Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Hopf braces and semi-abelian categories

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Cocommutative Hopf braces form a semi-abelian category, so the homological toolkit of groups applies to them.

desk verdict Gran and Sciandra prove that cocommutative Hopf braces form a semi-abelian and strongly protomodular category, though the proof leans on an unpublished preprint for binary coproducts. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19238 v2 pith:PV76KDWD submitted 2024-11-28 math.RA math.CTmath.QAmath.RT

Marino Gran , Andrea Sciandra This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.RAmath.CTmath.QAmath.RT MSC 18E1316T0518G5018E3518E4016T25
keywords Hopfbracessemi-abeliancategoriescocommutativealgebrasskewtorsiontheoryprotomodularityHuqcommutatorquantumYang-Baxterequation
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 sets out to prove that cocommutative Hopf braces—structures that package two Hopf algebra operations on one coalgebra and generalize skew braces—form a semi-abelian category, the same categorical setting that hosts groups, Lie algebras, and cocommutative Hopf algebras. The authors establish this by showing the Split Short Five Lemma holds, that every morphism factors as a normal epimorphism followed by a monomorphism, and that kernels are preserved under direct images. They go on to show the category is strongly protomodular, so the Smith and Huq commutators coincide, and that abelian objects are exactly commutative cocommutative Hopf algebras. They also exhibit a hereditary torsion theory separating primitive Hopf braces from skew braces, and give an explicit formula for the Huq commutator of normal sub-Hopf braces. If correct, the standard homological lemmas—Snake, 3x3, Noether isomorphisms—apply automatically to these Yang-Baxter-producing structures.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the semi-abelian package: $\mathbf{HBR}_{\mathrm{coc}}$ is pointed (the base field is the zero object), protomodular via a direct proof of the Split Short Five Lemma, regular via the normal-epimorphism/monomorphism factorization built from the Newman correspondence, and has binary coproducts imported from a cited preprint. The smash-product decomposition $A\cong H\ker(\pi)\#H$ for a split epimorphism carries the Split Short Five proof, while the identification of normal sub-Hopf braces with kernels carries the regularity and commutator arguments. For the torsion theory, the Cartier-Gabriel-Kostant-Milnor-Moore decomposition of a cocommutative Hopf algebra over an algebraically closed field of characteristic $0$ splits each object into a primitive part $U(P(H))$ and a group algebra part $kG(H)$, giving the short exact sequence that defines $(\mathbf{PHBR}_{\mathrm{coc}},\mathbf{SKB})$.

