\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}

Following~\cite{pis3}, we further pursue the goal of an axiomatization of the category of categories
based on the comprehensive factorization system (cfs for short).
Here, the emphasis is on the simultaneous consideration of both the cfs's ${\cal(E,M)}$ and ${\cal(E',M')}$ on $\Cat$,
where $\E$ ($\E'$) is the class of final (initial) functors and $\M$ ($\M'$) is the class of discrete
(op)fibrations.
Rather than on the duality functor $\Cat\to \Cat$, we rest on the following ``reciprocal stability" property:
{\em the pullback of an initial (final) functor along a discrete (op)fibration is itself initial (final)}
(Proposition~\ref{4}).

A ``balanced factorization category" is a finitely complete category $\C$ with two factorization systems
on it, which are reciprocally stable in the above sense and generate the same subcategory of ``internal sets":
$\S:=\M\!/1=\M'\!/1\hookrightarrow\C$.
It turns out that these simple axioms are remarkably powerful, allowing to develop within $\C$
some important aspects of category theory in an effective and transparent way.

In particular, the reflection of an object $X\in\C$ in $\S$ gives the internal set of components $\pi_0 X\in\S$,
while the reflections of a ``point" $x:1\to X$ in $\M\!/\! X$ and $\M'\!/\! X$ are the slice $X/x$ and the coslice $x\backslash X$,
with their maps to $X$.
One can define two functors $\C\to\Cat$, which on $X\in\C$ give the ``underlying" categories
$\overline X(x,y):=\C\!/\! X(X/x,X/y)$ and $\overline X'(x,y):=\C\!/\! X(x\backslash X,y\backslash X)$.
Furthermore, if $X[x,y]:= x\backslash X \times_X X/y$, the internal set $X(x,y):=\pi_0 X[x,y]$
enriches both $\overline X(x,y)$ and $\overline X'(y,x)$.
Also composition in $\overline X$ and $\overline X'$ can be enriched to a natural ``symmetrical"
composition map $X(x,y)\times X(y,z)\to X(x,z)$, and it follows in particular that the underlying categories are dual.

In fact, the term ``balanced" is intended to reflect the fact that the objects of $\C$ carry two dual
underlying categories, coexisting on the same level.
It is the choice of one of the two factorization systems which determines one of them as ``preferred":
in fact, we will make only terminologically such a choice, by calling ``final" (``initial") the maps in $\E$ ($\E'$)
and ``discrete fibrations" (``opfibrations") those in $\M$ ($\M'$).
For example, we will see that the underlying functor $\C\to\Cat$ determined by ${\cal(E,M)}$ preserves discrete fibrations
and opfibrations, final and initial points, slices and coslices and left and right adjunctible maps,
while the other one reverses them.

The structure of balanced factorization category also supports the notion of
``balanced" cylinder and ``balanced" homotopy.
In particular, for any $x,y:1\to X$ we have a cylinder (see ~\cite{law94})
\[ \xymatrix@R=4pc{ X(x,y)\ar@<.5ex>[r]^i\ar@<-.5ex>[r]_e & X[x,y] \ar[r]^c &  X(x,y) } \]
with $i\in\E'$, $e\in\E$ and $c\in\E\cap\E'$,
and pulling back along an element of $\alpha:1\to X(x,y)$ (corresponding to an arrow $x\to y$ as defined above)
we get the ``arrow interval" $[\alpha]$:
\[ \xymatrix@R=4pc{ 1\ar@<.5ex>[r]^i\ar@<-.5ex>[r]_e & [\alpha] } \]
which in $\Cat$ is the category of factorizations of $\alpha$ with the two factorizations through identities.

Another consequence of the axioms is the following exponential law (Proposition~\ref{78}):
if $m\in\M\!/\! X$, $n\in\M'\!/\! X$ and the exponential $n^m$ exists in $\C\!/\! X$, then it is in $\M'\!/\! X$.
As a consequence, if $m\in\M\!/\! X$ has a ``complement" (see~\cite{pis} and~\cite{pis2}):
\[ \neg m : \S \to \C\!/\! X \quad\quad S\mapsto (S\times X)^m \]
then it is valued in $\M'\!/\! X$ (and conversely).
In the balanced factorization category of posets (see Section~\ref{ex}), the internal sets are the truth values
and the above enrichment gives the standard identification of posets with $2$-categories,
while the complement operator becomes the usual (classical) one, relating upper-sets and lower-sets.

\section{Some categorical notions}
\label{cat}

We here stress some properties of $\Cat$ and of the comprehensive factorization systems ${\cal(E,M)}$ and ${\cal(E',M')}$,
on which we will model the abstraction of Sections~\ref{emcat} and~\ref{bal}.

\subsection{Slices and intervals}

Recall that given two functors $p:P\to X$ and $q:Q\to X$, the map (or ``comma") construction $(p,q)$
yields as particular cases the slices $X/x=(\id,x)$ or coslices $x\backslash X=(x,\id)$, for any object $x:1\to X$.
More generally, $p/x=(p,x)$ and $x\backslash q=(x,q)$ can be obtained as the pullbacks
\begin{equation}   \label{1}
\xymatrix@R=4pc@C=4pc{
p/x \ar[r]\ar[d]  & X/x \ar[d] \\
P  \ar[r]^p       & X          }
\quad\quad\qq
\xymatrix@R=4pc@C=4pc{
x\backslash q \ar[r]\ar[d]  & x\backslash X \ar[d] \\
Q  \ar[r]^q       & X          }
\end{equation}
In particular, the pullback
\begin{equation}   \label{2}
\xymatrix@R=4pc@C=4pc{
[x,y] \ar[r]\ar[d]  & X/y \ar[d] \\
x\backslash X  \ar[r]      & X          }
\end{equation}
is the category of factorizations between $x$ and $y$, which has as objects consecutive arrows
$\beta:x\to z$ and $\gamma:z\to y$ in $X$, and as arrows the diagonals $\delta$ as below:
\begin{equation}  \label{3}
\xymatrix@R=3.5pc@C=3.5pc{
x \ar[r]^{\beta'}\ar[d]_\beta &  z' \ar[d]^{\gamma'} \\
z \ar[r]^\gamma\ar[ur]^\delta &  y           }
\end{equation}
Applying the components functor $\pi_0:\Cat\to\Set$ we get $\pi_0[x,y]=X(x,y)$.
Indeed $[x,y]$ is the sum $\sum[\alpha], \alpha:x\to y$, where $[\alpha]$ is the ``interval category" of
factorizations of $\alpha$; $\alpha=\gamma\beta$ is an initial (terminal) object of $[\alpha]$
iff $\beta$ ($\gamma$) is an isomorphism.

For any functor $f:X\to Y$ and any $x\in X$, there is an obvious ``slice functor" of $f$ at $x$:
\begin{equation}   \label{3b}
e_{f,x}:X/x\to Y/fx
\end{equation}

\subsection{The comprehensive factorization systems}

Recall that a functor is a discrete fibration if it is orthogonal to the codomain functor $t:1\to 2$,
or, equivalently, if the object mapping of the slice functor $e_{f,x}$ is bijective, for any $x\in X$.
A functor $p:P\to X$ is final if $\pi_0(x\backslash p)=1$ for any $x\in X$.
For example, an object $e:1\to X$ is final iff it is terminal ($\pi_0(x\backslash e)=\pi_0 X(x,e)=\pi_0 1=1$),
the identity (or any isomorphism) $X\to X$ is final ($\pi_0(x\backslash\id)=\pi_0(x\backslash X)=1$, since $x\backslash X$ has an
initial object and so it is connected) and $!:X\to 1$ is final iff $X$ is connected ($\pi_0(0\backslash !)=\pi_0(X)=1$).

Final functors and discrete fibrations form the ``left" comprehensive factorization system ${\cal(E,M)}$
on $\Cat$, which is in fact the (pre)factorization system generated by $t$.
Since any ${\cal(E,M)}$-factorization gives a reflection in $\M\!/\! X$ (see Section~\ref{emcat}) we have
a left adjoint $\downarrow\!\!_X\dashv i_X$ to the full inclusion of $\M\!/\! X\,\simeq\,\Set^{X\op}$ in $\Cat\!/\! X$.
The ``reflection formula" (see~\cite{pis} and~\cite{pis2}, and the references therein)
\begin{equation}   \label{3a}
(\downarrow\!\! p)x \,\cong\, \pi_0(x\backslash p)
\end{equation}
gives its value at $x$.
Dually, the domain functor $s:1\to 2$ generates the ``right" cfs ${\cal(E',M')}$: initial functors and discrete opfibrations
(this is the cfs originally considered in~\cite{stw73}).

In particular, the reflection of an object $x:1\to X$ in $\M\!/\! X$ is the slice projection $\downarrow\!\! x:X/x\to X$
(corresponding to the representable presheaf $X(-,x)$) and the universal property of the reflection
reduces to the (discrete fibration version of the) Yoneda Lemma.
So, a functor to $X$ is isomorphic in $\Cat\!/\! X$ to the slice projection $X/x\to X$ iff it is a discrete fibration
whose domain has a terminal object over $x$.
Dually, if $\uparrow\!\!_X\dashv j_X:\M'\!/\! X\to\Cat$ is the reflection in discrete opfibrations, $\uparrow\!\! x:x\backslash X\to X$
in $\M'\!/\! X$ is the coslice projection.

On the other hand, the reflection of $X\to 1$ in $\M\!/1$ gives the components of $X$,
that is, $\downarrow\!\!_1 : \Cat/1\,\cong\,\Cat \to \M\!/1 \,\simeq\, \Set$ can be identified with the components functor $\pi_0$.
The same of course holds for $\uparrow\!\!_1 : \Cat \to \M'\!/1 \,\simeq\, \Set$.
\begin{prop}    \label{4}
The pullback of an initial (final) functor along a discrete (op)fibration is itself initial (final).
\end{prop}
\pf
The two statements are clearly dual.
If in the diagram below $q$ is final, $f$ is a discrete opfibration, both squares are pullbacks
and $x = \downarrow\!\! x\circ i$ is a ${\cal(E',M')}$-factorization of $x:1\to X$,
\begin{equation}  \label{5}
\xymatrix@R=4pc@C=4pc{
          & x\backslash p \ar[r]\ar[d]      & P \ar[r]\ar[d]_p &  Q \ar[d]^q \\
1\ar[r]^i & x\backslash X \ar[r]^{\uparrow\!\!\,\,x} & X \ar[r]^f       &  Y           }
\end{equation}
we want to show that $x\backslash p$ is connected.
Since $f\circ\uparrow\!\! x$ is a discrete opfibration whose domain has an initial object,
it is a coslice of $Y$: $x\backslash X\,\cong\, fx\backslash Y$ ($fx = (f\circ\!\downarrow\!\! x)\circ i$ is a ${\cal(E',M')}$-factorization);
then the vertex of the pullback rectangle is $x\backslash p\,\cong\, fx\backslash q$, which is connected by hypothesis.
\epf

\section{${\cal(E,M)}$-categories and ${\cal(E,M)}$ category theory}
\label{emcat}

Throughout the section, $\C$ will be an ${\cal(E,M)}$-category, that is a finitely complete category with
a factorization system on it.

\subsection{Factorization systems and (co)reflections}
\label{fact}

For a brief survey on factorization systems and the associated bifibrations on $\C$
we refer also to~\cite{pis3}.
We just recall that an ${\cal(E,M)}$-factorization of a map $f:X\to Y$ in $\C$
\[
\xymatrix@R=3pc@C=3pc{
X  \ar[r]^e\ar[dr]_f  & Z \ar[d]^m \\
                      & Y           }
\]
gives both a reflection of $f\in\C\!/Y$ in $\M\!/Y$ (with $e$ as reflection map) and a coreflection
of $f\in X\backslash\C$ in $X\backslash\E$ (with $m$ as coreflection map).
Conversely, any such (co)reflection map gives an ${\cal(E,M)}$-factorization.

