Proper Semirings and Proper Convex Functors
Abstract
Esik and Maletti introduced the notion of a proper semiring and proved that some important (classes of) semirings – Noetherian semirings, natural numbers – are proper. Properness matters as the equivalence problem for weighted automata over a semiring which is proper and finitely and effectively presented is decidable. Milius generalised the notion of properness from a semiring to a functor. As a consequence, a semiring is proper if and only if its associated “cubic functor” is proper. Moreover, properness of a functor renders soundness and completeness proofs for axiomatizations of equivalent behaviour.
In this paper we provide a method for proving properness of functors, and instantiate it to cover both the known cases and several novel ones: (1) properness of the semirings of positive rationals and positive reals, via properness of the corresponding cubic functors; and (2) properness of two functors on (positive) convex algebras. The latter functors are important for axiomatizing trace equivalence of probabilistic transition systems. Our proofs rely on results that stretch all the way back to Hilbert and Minkowski.
Keywords
Proper semirings Proper functors Coalgebra Weighted automata Probabilistic transition systems1 Introduction
In this paper we deal with algebraic categories and deterministic weighted automata functors on them. Such categories are the target of generalized determinization [10, 22, 23] and enable coalgebraic modelling beyond sets. For example, nondeterministic automata, weighted, or probabilistic ones are coalgebraically modelled over the categories of joinsemilattices, semimodules for a semiring, and convex sets, respectively. Moreover, expressions for axiomatizing behavior semantics often live in algebraic categories.
In order to prove completeness of such axiomatizations, the common approach [4, 21, 23] is to prove finality of a certain object in a category of coalgebras over an algebraic category. Proofs are significantly simplified if it suffices to verify finality only w.r.t. coalgebras carried by free finitely generated algebras, as those are the coalgebras that result from generalized determinization.
In recent work, Milius [16] proposed the notion of a proper functor on an algebraic category that provides a sufficient condition for this purpose. This notion is an extension of the notion of a proper semiring introduced by Esik and Maletti [8]: A semiring is proper if and only if its “cubic” functor is proper. A cubic functor is a functor \(\mathbb S \times ()^A\) where A is a finite alphabet and \(\mathbb S\) is a free algebra with a single generator in the algebraic category. Cubic functors model deterministic weighted automata which are models of determinizations of nondeterministic and probabilistic transition systems.
Properness is the property that for any two states that are behaviourally equivalent in coalgebras with free finitely generated carriers, there is a zigzag of homomorphisms (called a chain of simulations in the original works on weighted automata and proper semirings) that identifies the two states and whose nodes are all carried by free finitely generated algebras.

The Boolean semiring was proven to be proper in [3].

Finite commutative ordered semirings were proven to be proper in [7, Theorem 5.1]. Interestingly, the proof provides a zigzag with at most seven intermediate nodes.

Any euclidean domain and any skew field were proven proper in [1, Theorem 3]. In each case the zigzag has two intermediate nodes.

The semiring of natural numbers \(\mathbb N\), the Boolean semiring \(\mathbb B\), the ring of integers \(\mathbb Z\) and any skew field were proven proper in [2, Theorem 1]. All zigzags were spans, i.e., had a single intermediate node with outgoing arrows.

Noetherian semirings were proven proper in [8, Theorem 4.2], commutative rings also in [8, Corollary 4.4], and finite semirings as well in [8, Corollary 4.5], all with a zigzag being a span. Moreover, the tropical semiring is not proper, as proven in [8, Theorem 5.4].
Having properness of a semiring, together with the property of the semiring being finitely and effectively presentable, yields decidability of the equivalence problem (decidability of trace equivalence) for weighted automata.

The semirings \(\mathbb Q_+\) and \(\mathbb R_+\) of nonnegative rationals and reals, respectively, are proper. The shape of the zigzag is a span as well.

The functor \([0,1] \times ()^A\) on PCA is proper, again the zigzag being a span.