What would settle it

Take the two parallel morphisms in the cited preprint's coequalizer construction and compute the quotient's second product; if the compatibility identity $a\bullet(b\cdot c)=(a_1\bullet b)\cdot S(a_2)\cdot(a_3\bullet c)$ fails, the quotient is not a Hopf brace, so the category would not be exact and Theorem 5.2 would be false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the category $\mathbf{HBR}_{\mathrm{coc}}$ of cocommutative Hopf braces has the same exactness properties as the categories of groups and Lie algebras. Theorem 5.2 asserts that $\mathbf{HBR}_{\mathrm{coc}}$ is semi-abelian, and Theorem 7.1 asserts that it is strongly protomodular. Consequently the classical homological lemmas hold in $\mathbf{HBR}_{\mathrm{coc}}$; the abelian objects are exactly the cocommutative Hopf braces whose two products are equal and commutative, i.e. commutative cocommutative Hopf algebras; over an algebraically closed field of characteristic $0$ the pair $(\mathbf{PHBR}_{\mathrm{coc}},\mathbf{SKB})$ is a hereditary torsion theory whose torsion-free part is equivalent to skew braces; and the Huq commutator of two normal sub-Hopf braces $X,Y$ of a Hopf brace $A$ is the normal sub-Hopf brace generated by the three families $$[X,Y]=\langle\{x_1\cdot y_1\cdot S(x_2)\cdot S(y_2),\ S(x_1)\cdot(x_2\bullet y_1)\cdot S(y_2),\ x_1\bullet y_1\bullet T(x_2)\bullet T(y_2)\}\rangle_N.$$ These are the results the paper sets out to establish for the category of structures that produce solutions of the quantum Yang-Baxter equation.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on the existence of binary coproducts and general coequalizers in the category of cocommutative Hopf braces, a fact imported from a cited preprint rather than proved here; if that construction has a gap, the semi-abelian conclusion does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Noether isomorphism theorems, the Snake Lemma, and the 3x3 Lemma hold for cocommutative Hopf braces, so exact sequences in this category behave exactly as they do for groups and Lie algebras.
  • The categories of matched pairs of actions on cocommutative Hopf algebras and of bijective 1-cocycles between cocommutative Hopf algebras are both semi-abelian, because they are equivalent to $\mathbf{HBR}_{\mathrm{coc}}$.
  • The abelian objects in $\mathbf{HBR}_{\mathrm{coc}}$ are exactly the commutative cocommutative Hopf algebras, forming an abelian Birkhoff subcategory.
  • Over an algebraically closed field of characteristic $0$, every cocommutative Hopf brace sits in a short exact sequence whose kernel is a primitive Hopf brace (the universal enveloping algebra of a post-Lie algebra) and whose cokernel is a group Hopf algebra; this gives a hereditary torsion theory with skew braces as the torsion-free part.
  • The Huq commutator of normal sub-Hopf braces is generated by three explicit families, and under strong protomodularity it coincides with the Smith commutator of the corresponding congruences.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the semi-abelian and strong protomodularity results hold, a group-theoretic commutator calculus for Hopf braces should follow: nilpotent and solvable Hopf braces can be defined by iterating the explicit Huq commutator of Proposition 8.7, a direction the paper flags as future work.
  • The torsion theory suggests a concrete functorial decomposition of any cocommutative Hopf brace into a primitive part and a group-like part; such a decomposition could serve as a normal form invariant for Hopf braces and may support a cohomology theory, though the paper does not develop this.
  • Because the paper establishes the result for cocommutative Hopf braces, extending the same categorical package to non-cocommutative settings, such as Yetter-Drinfeld braces or Hopf braces in more general braided monoidal categories, is the natural next test; the paper notes some related categories remain open.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the category HBRcoc of cocommutative Hopf braces and proves that it is semi-abelian (Theorem 5.2) and strongly protomodular (Theorem 7.1). It identifies the abelian objects as commutative and cocommutative Hopf algebras, shows that the subcategories PHBRcoc and SKB form a hereditary torsion theory, proves that SKB is a Birkhoff subcategory and a localization, and gives explicit descriptions of central extensions and the Huq commutator of normal sub-Hopf braces. The proofs are largely self-contained for protomodularity, regularity, normality of kernels, and the commutator formula, while the existence of binary coproducts is imported from an unpublished preprint by Agore and Chirvăsitu.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper is significant: it places cocommutative Hopf braces among the strongly protomodular semi-abelian categories, thereby transferring the classical homological lemmas, a torsion-theoretic decomposition, and a commutator calculus to this class of quantum-algebraic structures. The paper is written in a clear and detailed way, and it gives explicit proofs of several load-bearing categorical properties, especially the kernel description, regularity, the direct-image lemma, and the Huq commutator formula. The main caveat is that the central theorem depends on an unrefereed external preprint for binary coproducts, and the proof of strong protomodularity contains a fixable but currently false displayed equality.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 5, Theorem 5.2 (and Definition 1.2)] The proof of Theorem 5.2 assumes the existence of binary coproducts in HBRcoc, citing the preprint [3] (arXiv:2503.06280), and the acknowledgments state that the construction was communicated privately. Since Definition 1.2 makes binary coproducts part of the definition of a semi-abelian category, Theorem 5.2, and with it Corollaries 5.4, 5.7, and 5.12 as well as Theorems 6.10, 6.12, 7.1, and Proposition 8.7, all rest on this unrefereed external result. The manuscript should either provide a self-contained construction of binary coproducts (and the required coequalizers, if needed) or explicitly state and justify its reliance on the preprint. Without this, the central claim that HBRcoc is semi-abelian is not established within the paper.
  2. [Section 7, Theorem 7.1] In the proof of strong protomodularity, the displayed computation reads a = Σ_i k_i • γ′(b_i) = Σ_i k_i • f(γ(b_i)) = Σ_i k_i • γ(b_i). The last equality is not valid in general: f is the vertical morphism A → A′, γ′ = fγ, and the elements k_i lie in Hker(π′), so replacing f(γ(b_i)) by γ(b_i) is unjustified. The intended argument is repairable by keeping f(γ(b_i)), using the Hopf-brace-morphism property f(γ(b_i))⇀x = f(γ(b_i)⇀x), and then applying normality of Hker(π) in Hker(π′) via u. As printed, however, the proof contains a false equality at a load-bearing point and must be corrected.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Proposition 3.1] The proof uses the commutativity of the section square, g∘γ = γ′∘l. This condition should be stated explicitly in the proposition or in the surrounding text, since the displayed diagram does not visibly include the section arrows γ and γ′.
  2. [Section 4, Lemma 5.1] In the proof that the direct image of a kernel is a kernel, the text shows p(D·) and p(D•) are normal Hopf subalgebras; it would be helpful to state explicitly that p(D) is a sub-Hopf brace of B, which follows from surjectivity of p and the Hopf algebra maps involved.
  3. [Section 3, Proposition 3.3] The displayed semi-direct product formulas contain a few typographical ambiguities, such as the placement of parentheses in expressions like γS(h2 • h′2) and the treatment of the h3 • h′3 factors. A careful proofreading pass is recommended.
  4. [Section 8, Remark 8.3] The computation showing that x•y = x·y implies triviality of the action is correct under the stated hypotheses, but the step where ε(x)y is replaced by S(x1)·x2·y should be labelled more explicitly as using the triviality assumption on the action between X and Y.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the main theorems are proved from definitions using direct arguments and independent external results.