This can be restated in terms of arrow intervals: say that $f=hg$ is a left (right) point
of $[f]$ if $g$ ($h$) is in $\E$ ($\M$).
Then by orthogonality there is a unique map in $[f]$ from any left point to any right one,
and an ${\cal(E,M)}$-factorization of $f$ is a ``middle point" of the interval $[f]$:
it is final among left points and initial among right ones.

The above point of view may be reinforced by geometrical intuition (as discussed at length in~\cite{pis3}).
A map $f:X\to Y$ is a figure in $Y$ of shape $X$ (or a cofigure of $X$ in $Y$).
A left point of $[f]$ factorizes the figure
through an ``infinitesimal modification" of $X$, while a right point factorizes it through
a ``local aspect" of $Y$.
The middle point of the interval $[f]$
\[
\xymatrix@R=3pc@C=3pc{
X  \ar[r]^{e_f} & N(f) \ar[r]^{m_f} & Y }
\]
factorizes the figure through its ``neighborhood" $N(f)$.
If monic maps are concerned, a left point is an ``infinitesimal enlargement" of $X$
with respect to the embedding $f$ in $Y$, while a right point is an ``open" part of $Y$ which contains $f$.
Then the (infinitesimal) neighborhood $N(f)$ is  both the smallest open part of $Y$
containing $f$ and the biggest infinitesimal enlargement of $X$ with respect to $f$.
In this vein, maps $m:X\to Y$ in $\M$ are characterized as ``local homeomorphisms"
(if $t:T\to X$ is a figure of $X$, then $m\circ m_t:N(t)\to Y$ gives the neighborhood $N(mt)\to Y$);
on the other hand, maps $e:X\to Y$ in $\E$ preserve ``global aspects":
if $h:Y\to Z$ is a cofigure of $Y$ and $e_h$ is the corresponding maximal infinitesimal enlargement of $Y$ in $Z$,
then $e_h\circ e$ is a maximal ``infinitesimal enlargement" $X\to N(he)$ of $X$ in $Z$.

However, our intuition of ``infinitesimal modification" should be broad enough to include, say,
the dense inclusion of a part of a topological space in another one, and also
the reflection map of a space in its set of components $X\to\pi_0 X$.
For example, if $\C=\Cat$, components are one of the ``global aspects" preserved (in the above sense)
by final functors.

\subsection{${\cal(E,M)}$ category theory}
\label{emct}

We now define and analyze several ${\cal(E,M)}$-concepts, which assume their usual meaning when $\C=\Cat$
with the left comprehensive factorization system  (see also~\cite{pis3}, where the same topics
are treated in a slightly different way, and other classical theorems are proved).
We say that a map $e\in\E$ is {\bf final}, while a map $m\in\M$ is a {\bf discrete fibration} (df).

We assume that a ``canonical" factorization of any arrow in $\C$ has been fixed,
and denote by $\downarrow\!\!_X\dashv i_X$ the corresponding left adjoint to the full inclusion $i_X:\M\!/\! X\hookrightarrow\C\!/\! X$.

\subsection{Sets and components}

If $S\to 1$ is a discrete fibration, we say that $S$ is an {\bf internal set} or also a {\bf $\C$-set}
(or simply a set) and we denote by $\S := \M\!/1\hookrightarrow\C$ the reflective full subcategory of $\C$-sets;
$\S$ is closed with respect to limits in $\C$, and so is itself finitely complete.
The reflection $\pi_0:=\,\,\downarrow\!\!_1:\C\to\S$ is the {\bf components} functor.
So a final map $e:X\to S$ to a set, that is a factorization of the terminal map $X\to 1$,
gives the set $S \,\cong\, \pi_0 X$ of components of $X$, with the following universal property:

\begin{equation}   \label{6}
\xymatrix@R=3pc@C=3pc{
X \ar[r]^e\ar[dr]\ar@/^1.5pc/[rr]  & S \ar[d]^m \ar@{..>}[r] & S' \ar[dl]^n \\
                                   & 1                       &               }
\end{equation}
That is, $\pi_0 X$ is initial among {\em sets} with a map from $X$ and,
as remarked in Section~\ref{fact}, it is also final among objects with a {\em final} map from $X$.
In particular, a space $X$ is {\bf connected} ($\pi_0 X \,\cong\, 1$) iff $X\to 1$  is final,
iff any map to a set is constant.

\subsection{Slices}

The other important particular case is the reflection $\downarrow\!\! x$ of a ``point" (global element) $x:1\to X$,
which is obtained by factorizing the point itself:
\[
\xymatrix@R=3pc@C=3pc{
1  \ar[r]^{e_x}\ar[dr]_x  & X/x \ar[d]^{\downarrow\!\!\,\, x} \\
                          & X                     }
\]
We say that $X/x = N(x)$ is the {\bf slice} of $X$ at $x$ (or the ``neighborhood" of $x$, as in
Section~\ref{fact} and in~\cite{pis3}).
The corresponding universal property is the following:
\begin{equation}   \label{7}
\xymatrix@R=3pc@C=3pc{
1 \ar[r]^{e_x}\ar[dr]_x\ar@/^1.5pc/[rr]^a & X/x \ar[d]^{\downarrow\!\!\,\, x} \ar@{..>}[r]^u & A \ar[dl]^m \\
                                          & X                                       &               }
\end{equation}
which in $\Cat$ becomes the Yoneda Lemma:
given a discrete fibration $m:A\to X$ and an object $a$ of $A$ over $X$, there is a unique factorization $a=ue_x$
over $X$ through the ``universal element" $e_x$.
Note that $u$ is a discrete fibration too, and so displays $X/x$ as a slice $A/a$ of $A$.

\subsection{Cones and arrows}

Given a map $p:P\to X$ and a point $x$ of $X$, a {\bf cone} $\gamma:p\to x$ is
a map over $X$ from $p$ to the slice $X/x$:
\[
\xymatrix@R=3pc@C=3pc{
P  \ar[r]^\gamma\ar[dr]_p  & X/x \ar[d]^{\downarrow\!\!\,\, x} \\
                           & X                        }
\]
A cone $\lambda:p\to x$ is {\bf colimiting} if it is universal among cones with domain $p$:
\begin{equation}   \label{9}
\xymatrix@R=3pc@C=3pc{
P \ar[r]^\lambda\ar[dr]_p\ar@/^1.5pc/[rr]^\gamma & X/x \ar[d]^{\downarrow\!\!\,\, x} \ar@{..>}[r]^u & X/y \ar[dl]^{\downarrow\!\!\,\, y} \\
                                                 & X                                       &               }
\end{equation}
That is, a colimiting cone gives a reflection of $p$ in the full subcategory $\overline X\hookrightarrow\M\!/\! X$
generated by the slices of $X$ (the {\bf underlying category} of $X$).
If $\gamma:p\to x$ is final, it is an {\bf absolute} colimiting cone.
Note that $\gamma$ is indeed colimiting, since it gives a reflection of $p$ in $\M\!/\! X$.

If $P=1$, a cone $\alpha:x\to y$ is an {\bf arrow} from $x$ to $y$:
\[
\xymatrix@R=3pc@C=3pc{
1 \ar[r]^\alpha\ar[dr]_x  & X/y \ar[d]^{\downarrow\!\!\,\, y} \\
                          & X                        }
\]
Arrows can be composed via the Kleisli construction:
if $\alpha:x\to y$, $\beta:y\to z$ and $\widehat\beta$ is universally defined by the left hand diagram below,
then $\beta\circ\alpha$ is given by the right hand diagram:
\begin{equation}   \label{10}
\xymatrix@R=3pc@C=3pc{
1 \ar[r]|{e_y}\ar[dr]_y\ar@/^1.5pc/[rr]^\beta & X/y \ar[d]^{\downarrow\!\!\,\,y} \ar[r]|{\widehat\beta} & X/z \ar[dl]^{\downarrow\!\!\,\,z} \\
                                              & X                                          &               }
\quad\quad\qq
\xymatrix@R=3pc@C=3pc{
1 \ar[r]|\alpha\ar[dr]_x\ar@/^1.5pc/[rr]^{\beta\,\circ\,\alpha} & X/y \ar[d]^{\downarrow\!\!\,\,y} \ar[r]|{\widehat\beta} & X/z \ar[dl]^{\downarrow\!\!\,\,z} \\
                                                                & X                                          &               }
\end{equation}
We so get a category which is clearly isomorphic to the underlying category $\overline X$, and which
we will be identified with it whenever opportune.
Note that the identities $e_x$ are fixed by the choice of a ``canonical" ${\cal(E,M)}$-factorization of points.
An arrow $\alpha:x\to y$ is colimiting iff it is absolutely so, iff it is an isomorphism in $\overline X$.

If $\,\downarrow\!\! p:N(p)\to X$ is the reflection of $p:P\to X$ in $\M\!/\! X$, the reflection map $e_p$ induces
a bijection between cones $p\to x$ and cones $\downarrow\!\! p\to x$, which is easily seen to restrict to
a bijection between the colimiting ones:
\begin{equation}   \label{11}
\xymatrix@R=3pc@C=3pc{
            &                   & X/y\ar@/^.5pc/[ddl]|<<<<<<<<<<{\downarrow\!\!\,\,y}       \\
P \ar[r]|{e_p}\ar[dr]_p\ar[rru] & N(p)\ar[ru]\ar[d]^{\downarrow\!\!\,\,p} \ar[r]|\lambda
& X/x \ar@{..>}[u]_u\ar[dl]^{\downarrow\!\!\,\,x} \\
            & X                                 &               }
\end{equation}
\begin{prop}    \label{12}
If $\,e:T\to P$ is a final map and $p:P\to X$, then a cone $\lambda:p\to x$ is colimiting,
iff $\,\lambda\circ e:p\circ e\to x$ is colimiting.
\end{prop}
\pf
Since $e_p\circ e: p\circ e \to\,\downarrow\!\! p$ is a reflection map of $p\circ e$ in $\M\!/\! X$,
by the above remark, $\lambda=\lambda'\circ e_p$ is colimiting iff $\lambda'$ is colimiting,
iff $\lambda'\circ e_p\circ e$ is colimiting.
\begin{equation}   \label{13}
\xymatrix@R=3pc@C=3pc{
T\ar[r]|e & P\ar[r]|{e_p}\ar[dr]_p & N(p)\ar[d]^{\downarrow\!\!\,\,p} \ar[r]|{\lambda'} & X/x \ar[dl]^{\downarrow\!\!\,\,x} \\
          &                        & X                                         &               }
\end{equation}
\epf

\subsection{Arrow maps}

A map $f:X\to Y$ in $\C$ acts on cones and arrows via an induced map between slices as follows (see~(\ref{3b})).
By factorizing $f\circ\downarrow\!\! x$ as in the left hand diagram below, we get a df over $Y$ with a final point
over $fx$. Then there is a (unique) isomorphism $A\to Y/fx$ over $Y$ which respects the selected final points.
By composition, we get the right square below. Its upper edge $e_{f,x}$, which takes the final point of $X/x$
to that of $Y/fx$, is the {\bf arrow map} (or {\bf slice map}) of $f$ (at $x$):
\begin{equation}   \label{14}
\xymatrix@R=4pc@C=3pc{
1 \ar[r]^{e_x}\ar[dr]_x & X/x \ar[r]^e\ar[d]^{\downarrow\!\!\,\,x}  & A \ar[d]^m\ar[r]^\sim & Y/fx \ar[ld]^{\downarrow\!\!\,\,fx}   \\
                        & X   \ar[r]^f                     & Y                     &                              }
\quad\quad\qq
\xymatrix@R=4pc@C=4pc{
X/x \ar[r]^{e_{f,x}}\ar[d]^{\downarrow\!\!\,\, x} & Y/fx \ar[d]^{\downarrow\!\!\,\,fx} \\
X   \ar[r]^f                             & Y                         }
\end{equation}
Note that $e_{f,x}$ is uniquely characterized, among final maps $X/x\to Y/fx$, by the equation $e_{f,x}\circ e_x = e_{fx}$.
Indeed, given another such $e'_{f,x}$, the dotted arrow induced among the ${\cal(E,M)}$-factorizations
is the identity, since it takes the ``universal point" $e_{fx}$ to itself:
\begin{equation}    \label{15}
\xymatrix@R=4pc@C=4pc{
&                                         &                                        & Y/fx\ar[ddl]^{\downarrow\!\!\,\,fx} \\
1\ar[r]^{e_x} & X/x \ar[r]^{e_{f,x}}\ar[urr]^{e'_{f,x}}\ar[d]^{\downarrow\!\!\,\, x} & Y/fx \ar[d]^{\downarrow\!\!\,\,fx}\ar@{..>}[ur] & \\
& X   \ar[r]^f                             & Y                                      &      }
\end{equation}