The functor \(\widehat{F}\) on \({\texttt {PCA}}\) is proper. This proof is the most involved, and interestingly, provides the only case where the zigzag is not a span: it contains three intermediate nodes of which the middle one forms a span.
Our framework requires a proof of socalled extension and reduction lemmas in each case. While the extension lemma is a generic result that covers all cubic functors of interest, the reduction lemma is in all cases a nontrivial property intrinsic to the algebras under consideration. For the semiring of natural numbers it is a consequence of a result that we trace back to Hilbert; for the case of convex algebra [0, 1] the result is due to Minkowski. In the case of \(\widehat{F}\), we use Kakutani’s setvalued fixpoint theorem.
It is an interesting question for future work whether these new properness results may lead to new complete axiomatizations of expressions for certain weighted automata.
The organization of the rest of the paper is as follows. In Sect. 2 we give some basic definitions and introduce the semirings, the categories, and the functors of interest. Section 3 provides the general framework as well as proofs of properness of the cubic functors. Sections 4, 5 and 6 lead us to properness of \(\widehat{F}\) on PCA. For space reasons, we present the ideas of proofs and constructions in the main paper and defer all detailed proofs to the arXivversion [24].
2 Proper Functors
We start with a brief introduction of the basic notions from algebra and coalgebra needed in the rest of the paper, as well as the important definition of proper functors [16]. We refer the interested reader to [9, 11, 20] for more details. We assume basic knowledge of category theory, see e.g. [14] or [24, Appendix A].
All base categories \({\texttt {C}}\) in this paper will be algebraic categories, i.e., categories \({\texttt {Set}}^{T}\) of EilenbergMoore algebras of a finitary monad ^{1} in \({\texttt {Set}}\). Hence, all base categories are concrete with forgetful functor that is identity on morphisms.
We now recall the notion of a proper functor, introduced by Milius [16] which is central to this paper. It is very helpful for establishing completeness of regular expressions calculi, cf. [16, Corollary 3.17].
Definition 2.1
Let \(T:{\texttt {Set}}\rightarrow {\texttt {Set}}\) be a finitary monad with unit \(\eta \) and multiplication \(\mu \). A \({\texttt {Set}}^{T}\)endofunctor F is proper, if the following statement holds.
For each pair \((TB_1,c_1)\) and \((TB_2,c_2)\) of Fcoalgebras with \(B_1\) and \(B_2\) finite sets, and each two elements \(b_1\in B_1\) and \(b_2\in B_2\) with \(\eta _{B_1}(b_1)\sim \eta _{B_2}(b_2)\), there exists a zigzag (1) in \(\mathsf{Coalg}({F})\) which relates \(\eta _{B_1}(b_1)\) with \(\eta _{B_2}(b_2)\), and whose nodes \((Z_j,e_j)\) all have free and finitely generated carrier.
This notion generalizes the notion of a proper semiring introduced by Esik and Maletti in [8, Definition 3.2], cf. [16, Remark 3.10].
Remark 2.2
In the definition of properness the condition that intermediate nodes have free and finitely generated carrier is necessary for nodes with incoming arrows (the nodes \(Z_{2k1}\) in (1)). For the intermediate nodes with outgoing arrows (\(Z_{2k}\) in (1)), it is enough to require that their carrier is finitely generated. This follows since every Fcoalgebra with finitely generated carrier is the image under an Fcoalgebra morphism of an Fcoalgebra with free and finitely generated carrier.
Moreover, note that zigzags which start (or end) with incoming arrows instead of outgoing ones, can also be allowed since a zigzag of this form can be turned into one of the form (1) by appending identity maps.
Some Concrete Monads and Functors
We deal with the following base categories.

The category \({\mathbb S\text {}{\texttt {SMOD}}}\) of semimodules over a semiring \(\mathbb S\) induced by the monad \(T_{\mathbb S}\) of finitely supported maps into \(\mathbb S\), see, e.g., [15, Example 4.2.5].

The category PCA of positively convex algebras induced by the monad of finitely supported subprobability distributions, see, e.g., [5, 6] and [17].
For \(n\in \mathbb N\), the free algebra with n generators in \({\mathbb S\text {}{\texttt {SMOD}}}\) is the direct product \(\mathbb S^n\), and in PCA it is the nsimplex \(\varDelta ^n=\{(\xi _1,\ldots ,\xi _n)\mid \xi _j\ge 0,\sum _{j=1}^n\xi _j\le 1\}\).

