) is closed in {\sf C} under \omega-pure subobjects; just recall that {\mathcal{X}}^{\perp} is always closed in {\sf C} under limits, and thus so is {\sf Sat}({\sf C}). Every \omega-pure morphism in an lfp category is a regular monomorphism (see e.g. [ar94book, Proposition 2.31]), hence an extremal monomorphism. Therefore, it is enough to show that the class of saturated objects in {\sf C} is closed under extremal subobjects. Consider an extremal mono m\colon X \to Y in {\sf C}, with Y saturated, and let f\colon X\to W be an epi-mono. We must prove that f is an isomorphism. By TEM, the span formed by m and f can be completed into a commutative square as displayed below, with g epi-monic.

Since Y is saturated, g is an isomorphism, and therefore h\circ f = g\circ m is an extremal mono. It follows that f is an extremal mono, hence an isomorphism.

? \Rightarrow ?. Every \omega-injectivity class in {\sf C} is closed under directed colimits in {\sf C} by Theorem 2.14, so {\sf Sat}({\sf C})={\mathcal{X}}^{\perp} is a Beth companion of {\sf C} by Theorem 5.7 and Lemma 5.9.

If \mathcal{S} is any class of epi-monos between objects of {\sf C}, then {\mathcal{X}}^{\perp}\subseteq {\mathcal{S}}^{\perp}. By Proposition 2.10, {\mathcal{S}}^{\perp} is a reflective subcategory of {\sf C}; in fact, it is mono-reflective because every object of {\sf C} admits an extension with codomain in {\mathcal{X}}^{\perp} (hence, in {\mathcal{S}}^{\perp}) by Lemma 5.9.

If {\mathcal{S}}^{\perp} is balanced, then {\mathcal{S}}^{\perp}={\mathcal{X}}^{\perp} by Proposition 5.6. If, in addition, the domain of each arrow in \mathcal{S} is finitely presentable, then {\mathcal{S}}^{\perp} is closed under directed colimits in {\sf C} (this follows from a straightforward adaptation of [ar94book, Proposition 1.35], using the fact that each arrow in \mathcal{S} is an epimorphism).

Therefore, {\mathcal{S}}^{\perp} is the Beth companion of {\sf C} by Theorem 5.7 and Corollary 5.12.

Let \mathcal{S} be as in the statement. Upon recalling that {\sf C} satisfies TEM (see Remark 5.10), it follows from Corollary 5.13 that {\mathcal{S}}^{\perp} is the Beth companion of {\sf C}. Let R\colon {\mathcal{S}}^{\perp}\hookrightarrow {\sf C} denote the inclusion functor, and L its left adjoint.

By Theorem 6.1, it suffices to show that if {\sf D} is a dense subcategory of {\sf C} consisting of finitely presentable regular projectives, then the full subcategory {\sf D}_{L} of {\mathcal{S}}^{\perp} formed by the objects of the form L(X), for X in {\sf D}, is a dense subcategory consisting of finitely presentable regular projectives.

To show that {\sf D}_{L} is dense in {\mathcal{S}}^{\perp}, we must prove that the restricted Yoneda embedding {\mathcal{S}}^{\perp} \to [{\sf D}_{L}^{{\mathrm{op}}},{\sf Set}] is fully faithful. That is, for every Y_{1},Y_{2} in {\mathcal{S}}^{\perp} the canonical map

is a bijection. Let \tau be a natural transformation in the rightmost set above. The component of \tau at any object L(X) of {\sf D}_{L} is

which, in view of the adjunction L\dashv R, yields a map

Let us denote the latter composite by \sigma_{X}. The naturality of \tau entails that the maps \sigma_{X} are the components of a natural transformation

The restricted Yoneda embedding {\sf C} \to [{\sf D}^{{\mathrm{op}}},{\sf Set}] is fully faithful because {\sf D} is dense in {\sf C}. Hence, the natural transformation \sigma is induced by a unique arrow f\colon R(Y_{1})\to R(Y_{2}). Since R is the inclusion of a full subcategory, the arrow f\colon Y_{1}\to Y_{2} lies in {\mathcal{S}}^{\perp}. Tracing f through the adjunction, we see that it is the unique arrow inducing the natural transformation \tau. Therefore, {\sf D}_{L} is dense in {\mathcal{S}}^{\perp}.

Now, the reflector L preserves finitely presentable objects because R preserves directed colimits; hence, each object in {\sf D}_{L} is finitely presentable. To show that each object in {\sf D}_{L} is regular projective, we start by proving the following fact.