The arrow map of $f$ acts by composition on cones: it takes $\gamma:p\to x$ to its ``image cone" $f\gamma:fp\to fx$:
\begin{equation}   \label{16}
\xymatrix@R=4pc@C=4pc{
P \ar[r]^\gamma\ar[dr]_p\ar@/^1.5pc/[rr]^{f\gamma} & X/x \ar[r]^{e_{f,x}}\ar[d]^{\downarrow\!\!\,\, x} & Y/fx \ar[d]^{\downarrow\!\!\,\,fx} \\
                                                   & X   \ar[r]^f                             & Y                         }
\end{equation}
which has the usual meaning in $\Cat$.
\begin{prop}    \label{17}
An absolute colimiting cone is preserved by any map.
\end{prop}
\pf
If in the diagram above $\gamma$ is final, so is also $f\gamma$.
\epf

\subsection{The underlying functor}

In particular, $f$ induces a mapping between arrows $x\to x'$ of $X$ and arrows $fx\to fx'$ of $Y$, which
preserves identities.
In fact, it is the arrow mapping of a functor $\overline f:\overline X\to\overline Y$: since in the left hand diagram below $e_{f,x}$
is final, there is a uniquely induced dotted arrow $u$ (over $Y$) which makes the upper square commute.
So,
\[ u\circ e_{fx} = u\circ e_{f,x}\circ e_x = e_{f,x'}\circ\widehat\alpha\circ e_x = e_{f,x'}\circ\alpha = f\alpha \]
Thus, $u = \widehat{f\alpha}$ and the right hand square commutes, showing that composition is preserved too.
\begin{equation}     \label{18}
\xymatrix@R=3pc@C=3pc{
X/x \ar@/_1.5pc/[dd] \ar[d]_{\widehat\alpha}\ar[r]^{e_{f,x}} & Y/fx \ar@{..>}[d]^u \ar@/^1.5pc/[dd]   \\
X/x' \ar[d]\ar[r]^{e_{f,x'}}                                 & Y/fx' \ar[d]                         \\
X  \ar[r]^f                                                  & Y                                     }
\quad\quad\qq
\xymatrix@R=3pc@C=3pc{
X/x \ar[d]_{\widehat\alpha}\ar[r]^{e_{f,x}} & Y/fx \ar[d]^{\widehat{f\alpha}}  \\
X/x'\ar[r]^{e_{f,x'}}                       & Y/fx'                            }
\end{equation}
Furthermore, $e_{g,fx}\circ e_{f,x} = e_{gf,x}$ (since $e_{g,fx}\circ e_{f,x}\circ e_x = e_{g,fx}\circ e_{fx} = e_{gfx}$),
\begin{equation}     \label{18a}
\xymatrix@R=4pc@C=4pc{
X/x \ar[r]^{e_{f,x}}\ar@/^1.5pc/[rr]^{e_{gf,x}}\ar[d]^{\downarrow\!\!\,\, x} & Y/fx \ar[r]^{e_{g,fx}}\ar[d]^{\downarrow\!\!\,\,fx} & Z/gfx \ar[d]^{\downarrow\!\!\,\,gfx}\\
X   \ar[r]^f                                                        & Y    \ar[r]^g                              & Z                          }
\end{equation}
so that $\overline{g\circ f} = \overline g\circ\overline f$, and we get the {\bf underlying functor} $\overline{(-)}:\C\to\Cat$.
\begin{prop}    \label{18b}
The underlying functor preserves the terminal object, sets, slices and discrete fibrations.
\end{prop}
\pf
The fact that $\overline 1$ is the terminal category is immediate.
For any final point $t:1\to X$ in $\C$, the slice projection $X/t\to X$ is an isomorphism,
that is a terminal object in $\C\!/\! X$ and so also in $\overline X$.
If $f:X\to Y$ is a df in $\C$, its arrow map at any $x$ is an isomorphism:
\begin{equation}   \label{19}
\xymatrix@R=4pc@C=4pc{
X/x \ar[r]^\sim \ar[d]^{\downarrow\!\!\,\, x}  & Y/fx \ar[d]^{\downarrow\!\!\,\,fx} \\
X   \ar[r]^f                          & Y                         }
\end{equation}
Thus, any arrow $y\to fx$ in $\overline Y$ has a unique lifing along $\overline f$ to an arrow $x'\to x$ in $\overline X$,
that is $\overline f$ is a discrete fibration in $\Cat$.
The remaining statements now follow at once.
\epf
An example in Section~\ref{ex} shows that connected objects (and so also final maps) are not preserved in general.

\subsection{Adjunctible maps}

If the vertex of the pullback square below has a final point, we say that $f$ is {\bf adjunctible} at $y$:
\begin{equation}   \label{20}
\xymatrix@R=3pc@C=3pc{
1 \ar[r]|e\ar[dr]_x\ar@/^1.5pc/[rr]^t & f/y \ar[d]^p \ar[r]|q & Y/y \ar[d]^{\downarrow\!\!\,\,y} \\
                                      & X  \ar[r]^f           & Y                       }
\end{equation}
and that the pair $\langle x , t:fx\to y \rangle$ is a {\bf universal arrow} from $f$ to $y$.
In that case, $f/y$ is (isomorphic to) a slice $X/x$ of $X$.

Suppose that $f:X\to Y$ is adjunctible at any point of $Y$ and denote by $gy:=pe$ the point of $X$
corresponding to (a choice of) the final point $e$, as in the left hand diagram below.
The right hand diagram (whose squares are pullbacks) shows that $g:\C(1,Y)\to\C(1,X)$ can be
extended to a functor $\,\overline g:\overline Y\to\overline X$. (Note that we are not saying that there is a map $g:Y\to X$ in $\C$
which gives $\overline g$ as its underlying map.)
\begin{equation}   \label{21}
\xymatrix@R=3pc@C=3pc{
1 \ar[r]^{e_{gy}}\ar[dr]_{gy} & X/gy \ar[d]^{\downarrow\!\!\,\,gy} \ar[r]^q & Y/y \ar[d]^{\downarrow\!\!\,\,y} \\
                              & X   \ar[r]^f                       & Y                       }
\quad\quad\qq
\xymatrix@R=3pc@C=3pc{
X/gy \ar@/_1.5pc/[dd] \ar@{..>}[d]\ar[r] & Y/y \ar[d] \ar@/^1.5pc/[dd]   \\
X/gy'\ar[d]\ar[r]    & Y/y' \ar[d]                                       \\
X  \ar[r]^f          & Y                                                }
\end{equation}
\begin{prop}    \label{22}
If $f:X\to Y$ is an adjunctible map, then there is an adjunction $\overline f\dashv\overline g:\overline Y\to\overline X$.
\end{prop}
\pf
Suppose that in the left hand diagram below the lower square is a pullback and that $e$ is the arrow map of $f$.
Since $e$ is final, any dotted arrow on the left induces a unique dotted arrow on the right
which makes the upper square (over $Y$) commute.
Since the lower square is a pullback, the converse also holds true.
The bijection is natural, as shown by the diagrams on the right.
\begin{equation}   \label{23}
\xymatrix@R=3pc@C=3pc{
X/x \ar@/_1.5pc/[dd] \ar@{..>}[d]\ar[r]^e & Y/fx \ar@{..>}[d] \ar@/^1.5pc/[dd]   \\
X/gy\ar[d]\ar[r]                          & Y/y \ar[d]                           \\
X  \ar[r]^f                               & Y                                     }
\quad\quad\qq
\xymatrix@R=3pc@C=3pc{
X/x \ar@/_1.5pc/[dd] \ar@{..>}[d]\ar[r]^e & Y/fx \ar@{..>}[d] \ar@/^1.5pc/[dd]   \\
X/gy\ar[d]\ar[r]                          & Y/y \ar[d]                           \\
X/gy'  \ar[r]^f                           & Y/y'                                  }
\quad\quad\qq
\xymatrix@R=3pc@C=3pc{
X/x' \ar@/_1.5pc/[dd] \ar[d]\ar[r]^{e'} & Y/fx' \ar[d] \ar@/^1.5pc/[dd]   \\
X/x  \ar@{..>}[d]\ar[r]^e               & Y/fx \ar@{..>}[d]               \\
X/gy  \ar[r]^f                          & Y/y                              }
\end{equation}
\epf
\begin{corollary}    \label{24}
The underlying functor preserves adjunctible maps.
\end{corollary}
\epf
\begin{remarks}
\begin{enumerate}
\item
Diagram~(\ref{20}) shows that Corollary~\ref{24} would be obvious if, along with slices,
the underlying functor would preserve also pullbacks.
Up to now, the author does not know if this is true in general.
\item
The adjunction of Proposition~\ref{22} is nothing but the adjunction $\exists_f\dashv f^*$
(where $\exists_f:\M\!/\! X\to\M\!/Y$ gives, when $\C=\Cat$, the left Kan extension along $f$),
which for an adjunctible $f$ restricts to $\overline f \dashv \overline g$ (see~\cite{pis3}).
\item
The diagrams below display the unit and the counit of adjunction $\overline f\dashv\overline g$:
\begin{equation}    \label{25}
\xymatrix@R=3pc@C=3pc{
X/gfx \ar[drr]^q\ar[ddr]_{\downarrow\!\!\,\,gfx} \\
           &  X/x \ar@{..>}[ul]|-u\ar[r]|{e_{f,x}}\ar[d]^{\downarrow\!\!\,\, x} & Y/fx \ar[d]^{\downarrow\!\!\,\,fx} \\
           &  X   \ar[r]^f                                             & Y                         }
\quad\quad
\xymatrix@R=3pc@C=3pc{
                                                  &  &  Y/fgy \ar@{..>}[dl]|-v\ar[ddl]^{\downarrow\!\!\,\,fgy} \\
X/gy \ar[r]|q\ar[d]^{\downarrow\!\!\,\,gy}\ar[urr]^{e_{f,gy}} & Y/y \ar[d]^{\downarrow\!\!\,\,y}                        \\
X   \ar[r]^f                                         & Y                                              }
\end{equation}
In $\Cat$, $u$ is the functor $\alpha:x'\to x \quad\mapsto\quad \eta_x\circ\alpha:x'\to gfx$,
and the triangle $e_{x,y} = q\circ u$ reduces to the classical expression of the arrow mapping
of a left adjoint functor via transposition and the unit $\eta$.
Similarly, $v$ is the functor $\beta \mapsto \varepsilon_y\circ\beta$,
and the triangle $q = v\circ e_{f,gy}$ becomes the classical expression of the transposition bijection
of an adjunction via the arrow mapping of the left adjoint functor and the counit $\varepsilon$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{remarks}
\begin{prop}    \label{26}
An adjunctible map $f:X\to Y$ preserves colimits:
if $\lambda:p\to x$ is colimiting, then so is $f\lambda:fp\to fx$.
\end{prop}
\pf
Suppose that $\lambda:p\to x$ is colimiting.
We want to show that $f\lambda$ is colimiting as well, that is any cone $\gamma:fp\to y$
factorizes uniquely through $e_{f,x}\circ\lambda:fp\to fx$.
\begin{equation}   \label{27}
\xymatrix@R=1.5pc@C=1.5pc{
& P \ar[dr]^{f\lambda}\ar@{..>}[dd]|<<<<<u\ar@/^1.5pc/[dddd]|<<<<<<<<<<<<<p\ar[dl]_\lambda\ar@/^2pc/[ddrr]^\gamma  \\
X/x \ar@{..>}[dr]^{u'}\ar[rr]^<<<<<<<{e_{f,x}}\ar[dddr]  & & Y/fx \ar[dddr]\ar@{..>}[dr]^{u''}  \\
& X/gy \ar[rr]^l\ar[dd]        & & Y/y \ar[dd]                \\ \\
& X  \ar[rr]^f                 & & y                            }
\end{equation}
Since the rectangle is a pullback, we have a universally induced cone $u:p\to gy$, and since $\lambda$
is colimiting also $u':X/x\to X/gy$, which by adjunction ($e_{f,x}$ is final) corresponds to a
unique $u'':Y/fx\to Y/y$, which is the desired unique factorization of $\gamma$ through $f\lambda$.
Note that we have followed the same steps of the most obvious classical proof,
but at this abstract level we need not to verify or use any naturality condition.
\epf