\({\texttt {CMON}}\) of commutative monoids for \(\mathbb N\),

\({\texttt {AB}}\) of abelian groups for \(\mathbb Z\),

\({\texttt {CONE}}\) of convex cones for \(\mathbb R_+\),

\({\mathbb Q\text {}{\texttt {VEC}}}\) and \({\mathbb R\text {}{\texttt {VEC}}}\) of vector spaces over the field of rational and real numbers, respectively, for \(\mathbb Q\) and \(\mathbb R\).
We consider the following functors, where A is a fixed finite alphabet. Recall that we use the term cubic functor for the functor \(T1\times ()^A\) where T is a monad on \({\texttt {Set}}\). We chose the name since \(T1\times ()^A\) assigns to objects X a full direct product, i.e., a full cube.
 The cubic functor \(F_{\,{\mathbb S}}\) on \({\mathbb S\text {}{\texttt {SMOD}}}\), i.e., the functor acting asThe underlying \({\texttt {Set}}\) functors of cubic functors are also sometimes called deterministicautomata functors, see e.g. [10], as their coalgebras are deterministic weighted automata with output in the semiring.$$\begin{aligned}&F_{\,{\mathbb S}}X=\mathbb S\times X^A\text { for }X\text { object of }{\mathbb S\text {}{\texttt {SMOD}}},\\&F_{\,{\mathbb S}}f={{\mathrm{id}}}_{\mathbb S}\times (f\circ ) \text { for }f:X\rightarrow Y\text { morphism of }{\mathbb S\text {}{\texttt {SMOD}}}. \end{aligned}$$

The cubic functor \(F_{\,{[0,1]}}\) on \({\texttt {PCA}}\), i.e., the functor \(F_{\,{[0,1]}}X=[0,1]\times X^A\) and \(F_{\,{[0,1]}}f={{\mathrm{id}}}_{[0,1]}\times (f\circ )\).