If X is any object of {\sf C}, we have a natural isomorphism {\mathcal{S}}^{\perp}(L(X),-)\cong {\sf C}(X,R(-)). Since R preserves regular epimorphisms by the previous claim, if X is regular projective (i.e., if {\sf C}(X,-)\colon {\sf C}\to{\sf Set} preserves regular epimorphisms) then so is LX. Thus, {\sf D}_{L} consists of regular projective objects.

This shows that {\mathcal{S}}^{\perp} is equivalent to a finitary quasivariety. Note that if {\sf C} is equivalent to a mono-sorted finitary quasivariety, then we can choose the dense subcategory {\sf D} to consist of a single object. The same proof as above then shows that {\mathcal{S}}^{\perp} is equivalent to a mono-sorted finitary quasivariety.

It remains to show that if {\sf C} is a variety, then so is {\mathcal{S}}^{\perp}. Recall that a quasivariety is a variety if, and only if, it has effective equivalence relations (cf. e.g. [ar94book, Corollary 3.25]). Therefore, we must prove that if equivalence relations in {\sf C} are effective, the same holds in {\mathcal{S}}^{\perp}. Let (r_{0},r_{1})\colon E\rightrightarrows X be an equivalence relation in {\mathcal{S}}^{\perp}. Because R\colon {\mathcal{S}}^{\perp}\hookrightarrow {\sf C} preserves limits, (R(r_{0}),R(r_{1})) is an equivalence relation in {\sf C}. As equivalence relations in the latter category are effective, (R(r_{0}),R(r_{1})) is the kernel pair of its coequaliser q\colon R(X)\to A. The coequaliser of (r_{0},r_{1}) in {\mathcal{S}}^{\perp} is the unique arrow \tilde{q}\colon X\to L(A) such that R(\tilde{q}) = \eta_{A}\circ q, where \eta_{A}\colon A \to RL(A) is the component at A of the unit of the adjunction L\dashv R. Because \eta_{A} is monic, the kernel pair of \eta_{A}\circ q in {\sf C} coincides with the kernel pair of q, hence with (R(r_{0}),R(r_{1})). Since limits in {\mathcal{S}}^{\perp} are computed in {\sf C}, it follows that the kernel pair of \tilde{q} is (r_{0},r_{1}). We conclude that the latter equivalence relation is effective.

Since \mathcal{B}({\sf C}) is a reflective subcategory of {\sf C}, pushouts in the former category are computed by first taking the pushout in {\sf C} and then applying the reflector. In view of [Ringel1971, Lemma 1], given any full and replete mono-reflective subcategory of an lfp category that satisfies the amalgamation property, the reflector preserves monomorphisms. Hence, the reflector {\sf C}\to\mathcal{B}({\sf C}) preserves monos. The inclusion functor \mathcal{B}({\sf C})\hookrightarrow{\sf C} preserves monos too, because it is right adjoint. Thus, since {\sf C} satisfies AP, so does \mathcal{B}({\sf C}). As ES and SES are equivalent in the presence of AP, it follows that \mathcal{B}({\sf C}) satisfies SES, and thus also SAP (cf. Proposition 2.6).

Note that for the implications ? \Rightarrow ? \Rightarrow ? it would suffice to assume that {\sf C} satisfies EAP, instead of TEM (see Remark 5.10).

? \Rightarrow ?. In view of Theorem 5.7 and Lemma 5.11, {\mathcal{X}}^{\perp}=\mathcal{X}^{\perp}_{\mathrm{fpd}}, where \mathcal{X}_{\mathrm{fpd}} is the class of epi-monos in {\sf C} with finitely presentable domains. In fact, the proof of the latter lemma shows that {\mathcal{X}}^{\perp}={\mathcal{H}}^{\perp}, where \mathcal{H} consists of the components, at finitely presentable objects, of the unit \eta of the adjunction formed by the inclusion {\mathcal{X}}^{\perp}\hookrightarrow {\sf C} and its left adjoint. Since the full subcategory of {\sf C} consisting of the finitely presentable objects is essentially small, we can assume that \mathcal{H} is a set. Because \mathbb{T}_{\mathcal{X}} is strongly finitary, \mathcal{H} consists of epi-monos between finitely presentable objects.

? \Rightarrow ?. Clear.

? \Rightarrow ?. Since every \omega-orthogonality class in {\sf C} is also an \omega-injectivity class, Corollary 5.12 implies that {\sf C} admits a Beth companion.

It follows from Remark 5.10 and Theorem 7.2 that there exists a set \mathcal{H} of epi-monos between finitely presentable objects of {\sf C} such that the Beth companion of {\sf C} is the orthogonality class of \mathcal{H}.

We must show that the following diagram is an inverter in {\sf Lfp}.