\subsection{Dense and fully faithful maps}

If in the pullback below $e$ is colimiting we say that $f$ is {\bf adequate} at $y$:
\begin{equation}   \label{28}
\xymatrix@R=3pc@C=3pc{
 f/y \ar[d]\ar[r]^e & Y/y \ar[d]^{\downarrow\!\!\,\,y} \\
 X  \ar[r]^f        & Y                       }
\end{equation}
while if $e$ is final we say that $f$ {\bf dense}.
Note that in that case $e$ is an absolute colimiting cone
and the diagram above displays at once dense maps as ``absolutely adequate" maps,
as well as ``locally final" maps (see~\cite{dense} for the case $\C=\Cat$, where
a different terminology is used; see also Section~\ref{dense}).

The density condition can be restated as the fact that the counit of the
adjunction $f^*\dashv\exists_f:\M\!/\! X\to\M\!/Y$, that is the uniquely induced arrow $v$
on the left, is an isomorphism on the slices of $Y$:
\begin{equation}     \label{30}
\xymatrix@R=3pc@C=3pc{
                                &  & \exists_f(f/y) \ar@{..>}[dl]|-v\ar[ddl]^{m} \\
f/y \ar[r]|q\ar[d]^p\ar[urr]^e  & Y/y \ar[d]^{\downarrow\!\!\,\,y}                   \\
X   \ar[r]^f                    & Y                                         }
\quad\quad
\xymatrix@R=3pc@C=3pc{
f/fx \ar[drr]^q\ar[ddr]_p                                                                 \\
           &  X/x \ar@{..>}[ul]|-u\ar[r]|{e_{f,x}}\ar[d]^{\downarrow\!\!\,\, x} & Y/fx \ar[d]^{\downarrow\!\!\,\,fx} \\
           &  X   \ar[r]^f                                             & Y                         }
\end{equation}
On the other hand, if the unit $u$ of the same adjunction, that is the uniquely induced arrow $u$
on the right, is an isomorphism on the slice $X/x$, we say that $f$ is {\bf fully faithful} at $x$.
Note that if $f$ is fully faithful at $x$, then $f$ is adjunctible at $fx$.

\section{Balanced factorization categories}
\label{bal}

As shown in the previous section and in~\cite{pis3}, category theory can in part be developed
in any ${\cal(E,M)}$-category.
However, in order to treat ``left-sided" and ``right-sided" categorical concepts simultaneously
and to analyze their interplay, we need to consider {\em two} factorization systems, satisfying appropriate axioms:
\begin{definition}
A {\bf balanced factorization category} {\rm (bfc)} is a finitely complete category $\C$ with two
factorization systems ${\cal(E,M)}$ and ${\cal(E',M')}$ on it, such that $\M\!/1=\M'\!/1\hookrightarrow\C$ and satisfying the
{\bf reciprocal stability law} {\rm (rsl)}: \\
the pullback of a map $e\in\E$ ($e'\in\E'$) along a map $m'\in\M'$ ($m\in\M$) is itself in $\E$ ($\E'$).
\end{definition}
While this definition aims at capturing some relevant features of $\Cat$, other intersesting
instances of bfc are presented in Setion~\ref{ex}.

Note that any slice $\C\!/\! X$ of a bfc is itself a ``weak" bfc: the requirement $\M\!/1=\M'\!/1$ may not hold.

\subsection{Notations and terminology}

As in Section~\ref{emcat}, we assume that ``canonical" ${\cal(E,M)}$ and ${\cal(E',M')}$-factorizations
have been fixed for the arrows of $\C$,
and denote by $\downarrow\!\!_X:\C\!/\! X\to\M\!/\! X$ and $\uparrow\!\!_X:\C\!/\! X\to\M'\!/\! X$ the corresponding reflections.
For the concepts defined in Section~\ref{emcat}, but referred to ${\cal(E',M')}$, we use the standard ``dual"
terminology when it is available.
Otherwise, we distinguish the ${\cal(E,M)}$-concepts from the ${\cal(E',M')}$-ones, by qualifying them with the
attributes ``left" and ``right" respectively.

So, we say that a map $i\in\E'$ is {\bf initial} and a map $n\in\M'$ is a
{\bf discrete opfibration} (dof).
 The {\bf coslice} of $X\in\C$ at $x:1\to X$ is:
\[
\xymatrix@R=3pc@C=3pc{
1  \ar[r]^{i_x}\ar[dr]_x  & x\backslash X \ar[d]^{\uparrow\!\!\,\, x} \\
                          & X                         }
\]
We denote by $\B:=\M\cap\M'$ the class of ``bifibrations".
Of course, we also have a ``right" underlying functor $\overline{(-)}':\C\to\Cat$,
with $\overline X'(x,y):=\C\!/\! X(x\backslash X,y\backslash X)$.

\subsection{First properties}

We begin by noting that, since $\S:=\M\!/1=\M'\!/1\hookrightarrow\C$ (that is, ``left" and ``right" $\C$-sets coincide,
and are bifibrations over $1$), then also any (op)fibration over a set is in fact a bifibration:
$\M/S=\M'/S=\B/S=\S/S$.
Furthermore, a map $X\to S$ to a set is initial iff it is final: $\E/S=\E'/S$.
In that case, $S\,\cong\,\pi_0 X$, where $\pi_0:=\,\uparrow\!\!_1 = \,\downarrow\!\!_1 :\C\to\S$ is the component functor.
In particular, $\E/1=\E'/1\hookrightarrow\C$ is the full subcategory of {\bf connected} objects.
Note also that a map $S\to S'$ between sets is final (or initial) iff it is an isomorphism;
so, if $e:S\to X$ is a final (or initial) map from a set, then $S\,\cong\,\pi_0 X$.

\subsection{Cylinders and intervals}

If $c:X\to S$ is a reflection in $\S$, that is if $c$ is initial (or equivalently final),
for any element $s:1\to S$ (which is in $\B$), the pullback
\begin{equation}   \label{31}
\xymatrix@R=4pc@C=4pc{
[s]  \ar[r]\ar[d]    & X \ar[d]     \\
1\ar[r]^s            & S               }
\end{equation}
displays $[s]$ as the ``component" $[s]\hookrightarrow X$ of $X$ at $s$; $[s]$ is connected by the rsl
and is included in $X$ as a discrete bifibration.
(Note that we are not saying that $X$ is the sum of its components, although this is the case under
appropriate hypothesis.)
If furthermore $i:S'\to X$ is initial (or final), then $S'\,\cong\, S\,\cong\,\pi_0 X$.
Thus, $i$ is monomorphic and meets any component $[s]$ in a point, which is an initial point $i_s$ of $[s]$:
\begin{equation}   \label{32}
\xymatrix@R=4pc@C=4pc{
1\ar[r]^{i_s}\ar[d] & [s] \ar[r]\ar[d]   & 1 \ar[d]^s  \\
S'\ar[r]^i          & X   \ar[r]         & S           }
\end{equation}
By a {\bf balanced cylinder}, we mean a cylinder
\[ \xymatrix@R=4pc{ B\ar@<.5ex>[r]^i\ar@<-.5ex>[r]_e & X \ar[r]^c &  B } \]
(that is, a map with two sections; see~\cite{law94})
where the base inclusions $i$ and $e$ are initial and final respectively.
As a consequence, $c$ is both initial and final, and if the base is a $\C$-set $S$,
then $S\,\cong\,\pi_0 X$ and $c$ is a reflection in $\S$.
Among these ``discrete cylinders", there are ``intervals", that is balanced cylinders with a terminal base.
Thus, intervals in $\C$ are (connected) objects $i,e:1\to I$ with an initial and a final selected point.

In particular, any component of a cylinder with discrete base is an interval:
\begin{equation}   \label{33}
\xymatrix@R=4pc@C=4pc{
1\ar@<.5ex>[r]^{i_s}\ar@<-.5ex>[r]_{e_s}\ar[d] & [s] \ar[r]\ar[d]   & 1 \ar[d]^s \\
S\ar@<.5ex>[r]^i\ar@<-.5ex>[r]_e              & X         \ar[r]   & S          }
\end{equation}
(Conversely, if $\E$ and $\E'$ are closed with respect to products in $\C^\to$, by multiplying
any object $B\in\C$ with an interval, we get a cylinder with base $B$.)

\subsection{Homotopic maps}

Two parallel maps $f,f':X\to Y$ are {\bf homotopic} if there is a balanced cylinder
\[ \xymatrix@R=4pc{ X\ar@<.5ex>[r]^i\ar@<-.5ex>[r]_e & C \ar[r]^c &  X } \]
and a map (\v homotopy") $h:C\to Y$ such that $f=hi$ and $f'=he$ (see~\cite{law94}).
\begin{prop}    \label{34}
The two base inclusions $i,e:X\to C$ of a balanced cylinder are coequalized by any map $C\to S$ toward a set.
\end{prop}
\pf
Since the retraction $c$ of the cylinder on its base is final,
the proposition follows immediately from the fact that, by orthogonality, any map $C\to S$ to a set
factors uniquely through any final map $c:C\to X$:
\begin{equation}    \label{35}
\xymatrix@R=4pc@C=4pc{
C \ar[r]\ar[d]_c       & S \ar[d] \\
X \ar[r]\ar@{..>}[ur]  & 1         }
\end{equation}
\epf
\begin{corol}     \label{36}
Two homotopic maps $f,f':X\to Y$ are coequalized by any map $Y\to S$ toward a set.
\end{corol}
\epf

\subsection{Internal hom-sets}

As in Section~\ref{cat}, we denote by $X[x,y]$ (or simply $[x,y]$) the vertex of a (fixed) pullback
\begin{equation}   \label{37}
\xymatrix@R=4pc@C=4pc{
[x,y] \ar[r]^{q_{x,y}}\ar[d]_{p_{x,y}}  & X/y \ar[d]^{\downarrow\!\!\,\,y} \\
x\backslash X  \ar[r]^{\uparrow\!\!\,\,x}               & X          }
\end{equation}
We also denote by $c_{x,y}:X[x,y]\to X(x,y)$ the ``canonical" reflection map in $\S$.
Thus $X(x,y)$ (or simply $(x,y)$) is the $\C$-set $\pi_0 X[x,y]$.