A subcubic convex functor \(\widehat{F}\) on PCA whose action will be introduced in Definition 4.1.^{2} The name originates from the fact that \(\widehat{F}X\) is a certain convex subset of \(F_{\,{[0,1]}}X\) and that \(\widehat{F}f=(F_{\,{[0,1]}}f)_{\widehat{F}X}\) for \(f:X\rightarrow Y\).
Cubic functors are liftings of \({\texttt {Set}}\)endofunctors, in particular, they preserve surjective algebra homomorphisms. It is easy to see that also the functor \(\widehat{F}\) preserves surjectivity, cf. [24, Lemma D.1]. This property is needed to apply the work of Milius, cf. [16, Assumptions 3.1].
Remark 2.3
We can now formulate precisely the connection between proper semirings and proper functors mentioned after Definition 2.1. A semiring \(\mathbb S\) is proper in the sense of [8], if and only if for every finite input alphabet A the cubic functor \(F_{\,{\mathbb S}}\) on \({\mathbb S\text {}{\texttt {SMOD}}}\) is proper.
The map from a coalgebra (X, c) into the final \(F_{\,{\mathbb S}}\)coalgebra, the trace map, is then given as \({{\mathrm{tr}}}_c(x)=\big (({c}_{\text {o}}\circ {c}_{w})(x)\big )_{w\in A^*}\) for \( x\in X\). Behavioural equivalence for cubic functors is the kernel of the trace map.
3 Properness of Cubic Functors
The next lemma contains a simple observation: there exists a subsemimodule Z of \(\mathbb S^{n_1}\times \mathbb S^{n_2}\), such that the restrictions of \(d_1\) and \(d_2\) to Z coincide and turn Z into an \(F_{\,{\mathbb S}}\)coalgebra.
Lemma 3.1
Let Z be the subsemimodule of \(\mathbb S^{n_1}\times \mathbb S^{n_2}\) generated by the pairs \(({c_1}_{w}(x_1),{c_2}_{w}(x_2))\) for \(w \in A^*\). Then \(d_1_Z=d_2_Z\) and \(d_j(Z)\subseteq F_{\,{\mathbb S}}(Z)\).
Let \(\mathbb S\) be a Noetherian semiring, i.e., such that every \(\mathbb S\)subsemimodule of some finitely generated \(\mathbb S\)semimodule is itself finitely generated. Then Z is, as an \(\mathbb S\)subsemimodule of \(\mathbb S^{n_1}\times \mathbb S^{n_2}\), finitely generated. We reobtain [8, Theorem 4.2].
Corollary 3.2
(Esik–Maletti 2010). Every Noetherian semiring is proper.
Our first main result is Theorem 3.3 below, where we show properness of the cubic functors \(F_{\,{\mathbb S}}\) on \(\mathbb S\)SMOD, for \(\mathbb S\) being one of the semirings \(\mathbb N\), \(\mathbb Q_+\), \(\mathbb R_+\), and of the cubic functor \(F_{\,{[0,1]}}\) on PCA. The case of \(F_{\,{\mathbb N}}\) is known from [2, Theorem 4]^{3}, the case of \(F_{\,{[0,1]}}\) is stated as an open problem in [16, Example 3.19].
Theorem 3.3
The cubic functors \(F_{\,{\mathbb N}}\), \(F_{\,{\mathbb Q_+}}\), \(F_{\,{\mathbb R_+}}\), and \(F_{\,{[0,1]}}\) are proper.
In fact, for any two coalgebras with free finitely generated carrier and any two elements having the same trace, a zigzag with free and finitely generated nodes relating those elements can be found, which is a span (has a single intermediate node with outgoing arrows).
The proof proceeds via relating to the Noetherian case. It always follows the same scheme, which we now outline. Observe that the ring completion of each of \(\mathbb N\), \(\mathbb Q_+\), \(\mathbb R_+\), is Noetherian (for the last two it actually is a field), and that [0, 1] is the positive part of the unit ball in \(\mathbb R\).
Step 1. The extension lemma: We use an extension of scalars process to pass from the given category C to an associated category \(\mathbb E\)MOD with a Noetherian ring \(\mathbb E\). This is a general categorical argument.
\(\mathbb S\)  \(\mathbb N\)  \(\mathbb Q_+\)  \(\mathbb R_+\)  [0, 1] 
C  \(\mathbb N\)SMOD (CMON)  \(\mathbb Q_+\)SMOD  \(\mathbb R_+\)SMOD (CONE)  PCA 
\(\mathbb E\)MOD  \(\mathbb Z\)MOD (AB)  \(\mathbb Q\)MOD (\(\mathbb Q\)VEC)  \(\mathbb R\)MOD (\(\mathbb R\)VEC)  \(\mathbb R\)MOD (\(\mathbb R\)VEC) 