full rationale

The derivation chain in this paper does not reduce any claimed conclusion to its own hypotheses. Protomodularity of HBRcoc (Proposition 3.1) is proved directly by verifying the Split Short Five Lemma; the equality gγ = γ′l used inside the proof is exactly the commutativity of the section square in the displayed diagram, not an extra assumption. Regularity (Proposition 4.10) is obtained from the explicit (normal epi, mono)-factorization of Proposition 4.7 and pullback stability inherited from Hopf_{k,coc} via the regular forgetful functors of Lemma 4.9. The semi-abelian theorem (Theorem 5.2) invokes two inputs: binary coproducts are cited from Agore–Chirvăsitu [3], and the kernel-image condition is proved in Lemma 5.1. The coproduct existence is an unproved (in this paper) external premise — the acknowledgments even state it was communicated privately — but it is not a premise that already contains semi-abelianness; it is one conjunct of the definition, and the exactness/protomodularity components are independently established. Thus the reliance on [3] is a self-containment gap, not circularity. The same applies to strong protomodularity (Theorem 7.1), which uses the published strong protomodularity of Hopf_{k,coc} ([10], [45]) and the normal-subalgebra characterization of [24]; [24] is a peer-reviewed, externally checkable result, so citing it is not an unverified self-citation loop. The commutator formula (Proposition 8.7) is not definitional: the Huq commutator is defined by a universal property, and the formula is proved by verifying both that the quotient by [X,Y] makes the images commute and that every such quotient kills [X,Y]. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no known result is merely relabelled, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors' own prior work is used to force the choice. The only material caveat is the unresolved dependence on [3]'s coproduct construction, which affects robustness, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted parameters and no new physical or algebraic entities. PHBRcoc, SKB, and the normal sub-Hopf brace commutator are definitions inside the existing theory of Hopf braces, not independent entities with separate falsifiable handles. The central proof relies on the five external background assumptions listed above.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption HBRcoc has finite limits and binary coproducts
    Completeness is cited from Agore [2] and coproducts from Agore and Chirvasitu [3]. Theorem 5.2 uses binary coproducts to reach semi-abelianness; no construction is given inside this paper.
  • standard math Equivalent characterization of semi-abelian categories (Janelidze, Marki, Tholen [30, Prop 3.7])
    Used in Section 5 to conclude semi-abelianness from pointedness, protomodularity, regularity, coproducts, and preservation of direct images of kernels; the characterization is not reproduced in the paper.
  • domain assumption Cocommutative Hopf algebras are protomodular and strongly protomodular
    Used in Proposition 3.1 and Theorem 7.1; the paper cites [24] and [45] for these external results.
  • domain assumption Newman correspondence between Hopf subalgebras and Hopf ideals in cocommutative Hopf algebras
    Used in Proposition 4.6 and Proposition 4.7 to identify cokernels of kernels and normal sub-Hopf braces; from Newman [38].
  • domain assumption Cartier-Gabriel-Kostant-Milnor-Moore structure theorem for cocommutative Hopf algebras over algebraically closed fields of characteristic 0
    Used in Proposition 6.2 and Section 6 to show that the component H_1 is a universal enveloping algebra and to decompose H as U(g)#kG; from Sweedler [46] and Milnor-Moore [36].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hopf braces and semi-abelian categories." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PV76KDWD

