A counterexample to the naive ring comparison #
From Arnaud Mayeux, Dilatations of categories, via their Lean formalization,
https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.09305, and rndmx/DilCat at commit
604559654c948566675da3f7709b8ad3126bd487 (Apache-2.0).
The ring construction includes work by Arnaud Mayeux and Jujian Zhang from
ProjConstruction/Proj (Apache-2.0).
Erratum to Proposition 5.1 : the naive I-indexed center is not the right one #
The printed \citep[Proposition~5.1]{Mayeux} identifies 𝒞[{(aᵢ)⁻¹∘Mᵢ}ᵢ∈I] (dilating by the
center indexed directly by i ∈ I, one generator per index) with A[M]. This identification is
false : composition in SingleObj A' is multiplication, so the image of every morphism of this
naive center's dilatation is a product c·∏ⱼ(mⱼ/aᵢⱼ), and not every element of A[M] has this
form. The concrete witness below : A = ℤ[X], a = 2, M = (X), and (X+2)/2 ∈ A[M] is not
reachable. See \S10.2 of the paper for the informal argument this formalizes.
The single-center example with ideal (X) and denominator 2 in ℤ[X].
Equations
- CategoryTheory.Dilatations.NaiveCenterCounterexample.CEx = { index := Unit, ideal := fun (x : Unit) => Ideal.span {Polynomial.X}, elem := fun (x : Unit) => 2 }
Instances For
The localization of the integers obtained by inverting 2.
Equations
Instances For
Evaluate a fraction representative at X = 0 in the localization of ℤ.
Equations
Instances For
The evaluation-at-X=0 invariant ψ. Descends to the dilatation ring because it kills
exactly what fraction-composition can produce from (X)-numerators.
Equations
Instances For
The target element (X+2)/2 ∈ A[M], which we show is unreachable.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
The naive I-indexed center {(a_i, M_i)} (here a single index): index Unit, morphism
2, sieve generated by (X) directly (not the large ideal).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
The comparison functor for the naive center, built directly from the universal property
(Dila_universal_property), exactly as the printed proof's Φ is meant to be.
The functor Φ_naive produced by prop_naive, matching the printed paper's Φ.
Equations
Instances For
c·Xᵏ always lies in the k-th large-ideal power, for every c and every k.
ψ kills every fraction (c·Xᵏ)/2ᵏ with k ≥ 1 (numerator divisible by X).
The key non-surjectivity fact. targetElement = (X+2)/2 is never algebraMap c for any
c : ℤ[X]: cross-multiplying gives 2c = X+2 (up to a harmless common power of 2), and
evaluating
at X = 1 turns this into 2·c(1) = 3 in ℤ, which is false (2 does not divide 3).
The defining identity for our specific [X,2] fraction, specialized from
algebraMap_elem_pow_mul_frac.
The image of a fraction generator. Φ_naive sends the "m-over-2" generator (for
m ∈ (X)) to the honest dilatation fraction m/2 — no more, no less. This is forced : composing
with Θ(2) on both sides and cancelling the nonzerodivisor algebraMap 2 pins the value down
uniquely (cf. Phi51_full, the analogous computation for the ν-indexed center).
Every reachable morphism is c·Xᵏ/2ᵏ. Since Dila centerNaive's only generators are
C's original morphisms (ring elements) and the single fraction generator X/2 (from the sieve
(X)), and composition is multiplication, every morphism's Φ_naive-image is a product of these,
hence of the stated shape.
targetElement = (X+2)/2 is not in the image of Φ_naive. Every morphism of Dila centerNaive lifts (via GeneratedToDila_full) to a path of generators, whose image under
Φ_naive is c·Xᵏ/2ᵏ by exists_c_k. If k = 0 this is algebraMap c, ruled out by
targetElement_ne_algebraMap; if k ≥ 1 the numerator c·Xᵏ is divisible by X, so ψ kills it
(psi_cXk_eq_zero), while ψ (targetElement) = 1 ≠ 0.
Φ_naive itself is not full (its image on the relevant End misses targetElement).
The main theorem. No functor Dila centerNaive ⥤ SingleObj ℤ[X][CEx] compatible with the
two canonical inclusion functors (i.e. matching the printed paper's comparison functor Φ) can be
part of an equivalence of categories : by prop_naive's uniqueness clause any such functor equals
Φ_naive, and Φ_naive is not full (PhiNaive_not_full), while every equivalence functor is
full. This refutes Proposition 5.1's claimed identification 𝒞[(aᵢ)⁻¹∘Mᵢ] ≅ A[M] for the naive
I-indexed center.