For the formulation of the extension lemma, recall that the starting category C is the EilenbergMoore category of the monad \(T_{\mathbb {S}}\) and the target category \(\mathbb E\)MOD is the EilenbergMoore category of \(T_{\mathbb {E}}\). We write \(\eta _{\mathbb S}\) and \(\mu _{\mathbb S}\) for the unit and multiplication of \(T_{\mathbb {S}}\) and analogously for \(T_{\mathbb {E}}\). We have \(T_{\mathbb {S}}\le T_{\mathbb {E}}\), via the inclusion monad morphism \(\iota :T_{\mathbb {S}}\Rightarrow T_{\mathbb {E}}\) given by \(\iota _X(u) = u\), as \(\eta _{\mathbb E} = \iota \mathrel {\circ }\eta _{\mathbb S}\) and \(\mu _{\mathbb E} \mathrel {\circ }\iota \iota =\iota \mathrel {\circ }\mu _{\mathbb S}\) where \(\iota \iota {\mathop {=}\limits ^{\text {def}}}T_{\mathbb {E}}\iota \mathrel {\circ }\iota {\mathop {=}\limits ^{\text {nat.}}} \iota \mathrel {\circ }T_{\mathbb {S}}\iota \). Recall that a monad morphism \(\iota :T_\mathbb S \rightarrow T_\mathbb E\) defines a functor \(M_\iota :{\texttt {Set}}^{T_\mathbb E} \rightarrow {\texttt {Set}}^{T_\mathbb S}\) which maps a \(T_\mathbb E\)algebra \((X, \alpha _X)\) to \((X, \iota _X\mathrel {\circ }\alpha _X)\) and is identity on morphisms. Obviously, \(M_\iota \) commutes with the forgetful functors \(U_\mathbb S: {\texttt {Set}}^{T_\mathbb S} \rightarrow {\texttt {Set}}\) and \(U_\mathbb E: {\texttt {Set}}^{T_\mathbb E} \rightarrow {\texttt {Set}}\), i.e., \(U_\mathbb S \mathrel {\circ }M_\iota = U_\mathbb E\).
Definition 3.4
Now we can formulate the extension lemma.
Proposition 3.5
Step 2. The basic diagram: Let \(n_1,n_2\in \mathbb N\), let \(B_j\) be the \(n_j\)element set consisting of the canonical basis vectors of \(\mathbb E^{n_j}\), and set \(X_j=T_{\mathbb S}B_j\). Assume we are given \(F_{\,{\mathbb S}}\)coalgebras \((X_1,c_1)\) and \((X_2,c_2)\), and elements \(x_j\in X_j\) with \({{\mathrm{tr}}}_{c_1}x_1={{\mathrm{tr}}}_{c_2}x_2\).
Lemma 3.6
We have \(F_{\,{\mathbb E}}X\cap F_{\,{\mathbb S}}Y=F_{\,{\mathbb S}}(X\cap Y)\). Moreover, if \(Y_j\subseteq X_j\), then \((F_{\,{\mathbb E}}\pi _1)^{1}(F_{\,{\mathbb S}}Y_1)\cap (F_{\,{\mathbb E}}\pi _2)^{1}(F_{\,{\mathbb S}}Y_2) =F_{\,{\mathbb S}}(Y_1\times Y_2)\).
Step 3. The reduction lemma: In view of the zigzag (3), the proof of Theorem 3.3 can be completed by showing that \(Z\cap (X_1\times X_2)\) is finitely generated as an algebra in C. Since Z is a submodule of the finitely generated module \(\mathbb E^{n_1}\times \mathbb E^{n_2}\) over the Noetherian ring \(\mathbb E\), it is finitely generated as an \(\mathbb E\)module. The task thus is to show that being finitely generated is preserved when reducing scalars.
This is done by what we call the reduction lemma. Contrasting the extension lemma, the reduction lemma is not a general categorical fact, and requires specific proof in each situation.
Proposition 3.7
(Reduction Lemma). Let \(n_1,n_2\in \mathbb N\), let \(B_j\) be the set consisting of the \(n_j\) canonical basis vectors of \(\mathbb E^{n_j}\), and set \(X_j=T_{\mathbb S}B_j\). Moreover, let Z be an \(\mathbb E\)submodule of \(\mathbb E^{n_1}\times \mathbb E^{n_2}\). Then \(Z\cap (X_1\times X_2)\) is finitely generated as an algebra in \(\mathtt {C}\).
4 A Subcubic Convex Functor
Recall the following definition from [23, p. 309].
Definition 4.1
We introduce a functor \(\widehat{F}:{\texttt {PCA}}\rightarrow {\texttt {PCA}}\).
 1.Let X be a PCA. Then$$\begin{aligned} \widehat{F}X=\Big \{ (o,\phi )\in [0,1]&\times X^A\mid \\&\exists \,n_a\in \mathbb N{.}\exists \,p_{a,j}\in [0,1],x_{a,j}\in X\text { for }j=1,\ldots ,n_a,a\in A{.}\\&o+\sum _{a\in A}\sum _{j=1}^{n_a}p_{a,j}\le 1,\ \phi (a)=\sum _{j=1}^{n_a}p_{a,j}x_{a,j} \Big \}. \end{aligned}$$
 2.
Let X, Y be PCAs, and \(f:X\rightarrow Y\) a convex map. Then \(\widehat{F}f:\widehat{F}X\rightarrow \widehat{F}Y\) is the map \(\widehat{F}f={{\mathrm{id}}}_{[0,1]}\times (f\circ )\).
For every X we have \(\widehat{F}X\subseteq F_{\,{[0,1]}}X\), and for every \(f:X\rightarrow Y\) we have \(\widehat{F}f=(F_{\,{[0,1]}}f)_{\widehat{F}X}\). For this reason, we think of \(\widehat{F}\) as a subcubic functor.
The definition of \(\widehat{F}\) can be simplified.
Lemma 4.2