To this end, observe that the forgetful functor {\sf Lfp} \to {\sf CAT} creates all 2-limits, and in particular inverters, because it is 2-conservative and preserves 2-limits; for the latter fact, see [Bird1984, Theorem 2.17]. In turn, as mentioned above, the inverter in {\sf CAT} is the full subcategory of {\sf C} consisting of the objects X such that, for each arrow h\colon A \to B in \mathcal{H}, the induced map {\sf C}(B,X) \to {\sf C}(A,X), f \mapsto f \circ h, is a bijection. This means precisely that {\mathcal{H}}^{\perp} is the desired inverter.

Let {\sf D}\hookrightarrow {\sf CMon} be a balanced full mono-reflective subcategory, with unit \eta. We can assume without loss of generality that {\sf D} is isomorphism-closed in {\sf CMon}. By Lemma 3.3, {\sf D} contains all saturated monoids; in particular, it contains the monoids E_{n} defined above for every non-negative integer n, including \mathbb{Z}.

Consider the component \eta_{\mathbb{N}} of the unit at \mathbb{N}. If \eta_{\mathbb{N}} is an isomorphism, then \mathbb{N} belongs to {\sf D}. But then the epi-monic inclusion i\colon \mathbb{N}\hookrightarrow \mathbb{Z} belongs to {\sf D}, contradicting the fact that {\sf D} is balanced.

On the other hand, if \eta_{\mathbb{N}} is a proper epi-extension, it can be identified with the arrow {\iota_{n}\colon \mathbb{N}\to E_{n}} that sends 1 to a, for some n. Now, consider the unique arrow \xi making the following diagram commute.

If q_{n}\colon E_{n+1}\twoheadrightarrow E_{n} is the natural quotient, the universal property of \eta_{\mathbb{N}} implies that q_{n}\circ \xi =\mathrm{id}_{E_{n}}. This shows that \xi is both a section and an epimorphism, hence an isomorphism. This is a contradiction.

Suppose that {\sf CRng} has a Beth companion. In this case, it coincides with its full subcategory of saturated rings by Theorem 3.9. In view of [Storrer1968, Korollar 5.4, Korollar 6.3], saturated rings include all fields and all finite cyclic rings \mathbb{Z}_n.

Let \eta_{\mathbb{Z}}\colon \mathbb{Z}\to R be the component at \mathbb{Z} of the unit of the adjunction formed by the inclusion {\sf Sat}({\sf CRng})\hookrightarrow {\sf CRng} and its left adjoint. Since \mathbb{Z} is not saturated, the saturated ring R is a proper epi-extension of \mathbb{Z}. We distinguish two cases, depending on whether R has torsion.

If R is torsion-free, then it is a solid ring of type ?. But every subring of \mathbb{Q} admits an epi-mono to \mathbb{Q}, so the only saturated solid ring of type ? is \mathbb{Q}. The universal property of R then implies that, for each prime p, there is an arrow \mathbb{Q}\to \mathbb{F}_{p}, which is a contradiction.

If R has torsion, by [BK1972, Lemma 3.10] we have

for some non-empty sets of primes K\subseteq J, and positive integers e(p).(If K is finite then R is of type ?; otherwise, R is of type ?.) Because R is saturated, J must be the set of all primes (just note that, if q\notin J, then R\to R[q^{-1}] is a proper epi-mono), and so R/R^t \cong \mathbb{Q}. Consider any prime p\in K and set k\coloneqq e(p)+1. Then the universal property of R yields an arrow f\colon R\to \mathbb{Z}_{p^k}. We will show that this leads to a contradiction. Since R/R^t \cong \mathbb{Q}, p is invertible modulo the torsion subgroup; that is, there are x\in R and t\in R^t such that px=1+t. The description of R^t in eq. (?) implies the existence of a finite set \{q_1,\ldots,q_n\}\subseteq K \setminus\{p\} such that

with t_p \in \mathbb{Z}_{p^{e(p)}} and t_q \in \mathbb{Z}_{q^{e(q)}} for every q\in \{q_1,\ldots,q_n\}. Each such prime q is invertible in \mathbb{Z}_{p^k}, and each t_q is annihilated by some power of q, so f(t_q)=0. Hence, f(t)= f(t_p). In particular,

Therefore, the identity px=1+t yields

which is false in \mathbb{Z}_{p^k}.

Every ring homomorphism between fields is injective. By Lemma 3.8, epimorphisms in the category of perfect fields coincide with epimorphisms in the category of fields. Therefore, it suffices to show that every epimorphism in {\sf Field} between perfect fields is surjective. In turn, it is well known that epimorphisms in {\sf Field} are precisely the purely inseparable field extensions. Since perfect fields do not admit any non-trivial purely inseparable extension, every epimorphism in {\sf Field} whose domain is a perfect field must be surjective.