By further pulling back along the final (initial) point of the (co)slice, we get:
\begin{equation}   \label{38}
\xymatrix@R=4pc@C=4pc{
                & S'\ar[r]\ar[d]^e   & 1 \ar[d]^{e_y} \\
S\ar[r]^i\ar[d] & [x,y] \ar[r]\ar[d] & X/y \ar[d]     \\
1\ar[r]^{i_x}   & x\backslash X  \ar[r]     & X              }
\end{equation}
where $S$ and $S'$ are sets (since the pullback of a discrete (op)fibration is still a discrete (op)fibration)
and $i$ ($e$) is initial (final) by the rsl.
Then $b_i=c_{x,y}\circ i:S\to (x,y)$ and $b_e=c_{x,y}\circ e:S'\to (x,y)$ are both isomorphisms
and in the above diagram we can replace $S$ and $S'$ by $(x,y)$, $i$ by $i\circ b_i^{-1}$ and $e$
by $e\circ b_e^{-1}$.
So we have the following diagram of pullback squares:
\begin{equation}   \label{39}
\xymatrix@R=4pc@C=4pc{
                            & (x,y)\ar[r]\ar[d]^{e_{x,y}}            & 1 \ar[d]^{e_y}         \\
(x,y)\ar[r]^{i_{x,y}}\ar[d] & [x,y] \ar[r]^{q_{x,y}}\ar[d]^{p_{x,y}} & X/y \ar[d]^{\downarrow\!\!\,\,y} \\
1\ar[r]^{i_x}               & x\backslash X  \ar[r]^{\uparrow\!\!\,\,x}              & X                       }
\end{equation}
and the balanced cylinder:
\begin{equation}   \label{40}
\xymatrix@C=3pc{ (x,y)\ar@<.5ex>[r]^{i_{x,y}}\ar@<-.5ex>[r]_{e_{x,y}} & [x,y] \ar[r]^{c_{x,y}} &  (x,y) }
\end{equation}
Considering in particular the pullbacks
\begin{equation}   \label{41}
\xymatrix@R=4pc@C=4pc{
(x,y)\ar[r]^{q_{x,y}\circ\,i_{x,y}}\ar[d] & X/y \ar[d]     \\
1\ar[r]^x                                 & X               }
\quad\quad
\xymatrix@R=4pc@C=4pc{
(x,y)\ar[r]^{p_{x,y}\circ\,e_{x,y}}\ar[d] & x\backslash X \ar[d]  \\
1\ar[r]^y            & X                                   }
\end{equation}
we see that the elements of $\alpha:1\to X(x,y)$ correspond bijectively to ``left"
arrows $x\to y$ and to ``right" arrows $y\to x$:
\begin{equation}   \label{41b}
\C(1,X(x,y)) \,\cong\, \overline X(x,y) \,\cong\, {\overline X}'(y,x)
\end{equation}
Then $X(x,y)$ deserves to be called the ``internal hom-set of arrows from $x$ to $y$".
(Note that by using $[x,y]$ and $(x,y)$ we have notationally made an arbitrary choice among one of two
possible orders, causing an apperent asymmetry in the subsequent theory.)
From now on, also an element $\alpha:1\to X(x,y)$ will be called an ``arrow from $x$ to $y$".
Composing it with $q_{x,y}\circ i_{x,y}$ ($p_{x,y}\circ e_{x,y}$) we get the corresponding left (right) arrow
(which will be sometimes denoted with the same name).

As in~(\ref{33}), to any arrow $\alpha:1\to X(x,y)$ there also corresponds an ``arrow interval" $[\alpha]$,
the component at $\alpha$ of the balanced cylinder~(\ref{40}):
\begin{equation}   \label{42}
\xymatrix@R=4pc@C=4pc{
1\ar@<.5ex>[r]^i\ar@<-.5ex>[r]_e\ar[d]^\alpha        & [\alpha] \ar[r]\ar[d]   & 1 \ar[d]     \\
(x,y)\ar@<.5ex>[r]^{i_{x,y}}\ar@<-.5ex>[r]_{e_{x,y}} & [x,y]          \ar[r]   & (x,y)         }
\end{equation}
\begin{prop}    \label{43}
Two points $x,y:1\to X$ are homotopic iff there is an arrow from $x$ to $y$.
\end{prop}
\pf
If $\alpha:x\to y$ is an arrow of $X$, then $[\alpha]\to X$ gives a homotopy from $x$ to $y$.
Conversely, given a homotopy
\( \xymatrix@R=4pc{ 1\ar@<.5ex>[r]^i\ar@<-.5ex>[r]_e & C \ar[r]^h & X } \)
there is a (unique) arrow $i\to e$ of $C$, and so its image under $h$ is the desired arrow of $X$.
\epf

\subsection{Enriched composition}
\label{enrich}

The ``enriched composition" map
\[ \mu_{x,y,z}:X(x,y)\times X(y,z)\to X(x,z) \]
is defined as $\mu_{x,y,z}:=c_{x,z}\circ\mu'_{x,y,z}$, where $\mu'$ is universally induced by the pullback:
\begin{equation}   \label{44}
\xymatrix@R=2pc@C=2pc{
& (x,y)\times (y,z) \ar[ddl]_l\ar[ddr]^r\ar@{..>}[d]^{\mu'} &   \\
& [x,z] \ar[dl]\ar[dr]\ar[d]^{c_{x,z}} &  \\
x\backslash X \ar[dr] & (x,z) & X/z \ar[dl]      \\
& X &                              }
\end{equation}
in which the maps $l$ and $r$ are the product projections followed by $p_{x,y}\circ e_{x,y}$
and $q_{y,z}\circ i_{y,z}$, respectively.
\begin{prop}    \label{44a}
The map $\mu_{x,y,z}$ induces on the elements the composition mapping $\overline X(x,y)\times \overline X(y,z)\to \overline X(x,z)$
in $\overline X$.
\end{prop}
\pf
For any arrow $\beta:1\to X(y,z)$ we have a map
\( [x,\beta]:[x,y]\to[x,z] \):
\begin{equation}   \label{45}
\xymatrix@R=2pc@C=2pc{
[x,y] \ar@{..>}[dr]^{[x,\beta]}\ar[rr]^{q_{x,y}}\ar[dddr]_{p_{x,y}} & & X/y \ar[dddr]\ar[dr]^{\widehat\beta} \\
& [x,z] \ar[rr]^{q_{x,z}}\ar[dd]^{p_{x,z}} & & X/z \ar[dd]     \\ \\
& x\backslash X  \ar[rr]    & & X          }
\end{equation}
In the diagram below, the left dotted arrow (induced by the universality of the lower pullback square)
and the right one ($(x,\beta):=\pi_0[x,\beta]:(x,y)\to (x,z)$, induced by the universality of the
reflection $c_{x,y}:[x,y]\to (x,y)$) are the same, since the horizontal edges of the rectangle are identities:
\begin{equation}   \label{46}
\xymatrix@R=4pc@C=4pc{
(x,y) \ar@/_1.5pc/[dd]\ar[r]^{i_{x,y}}\ar@{..>}[d]^{(x,\beta)} & [x,y]\ar[r]^{c_{x,y}}\ar[d]^{[x,\beta]} & (x,y) \ar@{..>}[d]^{(x,\beta)} \\
(x,z) \ar[r]^{i_{x,z}}\ar[d]                                   & [x,z]\ar[r]^{c_{x,z}}\ar[d]^{p_{x,z}}   & (x,z)                \\
1     \ar[r]^{i_x}                                             & x\backslash X                                              }
\end{equation}
So we also have the commutative diagram
\begin{equation}   \label{47}
\xymatrix@R=4pc@C=4pc{
1 \ar[r]^\alpha & (x,y) \ar[r]^{i_{x,y}}\ar[d]^{(x,\beta)} & [x,y]\ar[r]^{q_{x,y}}\ar[d]^{[x,\beta]} &  X/y \ar[d]^{\widehat\beta}  \\
                & (x,z) \ar[r]^{i_{x,z}}                   & [x,z]\ar[r]^{q_{x,z}}                   &  X/z                     }
\end{equation}
showing that $(x,\beta)$ acts on an arrow $\alpha:1\to X(x,y)$ in the same way as $\widehat\beta$
acts on the corresponding left arrow $q_{x,y}\circ i_{x,y}\circ\alpha:1\to X/y$, that is as $-\circ\beta:\overline X(x,y)\to\overline X(x,z)$.

Now observe that since $(x,\beta)=c_{x,z}\circ[x,\beta]\circ i_{x,y}$, and since $i_{x,y}$
and $e_{x,y}$ are trivially homotopic, also $(x,\beta)=c_{x,z}\circ[x,\beta]\circ e_{x,y}$.
But composing $[x,\beta]\circ e_{x,y}:(x,y)\to[x,z]$ with the pullback projections $p_{x,z}$ and $q_{x,z}$
we get $p_{x,y}\circ e_{x,y}$ and the constant map through $\beta:1\to X/y$, so that
the map $[x,\beta]\circ e_{x,y}$ coincides with the composite
\[ \xymatrix@C=4pc{ (x,y) \ar[r]^-\sim & (x,y)\times 1 \ar[r]^-{\id\times\beta} & (x,y)\times(y,z)\ar[r]^-{\mu'} & [x,z]} \]
Summing up, we have seen that:
\[ (x,\beta) = \pi_0[x,\beta] = c_{x,z}\circ[x,\beta]\circ i_{x,y} = c_{x,z}\circ[x,\beta]\circ e_{x,y}
= \mu\circ (\id\times\beta) \circ \langle \id,!\,\rangle \]
So, $\mu(\alpha,\beta) = (x,\beta)\circ\alpha$ corresponds to $\overline\mu(\alpha,\beta)$,
where $\overline\mu$ is the composition in $\overline X$, proving the thesis.
\epf
``Dually", for any $\alpha:x\to y$ there are maps $[\alpha,z]:[y,z]\to[x,z]$
and $(\alpha,z):(y,z)\to(x,z)$ such that
\[ (\alpha,z) = \pi_0[\alpha,z] = c_{x,z}\circ[\alpha,z]\circ i_{y,z} = c_{x,z}\circ[\alpha,z]\circ e_{y,z}
= \mu\circ (\alpha\times\id) \circ \langle !,\id \,\rangle \]
So, $\mu(\alpha,\beta) = (\alpha,z)\circ\beta$ corresponds to ${\overline\mu}'(\beta,\alpha)$,
where ${\overline\mu}'$ is the composition in ${\overline X}'$.
\begin{corollary}    \label{48}
The two underlying categories are related by duality: ${\overline X}'\,\cong\, {\overline X}^{\rm op}$.
\end{corollary}
\epf

\subsection{Internally enriched categories?}
\label{weak}

Up to now, the author has not been able to prove the associativity of the enriched composition,
nor to find a counter-example.
On the other hand, that the identity arrow $u_x:=c_{x,x}\circ u'_x : 1\to (x,x)$
\begin{equation}   \label{49}
\xymatrix@R=2pc@C=3pc{
& 1 \ar[ddl]_{i_x}\ar[ddr]^{e_x}\ar@{..>}[d]^{u'_x} &  \\
& [x,x] \ar[dl]\ar[dr]\ar[d]^{c_{x,x}}              &  \\
x\backslash X \ar[dr] & (x,x) & X/x \ar[dl]                   \\
& X &                                                   }
\end{equation}
satisfies the unity laws for the enriched composition, follows from the previous section
or can be easily checked directly.