@misc{pith2026241119238,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hopf braces and semi-abelian categories},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PV76KDWD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19238}
}
read the original abstract

Hopf braces have been introduced as a Hopf-theoretic generalization of skew braces. Under the assumption of cocommutativity, these algebraic structures are equivalent to matched pairs of actions on Hopf algebras, that can be used to produce solutions of the quantum Yang-Baxter equation. We prove that the category of cocommutative Hopf braces is semi-abelian and strongly protomodular. In particular, this implies that the main homological lemmas known for groups, Lie algebras and other classical algebraic structures also hold for cocommutative Hopf braces. Abelian objects are commutative and cocommutative Hopf algebras, that form an abelian Birkhoff subcategory of the category of cocommutative Hopf braces. Moreover, we show that the full subcategories of "primitive Hopf braces" and of "skew braces" form an hereditary torsion theory in the category of cocommutative Hopf braces, and that "skew braces" are also a Birkhoff subcategory and a localization of the latter category. Finally, we describe central extensions and commutators for cocommutative Hopf braces.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. A Syntactic Approach to Ulmer's Bialgebras

    math.CT 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A syntactic framework of signature pairs and bialgebraic theories constructs internal bialgebra objects via PIE limits and lifts accessibility, presentability, regularity, and exactness.

  2. Hopf formulae for cocommutative Hopf algebras

    math.CT 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The paper gives a Hopf-formula description of π1(B) for cocommutative Hopf algebras and a 5-term exact sequence relating their first two homology Hopf algebras.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [3]

    Agore, A

    A.L. Agore, A. Chirvăsitu, On the category of Hopf braces , preprint arXiv:2503.06280, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  2. [24]

    M. Gran, F. Sterck, J. Vercruysse, A semi-abelian extension of a theorem by Takeuchi . J. Pure Appl. Algebra 223 (10) (2019) 4171–4190

    work page 2019

  3. [1]

    Agore, Limits of coalgebras, bialgebras and Hopf algebras

    A.L. Agore, Limits of coalgebras, bialgebras and Hopf algebras . Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 139 (3) (2011) 855–863

    work page 2011

  4. [2]

    Agore, Constructing Hopf braces

    A.L. Agore, Constructing Hopf braces . Internat. J. Math. 30 (2019), no. 2, 1850089, 17 pp

    work page 2019

  5. [4]

    Angiono, C

    I. Angiono, C. Galindo, L. Vendramin, Hopf braces and Yang–Baxter operators . Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 145, 5 (2017), 1981–19 95

    work page 2017

  6. [5]

    Barr, Exact categories, in: Springer Lecture Notes in Math

    M. Barr, Exact categories, in: Springer Lecture Notes in Math. Vol.236 (1971), pp. 1–1 20

    work page 1971

  7. [6]

    Borceux, D

    F. Borceux, D. Bourn, Mal’cev, Protomodular, Homological and Semi-Abelian Categ ories. Mathematics and Its Applications, vol. 566, Kluwer Academi c Publishers, Dordrecht, 2004

    work page 2004

  8. [7]

    Borceux, F

    F. Borceux, F. Campanini, M. Gran, The stable category of preorders in a pretopos II: the universal property. Annali di Matematica 201 (2022) 2847-2869

    work page 2022

Show all 49 references
  1. [8]

    Bourn, Normalization equivalence, kernel equivalence and affine ca tegories, in: Category Theory, Como, 1990, in: Lect

    D. Bourn, Normalization equivalence, kernel equivalence and affine ca tegories, in: Category Theory, Como, 1990, in: Lect. Notes Math., vol. 1488, Spring er, Berlin, 1991, pp. 43-62

    1990

  2. [9]

    Bourn, Mal’cev categories and fibration of pointed objects

    D. Bourn, Mal’cev categories and fibration of pointed objects . Appl. Categorical Str. 4 (1996) 307–327

    1996

  3. [10]

    Bourn, Normal functors and strong protomodularity

    D. Bourn, Normal functors and strong protomodularity . Theory Appl. Categ. 7 (9) (2000) 206–218

    2000

  4. [11]