Computing the term p(1-e)x, we get

As {\sf RegRng}_{\pi} is an \omega-orthogonality class in {\sf RegRng} associated with a set of epi-monos, and monos are pushout stable in {\sf RegRng} [Cornish1977, Theorem 1.6], it follows that {\sf RegRng}_{\pi} is mono-reflective in {\sf RegRng}; cf. [ar94book, § 1.37]. Thus, by Lemma 3.8, every epi-mono in {\sf RegRng}_{\pi} is epi-monic in {\sf RegRng}.

Recall from [Pierce1967, Theorem 10.3] that {\sf RegRng} is dually equivalent to the category of regular ringed spaces. A regular ringed space is a pair (X, J) where X is a Stone space and J is a sheaf of fields on X. A morphism of regular ringed spaces (f,f^{\sharp})\colon (X,J)\to (Y,K) consists of a continuous map f\colon X\to Y and a morphism f^{\sharp}\colon K\to f_{*}J of sheaves of fields over Y, where f_{*} denotes the direct image functor induced by f. Under this dual equivalence, the sheaf associated to a regular ring R is defined on the Stone space dual to the Boolean algebra of idempotents of R, whose points can be identified with the maximal ideals of R. The stalk of this sheaf at a maximal ideal m is the field R/m.

Now let h\colon R\to S be epi-monic in {\sf RegRng}_{\pi}. By the first paragraph, h is epi-monic in {\sf RegRng}. We can identify R with an epic subalgebra of S, and h with the inclusion R\hookrightarrow S. Let X_{R} and X_{S} be the Stone spaces associated with R and S, respectively. We claim that the continuous map X_{S}\to X_{R} induced by h is a homeomorphism; that is, for every maximal ideal m of R there is a unique maximal ideal n of S such that n\cap R = m.

To see that such a maximal ideal n exists, it suffices to prove that the ideal \overline{m} of S generated by m is proper, for then it can be extended to a maximal ideal n satisfying n\cap R \supseteq m, and so n\cap R = m by maximality of m. Suppose that 1\in \overline{m}, i.e., 1=\sum{a_{i}b_{i}} for finitely many elements a_{i}\in m and b_{i}\in S. Let I\subseteq R be the ideal generated by the a_{i}’s. In a regular ring, every finitely generated ideal is principal and is generated by an idempotent element [Goodearl1991, Theorem 1.1]. If e\in R is an idempotent element that generates I, then ex=x for every x\in I. Therefore,

and so 1\in I \subseteq m, contradicting the fact that m is maximal. Hence, \overline{m} is proper.

Next, assume n_{1},n_{2} are maximal ideals of S satisfying n_{1}\cap R = m = n_{2}\cap R. Then L_{1}\coloneqq S/n_{1} and L_{2}\coloneqq S/n_{2} are field extensions of K\coloneqq R/m. Since {\sf Field} has the amalgamation property, there is a field F such that the span of field extensions L_{1}\hookleftarrow K \hookrightarrow L_{2} can be completed to a commutative diagram as displayed below.

Define the arrows g_{1}\colon S\to L_{1}\hookrightarrow F and g_{2}\colon S\to L_{2}\hookrightarrow F in {\sf RegRng}, where the first morphisms in the two composites are the quotient maps. The restrictions of g_{1} and g_{2} to R coincide, however, if n_{1}\neq n_{2} there exists x\in n_{1}\setminus n_{2} and so g_{1}(x) = 0 while g_{2}(x)\neq 0. As the inclusion R\hookrightarrow S is epic, we conclude that n_{1}=n_{2}.

For each maximal ideal n of S, write m\coloneqq n\cap R. The induced field homomorphism R/m\to S/n is monic. It is also epic in {\sf Field}: if u,v\colon S/n\rightrightarrows F agree on R/m, then the composites S\to S/n\rightrightarrows F agree on R, and therefore coincide because R\hookrightarrow S is epic. Thus, each stalk map of the Pierce sheaves is epi-monic in {\sf Field}. Since R and S are perfect, each residue field is perfect, so Lemma 8.3 yields that every stalk map is an isomorphism. Identifying X_{S} with X_{R} via the homeomorphism established above, we obtain a stalkwise isomorphism of sheaves of fields on the same Stone space, hence an isomorphism of Pierce sheaves. Therefore, h is an isomorphism in {\sf RegRng}, and a fortiori in {\sf RegRng}_{\pi}.