\subsection{The action of a map on internal hom-sets}

Given a map $f:X\to Y$ in $\C$, we have an induced map $f_{[x,y]}:X[x,y]\to Y[fx,fy]$:
\begin{equation}   \label{50}
\xymatrix@R=2pc@C=2pc{
[x,y] \ar@{..>}[dr]^{f_{[x,y]}}\ar[rr]^{q_{x,y}}\ar[dd]_{p_{x,y}} & & X/y \ar[dd]\ar[dr]^{e_{f,y}} \\
& [fx,fy] \ar[rr]^<<<<<<<<<<{q_{fx,fy}}\ar[dd]|<<<<<<<{p_{fx,fy}} & & Y/fy \ar[dd]                  \\
x\backslash X \ar[dr]_{i_{f,x}}  \ar[rr]                                 & & X \ar[dr]^f                    \\
& fx\backslash Y  \ar[rr]                                                & & Y                              }
\end{equation}
In the diagram below the left dotted arrow (induced by the universality of the lower pullback square)
and the right one ($f_{x,y}:=\pi_0 f_{[x,y]}:X(x,y)\to Y(fx,fy)$, induced by the universality of the
reflection $c_{x,y}:[x,y]\to (x,y)$) are the same, since the horizontal edges of the rectangle are identities.
\begin{equation}   \label{51}
\xymatrix@R=4pc@C=4pc{
(x,y) \ar@/_2pc/[dd]\ar[r]^{i_{x,y}}\ar@{..>}[d]^{f_{x,y}} & [x,y]\ar[r]^{c_{x,y}}\ar[d]^{f_{[x,y]}} & (x,y) \ar@{..>}[d]^{f_{x,y}} \\
(fx,fy) \ar[r]^{i_{fx,fy}}\ar[d]                           & [fx,fy]\ar[r]^{c_{fx,fy}}\ar[d]^{p_{fx,fy}}   & (fx,fy)   \\
1     \ar[r]^{i_{fx}}                                      & fx\backslash Y                                                    }
\end{equation}
So we also have the commutative diagram
\begin{equation}   \label{52}
\xymatrix@R=4pc@C=4pc{
1 \ar[r]^\alpha & (x,y) \ar[r]^{i_{x,y}}\ar[d]^{f_{x,y}} & [x,y]\ar[r]^{q_{x,y}}\ar[d]^{f_{[x,y]}} &  X/y \ar[d]^{e_{f,y}}  \\
                & (fx,fy) \ar[r]^{i_{fx,fy}}             & [fx,fy]\ar[r]^{q_{fx,fy}}               &  Y/fy                    }
\end{equation}
showing that $f_{x,y}$ acts on an arrow $\alpha:1\to X(x,y)$ in the same way as the arrow map of $f$
acts on the corresponding left arrow $q_{x,y}\circ i_{x,y}\circ\alpha:1\to X/y$.
So, $f_{x,y}:X(x,y)\to Y(fx,fy)$ enriches $\overline f_{x,y}:\overline X(x,y)\to \overline Y(\overline fx,\overline fy)$.
We also have the ``dual" commuting diagrams, with $e_{x,y}$ in place of $i_{x,y}$ and so on,
showing that $f_{x,y}$ also enriches $\overline f'_{y,x}:\overline X'(y,x)\to \overline Y'(\overline fy,\overline fx)$.
\begin{corollary}    \label{53}
The two underlying functors are related by duality: $\overline{(-)}'\,\cong\,\overline{(-)}^{\rm op}$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{prop}     \label{55}
The maps $f_{x,y}$ are ``functorial" with respect to enriched composition.
\end{prop}
\pf
We want to show that the following diagram commutes:
\begin{equation}   \label{56}
\xymatrix@R=4pc@C=6pc{
(x,y)\times(y,z) \ar[r]^-{f_{x,y}\times f_{y,z}}\ar[d]^\mu & (fx,fy)\times(fy,fz) \ar[d]^\mu  \\
(x,z) \ar[r]^{f_{x,z}}                                     &       (fx,fz)                     }
\end{equation}
Since the lower rectangle below commutes
\begin{equation}   \label{57}
\xymatrix@R=4pc@C=6pc{
(x,y)\times(y,z) \ar[r]^-{f_{x,y}\times f_{y,z}}\ar[d]^{\mu'} &  (fx,fy)\times(fy,fz) \ar[d]^{\mu'}  \\
[x,z] \ar[r]^{f_{[x,z]}}\ar[d]^c                              &  [fx,fz]\ar[d]^c                     \\
(x,z) \ar[r]^{f_{x,z}}                                        &  (fx,fz)                             }
\end{equation}
we have to show that the upper one also commutes,
that is that composing with the pullback projections (say, the second one $q_{fx,fz}:[fx,fz]\to Y/fz$)
we get the same maps:
\begin{equation}   \label{58}
\xymatrix@R=4pc@C=4pc{
(x,y)\times(y,z) \ar[r]^-\pi\ar[d]^{\mu'} &  (y,z) \ar[d]|{q_{y,z}\circ\,\,i_{y,z}}  \\
[x,z] \ar[r]^{q_{x,z}}\ar[d]^{f_{[x,z]}}  &  X/z \ar[d]^{e_{f,z}} \\
[fx,fz] \ar[r]^{q_{fx,fz}}                &  Y/fz                  }
\quad\quad\qq
\xymatrix@R=4pc@C=4pc{
(x,y)\times(y,z) \ar[r]^-\pi\ar[d]|{f_{x,y}\times f_{y,z}}  &  (y,z) \ar[d]^{f_{y,z}}  \\
(fx,fy)\times(fy,fz) \ar[r]^-\pi\ar[d]^{\mu'}               & (fy,fz) \ar[d]|{q_{fy,fz}\circ\,\,i_{fy,fz}} \\
[fx,fz] \ar[r]^{q_{fx,fz}}                                  &  Y/fz                     }
\end{equation}
Indeed, this is the case because all the squares commute and
the composites on the right are the two paths of the rectangle~(\ref{52}).
\epf

\subsection{Enriching discrete fibrations}

To any discrete fibration $\,m:A\to X$ in $\C$ there corresponds a presheaf $\overline m$ on $\overline X$,
as can be seen in several ways:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
As we have seen in Proposition~\ref{18b}), by applying $\overline{(-)}:\C\to\Cat$ to $\,m$,
we obtain a discrete fibration $\,\overline m:\overline A\to\overline X$ in $\Cat$, corresponding to a presheaf $\overline m:\overline X^{\rm op}\to\Set$.
\item
Via the inclusion $i:\overline X\hookrightarrow\M\!/\! X$, any object $A\in\M\!/\! X$ is ``interpreted" as a presheaf $\M\!/\! X(i-,A)$ on $\overline X$.
\item
To any object $x:1\to X$ of $\overline X$ there corresponds the set $\C\!/\! X(x,m)$ of points of $A$ over $x$,
and to any arrow $\alpha:x\to y$ in $\overline X$ there corresponds a mapping $\overline m\alpha:\C\!/\! X(y,m)\to\C\!/\! X(x,m)$,
whose value at $a\in A$ over $y$ is given by the right hand diagram below
(where $\widehat a$ is defined by the left hand one):
\begin{equation}     \label{59}
\xymatrix@R=3pc@C=3pc{
1 \ar[r]^{e_y}\ar[dr]_y\ar@/^1.5pc/[rr]^a & X/y \ar[d]^{\downarrow\!\!\,\,y} \ar[r]^{\widehat a} & A \ar[dl]^m \\
                                          & X                                           &               }
\quad\quad\qq
\xymatrix@R=3pc@C=3pc{
1 \ar[r]^\alpha\ar[dr]_x\ar@/^1.5pc/[rr]^{(\overline m\alpha)a} & X/y \ar[d]^{\downarrow\!\!\,\,y} \ar[r]^{\widehat a} & A \ar[dl]^m \\
                                                     & X                                           &               }
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
Thus, we have mappings $\,\overline X(x,y)\times y\overline m \to x\overline m$, and we now show how they can be enriched
as maps in $\S$.
(This enriching should not be confused with the $m_{a,b}:A(a,b)\to X(ma,mb)$
of Proposition~\ref{44a}, associated to any map in $\C$.)
Following and generalizing the results of Section~\ref{enrich}, we define $[xm]$ as the pullback
\begin{equation}   \label{60}
\xymatrix@R=4pc@C=4pc{
[xm] \ar[r]^{q_{x,m}}\ar[d]_{p_{x,m}}  & A \ar[d]^m \\
x\backslash X  \ar[r]^{\uparrow\!\!\,\,x}              & X          }
\end{equation}
and $(xm):=\pi_0[xm]$, with reflection map $c_{x,m}:[xm]\to (xm)$.
Then we also have the pullbacks:
\begin{equation}   \label{61}
\xymatrix@R=4pc@C=4pc{
(xm)\ar[d]\ar[r]^{i_{x,m}} & [xm] \ar[r]^{q_{x,m}}\ar[d]^{p_{x,m}}  & A \ar[d]^m \\
1         \ar[r]^{i_x}     & x\backslash X  \ar[r]^{\uparrow\!\!\,\,x}              & X          }
\quad\quad\qq
\xymatrix@R=4pc@C=4pc{
(xm) \ar[d]\ar[r]   & A \ar[d]^m \\
1    \ar[r]^x       & X          }
\end{equation}
where we can assume that $c_{x,m}\circ i_{x,m}$ is the identity of the set $(xm)$, and
which show that the elements of $(xm)$ correspond bijectively to those of $x\overline m$.

Now we define (see~(\ref{44}))
\( \mu_{x,y,m}:X(x,y)\times (y m) \to (x m) \)
as $c_{x,m}\circ\mu'$:
\begin{equation}   \label{62}
\xymatrix@R=2pc@C=2pc{
& (x,y)\times (ym) \ar[ddl]_l\ar[ddr]^r\ar@{..>}[d]^{\mu'} &   \\
& [xm] \ar[dl]\ar[dr]\ar[d]^{c_{x,m}} &  \\
x\backslash X \ar[dr] & (xm) & A \ar[dl]      \\
& X &                              }
\end{equation}
where $\mu'$ is universally induced by the maps $l$ and $r$, the product projections
followed by $p_{x,y}\circ e_{x,y}$ and $q_{y,m}\circ i_{y,m}$, respectively.
To prove that this is the desired enrichment,
for a fixed point $a\in A$ over $y$ we consider the map $[x,a]:[x,y]\to[xm]$:
\begin{equation}   \label{63}
\xymatrix@R=2pc@C=2pc{
[x,y] \ar@{..>}[dr]^{[x,a]}\ar[rr]^{q_{x,y}}\ar[dddr]_{p_{x,y}} & & X/y \ar[dddr]\ar[dr]^{\widehat a} \\
& [xm] \ar[rr]^{q_{x,m}}\ar[dd]^{p_{x,m}} & & A \ar[dd]^m     \\ \\
& x\backslash X  \ar[rr]    & & X          }
\end{equation}
and define $(x,a):=\pi_0[x,a]:(x,y)\to(xm)$, getting:
\begin{equation}   \label{64}
\xymatrix@R=4pc@C=4pc{
(x,y) \ar@/_1.5pc/[dd]\ar[r]^{i_{x,y}}\ar@{..>}[d]^{(x,a)} & [x,y]\ar[r]^{c_{x,y}}\ar[d]^{[x,a]}   & (x,y) \ar@{..>}[d]^{(x,a)} \\
(xm) \ar[r]^{i_{x,m}}\ar[d]                                & [xm]\ar[r]^{c_{x,m}}\ar[d]^{p_{x,m}}  & (xm)                \\
1     \ar[r]^{i_x}                                         & x\backslash X                                              }
\quad\quad\qq
\xymatrix@R=4pc@C=4pc{
(x,y) \ar[r]^{i_{x,y}}\ar[d]^{(x,a)} & [x,y]\ar[r]^{q_{x,y}}\ar[d]^{[x,a]} &  X/y \ar[d]^{\widehat a}  \\
(xm)  \ar[r]^{i_{x,m}}               & [xm]\ar[r]^{q_{x,m}}                &  A                     }
\end{equation}
The right hand diagram above shows that $(x,a)$ acts on an arrow $\alpha:1\to X(x,y)$
in the same way as $\widehat a$ acts on the corresponding left arrow $q_{x,y}\circ i_{x,y}\circ\alpha:1\to X/y$.
Furthermore we obtain that
\( (x,a) =\pi_0[x,a] = c_{x,m}\circ[x,a]\circ i_{x,y} = c_{x,m}\circ[x,a]\circ e_{x,y} = \mu\circ(\id\times a)\circ\langle\id,!\rangle \)
Then, $\mu(\alpha,a)=(x,a)\circ\alpha$ corresponds to $(\overline m\alpha)a$, proving the thesis.