    Bourn, Normal subobjects and abelian objects in protomodular cate gories

    D. Bourn, Normal subobjects and abelian objects in protomodular cate gories. J. Algebra 228 (2000) 143–164

    2000

  5. [12]

    Bourn, Split epimorphisms and Baer sums of skew left braces

    D. Bourn, Split epimorphisms and Baer sums of skew left braces . J. Algebra 652 (2024) 188-207

    2024

  6. [13]

    Bourn, A

    D. Bourn, A. Facchini, M. Pompili, Aspects of the category SKB of skew braces . Comm. Algebra 51 (2023), no. 5, 2129–2143

    2023

  7. [14]

    Bourn, M

    D. Bourn, M. Gran, Centrality and normality in protomodular categories . Theory Appl. Categ. 9 (8) (2002) 151–165

    2002

  8. [15]

    Bourn, M

    D. Bourn, M. Gran, Central extensions in semi-abelian categories . J. Pure Appl. Algebra 175 (2002) 31–44

    2002

  9. [16]

    Bourn, M

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

    2006

  10. [17]

    Everaert and T

    T. Everaert and T. Van der Linden, Baer invariants in semi-abelian categories II: Homology , Theory Appl. Categ. 12 (4), (2004) 195-224

    2004

  11. [18]

    Facchini, M

    A. Facchini, M. Pompili, Semidirect products of digroups and skew braces . Bull. Belg. Math. Soc. Simon Stevin 31 (1) (2024) 40–53

    2024

  12. [19]

    Fernández Vilaboa, R

    J.M. Fernández Vilaboa, R. González Rodríguez, B. Ramo s Pérez, A.B. Rodríguez Raposo, Modules over invertible 1-cocycles . Turkish J. Math. 48 (2024), no. 2, 248–266

    2024

  13. [20]

    Ferri, A

    D. Ferri, A. Sciandra, Matched pairs and Yetter–Drinfeld braces , preprint arXiv:2406.10009

    arXiv

  14. [21]

    Gran, Applications of Categorical Galois Theory in Universal Algeb ra, in: Galois theory, Hopf algebras, and semiabelian categories, Fields Inst

    M. Gran, Applications of Categorical Galois Theory in Universal Algeb ra, in: Galois theory, Hopf algebras, and semiabelian categories, Fields Inst. Co mmun. 43, Am. Math. Soc., Providence (2004) 243–280

    2004

  15. [22]

    M. Gran, G. Kadjo, J. Vercruysse, A torsion theory in the category of cocommutative Hopf algebras. Appl. Categ. Structures 24 (2016), no. 3, 269–282

    2016

  16. [23]

    M. Gran, T. Letourmy, L. Vendramin, Hopf formulae for homology of skew braces , preprint arXiv:2409.18056

  17. [25]

    M. Gran, T. Van der Linden, On the second cohomology group in semi-abelian categories . J. Pure Appl. Algebra 212 (2008) 636–651

    2008

  18. [26]

    Guarnieri, L

    L. Guarnieri, L. Vendramin, Skew braces and the Yang-Baxter equation . Math. Comp. 86 (2017), no. 307, 2519–2534

    2017

  19. [27]

    Higgins, Groups with multiple operators

    P.J. Higgins, Groups with multiple operators . Proc. London Math. Soc. (1956), 366–416

    1956

  20. [28]

    Hiroshi, On group-theoretic properties of cocommutative Hopf algeb ras

    Y. Hiroshi, On group-theoretic properties of cocommutative Hopf algeb ras. Hiroshima Math. J. 9 (1) (1979) 179–200. HOPF BRACES AND SEMI-ABELIAN CATEGORIES 31

    1979

  21. [29]

    S. A. Huq, Commutator, nilpotency, and solvability in categories . Q. J. Math. Oxf. Ser. (2) 19 (1968) 363–389

    1968

  22. [30]

    Janelidze, L

    G. Janelidze, L. Márki, W. Tholen, Semi-abelian categories, in: Category Theory 1999 (Coim- bra), J. Pure Appl. Algebra 168 (2–3) (2002) 367–386

    2002

  23. [31]

    Johnstone, A note on the semiabelian variety of Heyting semilattices , in: Galois theory, Hopf algebras, and semiabelian categories, Fields Inst