If \(X_1\subseteq X_2\), then \(\widehat{F}X_1\subseteq \widehat{F}X_2\).

If \(f_1:X_1\rightarrow Y_1,f_2:X_2\rightarrow Y_2\) with \(X_1\subseteq X_2,Y_1\subseteq Y_2\) and \(f_2_{X_1}=f_1\), then \(\widehat{F}f_2_{\widehat{F}X_1}=\widehat{F}f_1\).
Note that \(\widehat{F}\) does not preserve direct products.
For a PCA X whose carrier is a compact subset of a euclidean space, \(\widehat{F}X\) can be described with help of a geometric notion, namely using the Minkowksi functional of X. Before we can state this fact, we have to make a brief digression to explain this notion and its properties.
Definition 4.3
Let \(X\subseteq \mathbb R^n\) be a PCA. The Minkowski functional of X is the map \(\mu _{X}:\mathbb R^n\rightarrow [0,\infty ]\) defined as \(\mu _{X}(x)=\inf \{t>0\mid x\in tX\}\), where the infimum of the empty set is understood as \(\infty \).
Minkowski functionals, sometimes also called gauge, are a central and exhaustively studied notion in convex geometry, see, e.g., [19, p. 34] or [18, p. 28].
We list some basic properties whose proof can be found in the mentioned textbooks.
 1.
\(\mu _{X}(px)=p\mu _{X}(x)\) for \(x\in \mathbb R^n,p\ge 0\),
 2.
\(\mu _{X}(x+y)\le \mu _{X}(x)+\mu _{X}(y)\) for \(x,y\in \mathbb R^n\),
 3.
\(\mu _{X\cap Y}(x)=\max \{\mu _{X}(x),\mu _{Y}(x)\}\) for \(x\in \mathbb R^n\).
 4.
If X is bounded, then \(\mu _{X}(x)=0\) if and only if \(x=0\).
The set X can almost be recovered from \(\mu _{X}\).
 5.
\({\displaystyle \{x\in \mathbb R^n\mid \mu _{X}(x)<1\}\subseteq X\subseteq \{x\in \mathbb R^n\mid \mu _{X}(x)\le 1\}}\).
 6.
If X is closed, equality holds in the second inclusion of 5.
 7.
Let X, Y be closed. Then \(X\subseteq Y\) if and only if \(\mu _{X}\ge \mu _{Y}\).
Example 4.4
Another illustrative example is given by general pyramids in a euclidean space. This example will play an important role later on.
Example 4.5
The linear map given by the diagonal matrix made up of the \(\alpha _j\)’s induces a bijection of X onto \(\varDelta ^n\), and maps the \(y_j\)’s to the corner points of \(\varDelta ^n\). Hence, X is free with basis \(\{y_1,\ldots ,y_n\}\).
Now we return to the functor \(\widehat{F}\).
Lemma 4.6
In the following we use the elementary fact that every convex map has a linear extension.
Lemma 4.7
Let \(V_1,V_2\) be vector spaces, let \(X\subseteq V_1\) be a \(\mathtt {PCA}\), and let \(c:X\rightarrow V_2\) be a convex map. Then c has a linear extension \(\tilde{c}:V_1\rightarrow V_2\). If \({{\mathrm{span}}}\, X=V_1\), this extension is unique.
Rescaling in this representation of \(\widehat{F}X\) leads to a characterisation of \(\widehat{F}\)coalgebra maps. We give a slightly more general statement.
Corollary 4.8
5 An Extension Theorem for \(\widehat{F}\)coalgebras
In this section we establish an extension theorem for \(\widehat{F}\)coalgebras. It states that an \(\widehat{F}\)coalgebra, whose carrier has a particular geometric form, can, under a mild additional condition, be embedded into an \(\widehat{F}\)coalgebra whose carrier is free and finitely generated.
Theorem 5.1
Existence of Y can be established by applying a fixed point principle for setvalued maps. The result sufficient for our present level of generality is Kakutani’s generalisation [12, Corollary] of Brouwers fixed point theorem.
6 Properness of \(\widehat{F}\)
In this section we give the second main result of the paper.
Theorem 6.1
The functor \(\widehat{F}\) is proper.
In fact, for each two given coalgebras with free finitely generated carrier and each two elements having the same trace, a zigzag with free and finitely generated nodes relating those elements can be found, which has three intermediate nodes with the middle one forming a span.