If $n:B\to X$ is another discrete fibration over $X$ and $\xi:m\to n$ a map over $X$, we have a corresponding
morphism of discrete fibrations $\overline\xi:\overline m\to\overline n$ in $\Cat\!/\! X$, or equivalently a natural transformation.
On the other hand, $\xi$ also induces maps $[x,\xi]:[xm]\to[xn]$:
\begin{equation}   \label{65}
\xymatrix@R=2pc@C=2pc{
[xm] \ar@{..>}[dr]^{[x,\xi]}\ar[rr]^{q_{x,m}}\ar[dddr]_{p_{x,m}} & & A \ar[dddr]^m\ar[dr]^\xi \\
& [xn] \ar[rr]^{q_{x,n}}\ar[dd]^{p_{x,n}} & & B \ar[dd]^n     \\ \\
& x\backslash X  \ar[rr]    & & X          }
\end{equation}
and one can check that the maps $(x,\xi):=\pi_0[x,\xi]:(xm)\to (xn)$ define a morphism of
left $\S$-modules on $X$, which enriches the natural transformation $\overline\xi$.

\section{Balanced category theory}
\label{balcat}

Balanced category theory is category theory developed in a balanced factorization category $\C$,
playing the role of $\Cat$ with the comprehensive factorization systems.
We here present just a few aspects of it; others still need to be analyzed.

\subsection{The underlying functors}

Summarizing the results of Section~\ref{bal}, we have two ``underlying" functors: the ``left" one
\( \overline{(-)}:\C\to\Cat \) and the ``right" one \( \overline{(-)}':\C\to\Cat \),
where $\overline X(x,y)=\C\!/\! X(X/x,X/y)$ and $\overline X'(x,y)=\C\!/\! X(x\backslash X,y\backslash X)$.
They are isomorphic up to the duality functor \( (-)^{\rm op}:\Cat\to\Cat \):
\begin{equation}    \label{66}
\xymatrix@R=1.5pc@C=6pc{
                                        &  \Cat\ar[dd]^{(-)^{\rm op}}   \\
\C\ar[ur]^{\overline{(-)}}\ar[dr]_{\overline{(-)}'} &                         \\
                                        &  \Cat                    }
\end{equation}
By propositions~\ref{18b} and~\ref{24}, both the underlying functors preserve the terminal object and sets;
the left one preserves final and initial points, discrete fibrations and opfibrations,
slices and coslices and left and right adjunctible maps, while the right one reverses them.
This apparent asymmetry is only the effect of our naming of the arrows in $\E$, $\E'$, $\M$ and $\M'$.

The duality of the underlying functors (corollaries~\ref{48} and~\ref{53}) is a consequence of the fact
that for any object $X$ of $\C$ we have an $\S$-enriched weak category
(that is, the associativity of the composition $\mu$ may not hold; see Section~\ref{weak}), and for any map $f:X\to Y$
an $\S$-enriched functor $f_{x,y}:X(x,y)\to Y(fx,fy)$ such that the following diagrams in $\Set$ commute:
\begin{equation}   \label{67}
\xymatrix@R=4pc@C=4pc{
{\overline X}'(z,y)\times{\overline X}'(y,x)\ar[d]^{\overline\mu'} & \C(1,X(x,y)\times X(y,z))\ar[r]^\sim\ar[l]_\sim\ar[d]^{\C(1,\mu)}
& \overline X(x,y)\times\overline X(y,z)\ar[d]^{\overline\mu} \\
{\overline X}'(z,x) & \C(1,X(x,z))\ar[r]^\sim\ar[l]_\sim & \overline X(x,z)                                  }
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}   \label{68}
\xymatrix@R=4pc@C=4pc{
{\overline X}'(y,x)\ar[d]^{\overline f_{y,x}'} & \C(1,X(x,y))\ar[r]^\sim\ar[l]_\sim\ar[d]^{\C(1,f_{x,y})} & \overline X(x,y)\ar[d]^{\overline f_{x,y}} \\
{\overline Y}'(fy,fx)                    & \C(1,Y(fx,fy))\ar[r]^\sim\ar[l]_\sim                     & \overline Y(x,y)                      }
\end{equation}
Then, denoting by $\S\_\Cat^*$ the category of $\S$-enriched weak categories
and $\S$-enriched functors, diagram~(\ref{66}) can be enriched as
\begin{equation}    \label{69}
\xymatrix@R=1.5pc@C=6pc{
                                          &  \S\_\Cat^*\ar[dd]^{(-)^{\rm op}}   \\
\C\ar[ur]^{\overline{\overline{(-)}}}\ar[dr]_{\overline{\overline{(-)}}'} &                  \\
                                          &  \S\_\Cat^*                    }
\end{equation}
where $\overline{\overline X}(x,y) = \overline{\overline X}'(y,x) = X(x,y)$,
while $\overline{\overline f}_{x,y} = \overline{\overline f}'_{y,x} = f_{x,y}:X(x,y)\to X(fx,fy)$.

Furthermore, for any df $m:A\to X$, the corresponding presheaf on $\overline X$ can also be enriched
as a left $\S$-module on the weak $\S$-category $X$,
and the functor $\M\!/\! X\to\Set^{\overline X^{\rm op}}$  can be enriched
to a functor $\M\!/\! X\toX\_\mod(\S)$ (and dually for $\M'\!/\! X\to\Set^{\overline X}$).

\subsection{The tensor functor}

Given $p,q\in\C\!/\! X$, their {\bf tensor product}
is the components set $\ten_X(p,q):=\pi_0(p\times_X q)$ of their product over $X$.
We so get a functor $\ten_X:\C\!/\! X\times\C\!/\! X\to\S$.
In particular, $\ten(x\backslash X,X/y) = X(x,y)$ and, if $m\in\M\!/\! X$, $\ten(x\backslash X,m) = (xm)$.
If $m\in\M\!/\! X$, $n\in\M'\!/\! X$ and $\C = \Cat$, $\ten(m,n)$ gives the classical tensor product (coend) $n\otimes m$
of the corresponding set functors $m: X^{\rm op}\to\Set$ and $n:X\to\Set$.

\subsection{The inversion law}

If $q:Q\to X$ is any map, and $n:D\to X$ is a dof over $X$, pulling back
the ${\cal(E,M)}$-factorization $q =\,\downarrow\!\! q\circ e_q$ along $n$ we get:
\begin{equation}   \label{72}
\xymatrix@R=4pc@C=4pc{
n\times q \ar[r]^{n\,\times e_q}\ar[d]\ar[dr]|>>>>>>>>>{n'} & n\,\times\!\downarrow\!\! q \ar[dl] \ar[rd]  &          \\
D\ar[rd]^n                                                  &              Q \ar[d]^q\ar[r]^{e_q} & N(q)\ar[dl]^{\downarrow\!\!\,\,q}  \\
                                                            &                                   X &            }
\end{equation}
where $\times$ denotes the product in $\C\!/\! X$.
Since $n'$ is a dof, by the rsl
\[ n\times e_q: n\times q\,\to n\,\times\!\downarrow\!\! q \]
is a final map over $X$;
thus its domain and codomain have the same reflection in $\M\!/\! X$:
\begin{prop}    \label{73}
If $n\in\M'\!/\! X$ and $q\in\C\!/\! X$,
\( \downarrow\!\!_X(n\times q) \,\cong\,\, \downarrow\!\!_X(n\,\times\!\downarrow\!\!_X q) \);
dually, if $m\in\M\!/\! X$,
\( \uparrow\!\!_X(m\times q) \,\cong\,\, \uparrow\!\!_X(m\,\times\!\uparrow\!\!_X q) \)
\end{prop}
\epf
Similarly, given two maps $p:P\to X$ and $q:Q\to X$, we have the following
symmetrical diagram:
\begin{equation}   \label{74}
\xymatrix@R=4pc@C=4pc{
                   & \uparrow\!\! p\times q \ar[r]\ar[d]^e                          & Q \ar[d]^{e_q}          \\
p\,\times\!\!\downarrow\!\! q \ar[r]^i\ar[d] & \uparrow\!\! p\,\times\!\downarrow\!\! q \ar[r]\ar[d]  & N(q) \ar[d]^{\downarrow\!\!\,\,q} \\
P\ar[r]^{i_p}          & N(p) \ar[r]^{\uparrow\!\!\,\,p}                            & X          }
\end{equation}
Since objects linked by initial or final maps have the same reflection in $\M\!/1 = \S$,
we get the following ``inversion law":
\begin{equation}   \label{75}
\ten(\uparrow\!\! p, q) \,\cong\, \ten(\uparrow\!\! p,\downarrow\!\! q) \,\cong\, \ten(p,\downarrow\!\! q)
\end{equation}

\subsection{The reflection formula}

If $p$ is a point $x:1\to X$, diagram~(\ref{74}) becomes:
\begin{equation}   \label{76}
\xymatrix@R=4pc@C=4pc{
                   & x\backslash q \ar[r]\ar[d]^e                          & Q \ar[d]^{e_q}          \\
(x\downarrow\!\! q) \ar[r]^i\ar[d]           & [x\downarrow\!\! q] \ar[r]\ar[d]  & N(q) \ar[d]^{\downarrow\!\!\,\,q} \\
1\ar[r]^{i_x}      & x\backslash X \ar[r]^{\uparrow\!\!\,\,x}                              & X          }
\end{equation}
and the inversion law becomes the ``reflection formula":
\begin{equation}     \label{77}
(x\downarrow\!\! q) = \ten(x\backslash X,\downarrow\!\! q) \,\cong\, \pi_0(x\backslash q) = \ten(x\backslash X,q) \in\S
\end{equation}
giving the enriched value of the reflection $\downarrow\!\! q\in\M\!/\! X$ at $x$.
If the functor
\begin{equation}     \label{77a}
\M\!/\! X\to\S^{{\overline X}^{\rm op}} \quad\quad m \mapsto \ten(-\backslash X,m)
\end{equation}
reflects isomorphisms, then the formula $\ten(-\backslash X,q)$ determines $\downarrow\!\! q$ up to isomorphisms.
In particular, in this case, $q$ is final iff the inverse image $x\backslash q = q^*(x\backslash X)$ of any slice of $X$
is connected: $\pi_0(x\backslash q)=1,\, x\in X$.

If $\C=\Cat$, we find again the ``classical" formula~(\ref{3a}):
\[ \downarrow\!\! q \,\cong\, \pi_0(-\backslash q) \]
which gives the presheaf corresponding to the discrete fibration $\downarrow\!\! q$.