    P.T. Johnstone, A note on the semiabelian variety of Heyting semilattices , in: Galois theory, Hopf algebras, and semiabelian categories, Fields Inst. Co mmun. 43, Amer. Math. Soc. (2004), pp. 317–318

    2004

  24. [32]

    Y. Li, Y. Sheng, R. Tang, Post-Hopf algebras, relative Rota–Baxter operators and so lutions of the Yang-Baxter equation , arXiv:2203.12174

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    Y. Li, Y. Sheng, R. Tang, Post-Hopf algebras, relative Rota–Baxter operators and so lutions to the Yang-Baxter equation . J. Noncommut. Geom. 18 (2024), no. 2, 605–630

    2024

  26. [34]

    Majid, Foundations of quantum group theory

    S. Majid, Foundations of quantum group theory . Cambridge university press, 2000

    2000

  27. [35]

    Mantovani, G

    S. Mantovani, G. Metere, Internal crossed modules and Peiffer condition . Theory Appl. Categories 23 (6) (2010) 113–135

    2010

  28. [36]

    Milnor, J

    J. Milnor, J. Moore, On the structure of Hopf algebras . Ann. Math. (2) 81 (2) (1965) 211–264

    1965

  29. [37]

    Molnar, Semi-direct products of Hopf algebras

    R.K. Molnar, Semi-direct products of Hopf algebras . J. Algebra 47 (1977), no. 1, 29–51

    1977

  30. [38]

    Newman, A correspondence between bi-ideals and sub-Hopf algebras i n cocommutative Hopf algebras

    K. Newman, A correspondence between bi-ideals and sub-Hopf algebras i n cocommutative Hopf algebras . J. Algebra 36 (1) (1975) 1–15

    1975

  31. [39]

    Orzech, Obstruction theory in algebraic categories

    G. Orzech, Obstruction theory in algebraic categories. I . J. Pure and Appl. Algebra 2 (1972), 287–314

    1972

  32. [40]

    Pedicchio, A categorical approach to commutator theory

    M.C. Pedicchio, A categorical approach to commutator theory . J. Algebra 177 (1995), 647– 657

    1995

  33. [41]

    Rump, Braces, radical rings, and the quantum Yang–Baxter equatio n

    W. Rump, Braces, radical rings, and the quantum Yang–Baxter equatio n. J. Algebra 307 (2007), 153–170

    2007

  34. [42]

    Sciandra, Semi-abelian condition for color Hopf algebras

    A. Sciandra, Semi-abelian condition for color Hopf algebras . J. Pure Appl. Algebra 228 (2024), no. 9, Paper No. 107677, 34 pp

    2024

  35. [43]

    Sciandra, Yetter–Drinfeld post-Hopf algebras and Yetter–Drinfeld r elative Rota–Baxter operators, preprint arXiv:2407.17922

    A. Sciandra, Yetter–Drinfeld post-Hopf algebras and Yetter–Drinfeld r elative Rota–Baxter operators, preprint arXiv:2407.17922

    arXiv

  36. [44]

    Smith, Mal’cev varieties

    J.D.H. Smith, Mal’cev varieties. Lecture Notes in Mathematics 554, Springer-Verlag, Berli n- New York (1976)

    1976

  37. [45]

    Street, Quantum groups: A path to current algebra

    R. Street, Quantum groups: A path to current algebra . Australian Mathematical Society Lecture Series (Book 19). Cambridge University Press (2007 )

    2007

  38. [46]

    Sweedler, Hopf Algebras

    M.E. Sweedler, Hopf Algebras. Mathematics Lecture Note Series, W. A. Benjamin, Inc., New York, 1969

    1969

  39. [47]

    Takeuchi, A correspondence between Hopf ideals and sub-Hopf algebras

    M. Takeuchi, A correspondence between Hopf ideals and sub-Hopf algebras . Manuscr. Math. 7 (1972) 252–270

    1972

  40. [48]

    Vallette, Homology of generalised partition posets

    B. Vallette, Homology of generalised partition posets . J. Pure Appl. Algebra 208 (2007), no. 2, 699–725

    2007

  41. [49]

    G. Peano

    C. Vespa, M. W ambst, On some properties of the category of cocommutative Hopf alg ebras. North-W est. Eur. J. Math. (2018) 21–37. Institut de Recherche en Mathématique et Physique, Univers ité Catholique de Louv ain, Chemin du Cyclotron 2, B-1348 Louv ain-la-Neuve , Belgium. ...

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.