The substitute for \(Z\cap (\varDelta ^{n_1}\times \varDelta ^{n_2})\) suitable for proceeding one step further is given by the following lemma, where we tacitly identify \(\mathbb R^{n_1}\times \mathbb R^{n_2}\) with \(\mathbb R^{n_1+n_2}\).
Lemma 6.2
We have \(d(Z\cap 2\varDelta ^{n_1+n_2})\subseteq \widehat{F}(Z\cap 2\varDelta ^{n_1+n_2})\).
This shows that \(Z\cap 2\varDelta ^{n_1+n_2}\) becomes an \(\widehat{F}\)coalgebra with the restriction of d. Still, we cannot return to the usual line of argument: it is not granted that \(\pi _j(Z\cap 2\varDelta ^{n_1+n_2})\subseteq \varDelta ^{n_j}\). This forces us to introduce additional nodes to produce a zigzag in \(\mathsf{Coalg}({\widehat{F}})\). These additional nodes are given by the following lemma. There \({{\mathrm{co}}}( )\) denotes the convex hull.
Lemma 6.3
Set \(Y_j={{\mathrm{co}}}(\varDelta ^{n_j}\cup \pi _j(Z\cap 2\varDelta ^{n_1+n_2}))\). Then \(\tilde{c}_j(Y_j)\subseteq \widehat{F}Y_j\).
Using Minkowski’s Theorem and the argument from [24, Lemma B.8] shows that the middle node has finitely generated carrier. The two nodes with incoming arrows are, as convex hulls of two finitely generated \(\mathtt {PCA}\)s, of course also finitely generated. But in general they will not be free (and this is essential, remember Remark 2.2). Now Theorem 5.1 comes into play.
Lemma 6.4
Lemma 6.5
Corollary 6.6
Let \((\varDelta ^n,c)\) be an \(\widehat{F}\)coalgebra. Then there exists \(k\le n\), an \(\widehat{F}\)coalgebra \((\varDelta ^k,g)\), such that \((\varDelta ^k,g)\) satisfies the assumption in Lemma 6.4 and such that there exists an \(\widehat{F}\)coalgebra map f of \((\varDelta ^n,c)\) onto \((\varDelta ^k,g)\).
Footnotes
Notes
Acknowledgements
We thank the anonymous reviewers for many valuable comments, in particular for reminding us of a categorical property that shortened the proof of the extension lemma.
References
 1.Béal, M.P., Lombardy, S., Sakarovitch, J.: On the equivalence of \({\mathbb{Z}}\)automata. In: Caires, L., Italiano, G.F., Monteiro, L., Palamidessi, C., Yung, M. (eds.) ICALP 2005. LNCS, vol. 3580, pp. 397–409. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/11523468_33CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 2.Béal, M.P., Lombardy, S., Sakarovitch, J.: Conjugacy and equivalence of weighted automata and functional transducers. In: Grigoriev, D., Harrison, J., Hirsch, E.A. (eds.) CSR 2006. LNCS, vol. 3967, pp. 58–69. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/11753728_9CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 3.Bloom, S.L., Ésik, Z.: Iteration Theories  The Equational Logic of Iterative Processes. EATCS Monographs on Theoretical Computer Science. Springer, Heidelberg (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/9783642780349CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 4.Bonsangue, M.M., Milius, S., Silva, A.: Sound and complete axiomatizations of coalgebraic language equivalence. CoRR abs/1104.2803 (2011)Google Scholar
 5.Doberkat, E.E.: EilenbergMoore algebras for stochastic relations. Inf. Comput. 204(12), 1756–1781 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ic.2006.09.001MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 6.Doberkat, E.E.: Erratum and addendum: EilenbergMoore algebras for stochastic relations. Inf. Comput. 206(12), 1476–1484 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ic.2008.08.002. [mr2277336]CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 7.Ésik, Z., Kuich, W.: A generation of Kozen’s Axiomatization of the equational theory of the regular sets. In: Words, Semigroups, and Transductions  Festschrift in Honor of Gabriel Thierrin, pp. 99–114 (2001)Google Scholar
 8.Ésik, Z., Maletti, A.: Simulation vs. equivalence. In: Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on Foundations of Computer Science, FCS 2010, 12–15 July 2010, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, pp. 119–124 (2010)Google Scholar