Recall that, for any lfp category \sf E and any object e of \sf E, the coslice e/{\sf E} is also lfp [ar94book, Proposition 1.57]. Moreover, the forgetful functor e/{\sf E}\to {\sf E} creates limits and connected colimits (see e.g. [Riehl2016book, Proposition 3.3.8]). In particular, it creates monomorphisms, directed colimits and pushouts.

? Denote by \eta the unit of the adjunction formed by the inclusion {\sf C} \hookrightarrow {\sf D} and its left adjoint. The inclusion c/{\sf C} \hookrightarrow c/{\sf D} admits a left adjoint that sends an object f\colon c\to A to the composite \eta_{A} \circ f. The unit at f of the latter reflection is \eta_{A}, regarded as an arrow in c/{\sf D}. Since \eta_{A} is monic in {\sf D} and the forgetful functor c/{\sf D}\to {\sf D} creates monomorphisms, it follows that c/{\sf C} is mono-reflective in c/{\sf D}. Moreover, the inclusion c/{\sf C}\hookrightarrow c/{\sf D} preserves directed colimits because {\sf C}\hookrightarrow {\sf D} does, and directed colimits are a particular type of connected colimits.

? Suppose that {\sf C} has transferable monos. Equivalently, monomorphisms in {\sf C} are stable under all pushouts. Because the forgetful functor c/{\sf C}\to {\sf C} creates monomorphisms and pushouts, we conclude that c/{\sf C} has transferable monos.

Observe that k/{\sf RegRng} is a reflective subcategory of k/{\sf CRng}, although not a mono-reflective one. This follows from the proof of Lemma 8.6, recalling that {\sf RegRng} is a reflective subcategory of {\sf CRng} (and even an \omega-orthogonality class in {\sf CRng}). In particular, the inclusion k/{\sf RegRng}\hookrightarrow k/{\sf CRng} preserves monomorphisms. If we show that it sends epis to surjections, it will follow that it sends epi-monos to isomorphisms, and therefore k/{\sf RegRng} is balanced.

Let f\colon A \to B be an epimorphism in k/{\sf RegRng}. The cokernel pair of f is given by taking the pushout of f along itself in k/{\sf CRng}, which yields the tensor product R\coloneqq B\otimes_{A} B, and then applying the left adjoint to the inclusion k/{\sf RegRng} \hookrightarrow k/{\sf CRng}. Write \nu(R) for the resulting regular k-algebra, and let \eta\colon R \to \nu(R) be the reflection morphism. The kernel of \eta is the nilradical of R (as can be seen by factoring k/{\sf RegRng} \hookrightarrow k/{\sf CRng} via the mono-reflective subcategory k/{\sf RegRng} \hookrightarrow k/{\sf RedRng}).

We claim that R is reduced, and so \eta is injective. It is enough to show that R embeds in a product of reduced rings. Recall that the canonical map from any A-module to the product of its localisations at the maximal ideals of A is injective. In particular, there is an injective homomorphism

where \mathrm{Max}(A) is the set of maximal ideals of A, and R_{m} is the localisation of R at A\setminus m. It suffices to prove that each R_{m} is reduced. Localisations commute with tensor products, hence we get

Since A is regular, the localisation A_{m} is a field (see e.g. [Goodearl1991, Theorem 1.16]), and so it is a field extension of k. Because k has characteristic 0, so does A_{m}; in particular, A_{m} is a perfect field.

Moreover, regular rings are closed under localisations. Just observe that, if C is a regular ring and S\subseteq C is a multiplicative subset, then for each element x=\frac{a}{s}\in S^{-1}C, there exists b\in C such that a=a^{2}b. The element y\coloneqq sb then satisfies

showing that S^{-1}C is regular. Therefore, B_{m} is a regular ring and, in particular, reduced. For any perfect field K, the tensor product of reduced K-algebras is reduced (see e.g. [BourbakiAlgebra4-7, Ch. V, § 15, Théorème 3]). Therefore, R_{m} is reduced.

Now, consider the cokernel pair of f in k/{\sf CRng}, as displayed below.

The cokernel pair of f in k/{\sf RegRng} is (\eta\circ c_{0},\eta\circ c_{1}). As f is epic in k/{\sf RegRng}, we get \eta\circ c_{0} = \eta\circ c_{1}, and thus c_{0}=c_{1} because \eta is injective. That is, f is an epimorphism in k/{\sf CRng}. Viewing epimorphisms as connected colimits, it follows that f is an epimorphism in {\sf CRng}. In turn, every epimorphism in {\sf CRng} whose domain is regular is a surjection; see e.g. [Tarizadeh2022, Theorems 2.1 and 3.12].