 9.Jacobs, B.: Introduction to Coalgebra: Towards Mathematics of States and Observation. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 59. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2016). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316823187CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 10.Jacobs, B., Silva, A., Sokolova, A.: Trace semantics via determinization. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 81(5), 859–879 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 11.Jacobs, B., Rutten, J.: A tutorial on (co)algebras and (co)induction. Bull. EATCS 62, 222–259 (1996)MATHGoogle Scholar
 12.Kakutani, S.: A generalization of Brouwer’s fixed point theorem. Duke Math. J. 8, 457–459 (1941). http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.dmj/1077492791MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 13.Kurz, A.: Logics for coalgebras and applications to computer science. Ph.D. thesis, LudwigMaximiliansUniversität München (2000)Google Scholar
 14.Mac Lane, S.: Categories for the Working Mathematician. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 5, 2nd edn. Springer, New York (1998)MATHGoogle Scholar
 15.Manes, E., Mulry, P.: Monad compositions I. General constructions and recursive distributive laws. Theor. Appl. Categ. 18(7), 172–208 (2007)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 16.Milius, S.: Proper functors and their rational fixed point. In: 7th Conference on Algebra and Coalgebra in Computer Science, CALCO 2017, 12–16 June 2017, Ljubljana, Slovenia, pp. 18:1–18:16 (2017). https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.CALCO.2017.18
 17.Pumplün, D.: Regularly ordered Banach spaces and positively convex spaces. Res. Math. 7(1), 85–112 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03322493MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 18.Rockafellar, R.T.: Convex Analysis. Princeton Mathematical Series, vol. 28. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 19.Rudin, W.: Functional Analysis. International Series in Pure and Applied Mathematics, 2nd edn. McGrawHill Inc., New York (1991)MATHGoogle Scholar
 20.Rutten, J.: Universal coalgebra: a theory of systems. Theor. Comput. Sci. 249, 3–80 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 21.Silva, A.: Kleene coalgebra. Ph.D. thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen (2010)Google Scholar
 22.Silva, A., Bonchi, F., Bonsangue, M., Rutten, J.: Generalizing the powerset construction, coalgebraically. In: Proceedings of FSTTCS 2010. Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), vol. 8, pp. 272–283 (2010)Google Scholar
 23.Silva, A., Sokolova, A.: Sound and complete axiomatization of trace semantics for probabilistic systems. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 276, 291–311 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcs.2011.09.027MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 24.Sokolova, A., Woracek, H.: Proper semirings and proper convex functors. arXiv 1802.07830 (2018). https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.07830
 25.Staton, S.: Relating coalgebraic notions of bisimulation. Log. Methods Comput. Sci. 7(1), 1–21 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 26.Wolter, U.: On corelations, cokernels, and coequations. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 33, 317–336 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copyright information
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this book are included in the book's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the book's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.