\subsection{Dense maps}
\label{dense}

In Section~\ref{emcat}, we have already discussed dense maps, from a ``left-sided" perspective.
But density is clearly a ``balanced" concept.
Indeed, the following is among the characterizations of dense functors in $\Cat$
given in~\cite{dense}:
\begin{prop}    \label{70}
If $f:X\to Y$ is dense, then for any arrow $\alpha$ of $Y$ the object $\alpha/\!/f$,
obtained by pulling back the arrow interval $[\alpha]$ along $f$, is connected.
If the functor~{\rm(\ref{77a})} reflects isomorphisms, the reverse implication also holds.
\end{prop}
\pf
The pullback square factors through the two pullback rectangles below:
\begin{equation}   \label{71}
\xymatrix@R=2pc@C=2pc{
\alpha/\!/f \ar[rr]^{e'}\ar[dd]\ar[dr] & & [\alpha] \ar[dd]\ar[dr]^{m'} \\
                     & f/y \ar[rr]^<<<<<<<<<<e\ar[dl] & &  Y/y \ar[dl]  \\
X \ar[rr]^f                   & & Y                 }
\end{equation}
If $f$ is dense, the map $e$ is final by definition; $m'$ is a discrete opfibration, because it is the composite
of the component inclusion $[\alpha]\to[x,y]$ and the pullback projection $q_{x,y}:[x,y]\to Y/y$,
which are both discrete opfibrations (see diagrams~(\ref{37}) and~(\ref{42})).
Then, by the rsl also $e'$ is final, and the connectedness of $[\alpha]$ implies that of $\alpha/\!/f$.
For the second part, note that $[\alpha]$, having an initial point, is a coslice of $Y/y$:
\begin{equation}    \label{71a}
[\alpha] \,\cong\, \alpha\backslash(Y/y)
\end{equation}
Thus, $\alpha/\!/f$ is the pullback $\alpha\backslash e'$, and the fact that it is connected for any $\alpha$
implies, by the hypothesis, the finality of $e'$.
\epf

\subsection{Exponentials and complements}

Till now, we have not considered any of the exponentiability properties of $\Cat$.
In this subsection, we assume that for any $X\in\C$, the discrete fibrations and opfibrations over $X$ are
exponentiable in $\C\!/\! X$.
\begin{prop}    \label{78}
If $m\in\M\!/\! X$ and $n\in\M'\!/\! X$ then $m^n\in\M\!/\! X$ and, dually, $n^m\in\M'\!/\! X$.
\end{prop}
\pf
If $n$ is a dof over $X$ and $q:Q\to X$ is any object in $\C\!/\! X$, by Proposition~\ref{73},
\[ n\times\eta_q : n\times q\,\to n\,\times\!\downarrow\!\! q \]
is a final map over $X$ (recall that $e_q:q\to\,\downarrow\!\! q$ is the reflecton map of $q\in\C\!/\! X$ in $\M\!/\! X$,
that is the unit $\eta_q$ of the adjunction $\downarrow\!\!_X\dashv i_X:\M\!/\! X\hookrightarrow\C\!/\! X$).
Then it is orthogonal to any df over $X$, in particular to $m$.
In turn, this implies that any unit $\eta_q:q\to\,\downarrow\!\! q$ is orthogonal to $m^n$,
since in general if $L\dashv R:\A\to\B$, an arrow $f:B\to B'$ in $\B$ is orthogonal to the object $RA$
iff $Lf:LB\to LB'$ is orthogonal to $A$ in $\A$:
\begin{equation}   \label{79}
\xymatrix@R=4pc@C=4pc{
B \ar[r]^h\ar[d]_f           & A \ar[d]  \\
B' \ar[r]\ar@{..>}[ur]^{u_*} & 1          }
\quad\quad\qq
\xymatrix@R=4pc@C=4pc{
LB \ar[r]^{h^*}\ar[d]_{Lf} & RA \ar[d]  \\
LB' \ar[r]\ar@{..>}[ur]^u  & 1          }
\end{equation}
Indeed, in one direction the right hand diagram above gives a unique $u$, whose transpose $u_*$
makes the left hand one commute: $u_*\circ f = (u\circ Lf)_* = (h^*)_* = h$.
The converse implication is equally straightforward.

Then, taking $q=m^n$ we see that $\eta_{m^n}$ is a reflection map with a retraction, and
so $m^n\in\M\!/\! X$ (see~\cite{pis3} or also~\cite{bor}).
\epf
Any $m\in\M\!/\! X$ has a ``complement"
\begin{equation}    \label{79a}
\ten(m,-)\dashv\neg m : \S \to \C\!/\! X \quad\quad S\mapsto (S\times X)^m
\end{equation}
where $S\times X$ is the constant bifibration over $X$ with value $S$.
By Proposition~\ref{78}, $\neg m$ takes values in $\M'\!/\! X$, giving a broad generalization of
the fact that the (classical) complement of a lower-set of a poset $X$ is an upper-set.
(These items are trated at length in~\cite{pis} and~\cite{pis2}.
There, we conversely used the exponential law to prove the inversion law in $\Cat$; however,
the present one seems by far the most natural path to follow, also in the original case $\C=\Cat$.)

\subsection{Codiscrete and grupoidal objects}

An object $X\in\C$ is {\bf codiscrete} if all its points are both initial and final
(that is, all the (co)slice projections are isomorphisms).
An object $X\in\C$ is {\bf grupoidal} if all its (co)slices are codiscrete.
(Note that codiscrete objects and sets are grupoidal.)
Since these concepts are autodual and the underlying functors preserve (or dualize) slices,
it is immediate to see that they preserve both codiscrete and grupoidal objects
(which in $\Cat$ have the usual meaning).

\subsection{Further examples of balanced factorization categories}
\label{ex}

\begin{itemize}
\item
If $\C$ is an ${\cal(E,M)}$-category such that $\E$ is $\M$-stable
(or, equivalently, satisfying the Frobenius law; see~\cite{clem}),
then $\C$ is a bfc with ${\cal(E,M)} = {\cal(E',M')}$.
\item
In particular, for any lex category $\C$ we have the ``discrete" bfc $\,\C^{\rm d}$ and the
``codiscrete" bfc $\,\C^{\rm c}$ on $\C$. In $\C^{\rm d}$, $\E=\E'={\rm iso}\C$ and $\M=\M'={\rm ar}\C$.
Conversely in $\C^{\rm c}$, $\E=\E'={\rm ar}\C$ and $\M=\M'={\rm iso}\C$.
In $\C^{\rm d}$ all object are discrete: $\S=\C$, while $1$ is the only connected object.
Conversely, in $\C^{\rm c}$ all objects are connected, while $1$ is the only set.
So, for any $X\in\C^{\rm d}$ ($X\in\C^{\rm c}$) $\id:X\to X$ ($!:X\to 1$) is the reflection map of $X$ in sets
and, for any $x:1\to X$, $X/x = x\backslash X = x$ ($X/x = x\backslash X = \id_X$).
Then, for any $X\in\C^{\rm d}$ ($X\in\C^{\rm c}$), $\overline X$ is the (co)discrete category on $\C(1,X)$.

Furthermore, if $X\in\C^{\rm d}$ and $x,y:1\to X$, then $X[x,y]$ is pointless if $x\neq y$, while $X[x,x]=1$.
So the same is true for $X(x,y)$.
On the other hand, if $X\in\C^{\rm c}$, then $X[x,y]=X$ and $X(x,y)=1$, for any $x,y:1\to X$.
Indeed, for any arrow $u_{x,y}:x\to y$, the arrow interval $[u_{x,y}]$ is simply $x,y:1\to X$.

\item
On the category $\Pos$ of posets, we can consider the bfc in which $m\in\M$ ($\M'$)
iff it is, up to isomorphisms, a lower-set (upper-set) inclusion,
and $e:P\to X$ is in $\E$ ($\E'$) iff it is a cofinal (coinitial) mapping in the classical sense:
for any $x\in X$, there is $a\in P$ such that $x\leq ea$ ($ea\leq x$).

The category of internal sets is $\S = 2$, and
the component functor $\Pos\to 2$ reduces to the ``non-empty" predicate.
For any poset $X$ and any point $x\in X$, the slice $X/x$ ($x\backslash X$)
is the principal lower-set (upper-set) generated by $x$.
As in $\Cat$, $\overline X$ is isomorphic to $X$ itself.
This example also shows that the underlying functor may not preserve final maps:
a poset $X$ is ``internally" connected iff it is not empty, while $\overline X \,\cong\, X$ may well
be not connected in $\Cat$.

Given a map $p:P\to X$, a colimiting cone $\lambda:p\to x$ simply indicates that $x$ is the sup
of the set of points $pa ,\, a\in P$. The colimit is absolute iff such a sup is in fact a maximum.
A map $f:X\to Y$ is adequate iff any $y\in Y$ is the sup of the $fx$ which are less than or equal to $y$.

Furthermore, given $x,y:1\to X$, $[x,y]\subseteq X$ has its usual meaning:
it is the interval of the points $z\in X$ such that $x\leq z\leq y$.
So, $X(x,y)$ is the truth value of the predicate $x\leq y$, and the enriching of $\overline X$ in internal sets
gives the usual identification of posets with categories enriched over $2$.

By restricting to discrete posets, we get the bfc associated to the epi-mono factorization system on $\Set$.

\item
Let $\Gph$ be the category of reflexive graphs, with the factorization systems ${\cal(E,M)}$
and ${\cal(E',M')}$ generated by $t:1\to 2$ and $s:1\to 2$ respectively, where $2$ is the arrow graph
(see~\cite{pis} and~\cite{pis2}).
In this case $\overline X$ is the free category on $X$, and the underlying functor is the
free category functor $\Gph\to\Cat$.

Furthermore, if $X\in\Gph$ and $x,y:1\to X$, then $X[x,y]$ is the graph which has as objects
the pairs of consecutive paths $\langle \alpha,\beta\rangle$, with $\alpha:x\to z$ and $\beta:z\to y$, while
there is an arrow $\langle \alpha,\beta\rangle \to \langle \alpha',\beta'\rangle$ over $a:z\to z'$ iff $\alpha'=a\alpha$
and $\beta=\beta'a$.
In $\Gph$, $\S=\Set$ and the components of $X[x,y]$ are the paths $x\to y$.
Thus, the enriching $X(x,y)$ of $\overline X(x,y)$ is in fact an isomorphism.

\end{itemize}

\section{Conclusions}
\label{conc}

There are at least three well-estabilished abstractions (or generalizations) of category theory:
enriched categories, internal categories and 2-category theory.
Each of them is best suited to enlighten certain of its aspects and to capture new instances;
for example, monads and adjunctions (via the triangular identities) are surely 2-categorical concepts,
while enriched categories subsume many important structures and support quantifications.

Here, we have based our abstraction on final and initial functors and discrete fibrations and opfibrations,
whose decisive relations are encoded in the concept of balanced factorization category;
in this context, natural transformations and/or exponentials are no more basic notions.
Rather, we have seen how the universal exactness properties of $\C$ and those depending on the
two factorization systems, complement each other in an harmonious way (in particular, pullbacks and
the reflection in discrete (op)fibrations) to give an effective and natural tool for proving categorical facts.

While not so rich of significant instances different from $\Cat$ as other theories, we hope to have shown that
balanced category theory offers a good perspective on several basic categorical concepts and properties,
helping to distinguish the ``trivial" ones (that is, those which depend only on the bfc structure of $\Cat$)
from those regarding peculiar aspects of $\Cat$ (such as colimits, lextensivity, power objects and the arrow object).
The latter have been partly considered in~\cite{pis3} and deserve further study.

Summarizing, balanced category theory is
\begin{itemize}
\item
{\em simple}:
a bfc is a lex category with two reciprocally stable factorization systems
generating the same (internal) sets;
\item
{\em expressive}:
many categorical concepts can be naturally defined in any bfc;
\item
{\em effective}:
simple universal properties guide and almost ``force" the proving of categorical properties
relative to these concepts;
\item
{\em symmetrical} (or ``balanced"):
the category $\Cat$ in itself does not allow to distinguish an object from its dual;
this is fully reflected in balanced category theory;
\item
{\em self-founded}:
it is largely enriched on its own internal sets, providing in a sense its own foundation
(see for example~\cite{law03} and~\cite{law66}).
\end{itemize}

\begin{refs}

\bibitem[Ad\'amek et al., 2001]{dense} J. Ad\'amek, R. El Bashir, M. Sobral, J. Velebil (2001), On Functors which are Lax Epimorphisms,
{\em Theory and Appl. Cat.} {\bf 8}, 509-521.

\bibitem[Borceux, 1994]{bor} F. Borceux (1994), {\em Handbook of Categorical Algebra 1 (Basic Category Theory)},
Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its applications, vol. 50, Cambridge University Press.

\bibitem[Clementino et al., 1996]{clem} M.M. Clementino, E. Giuli, W. Tholen, (1996), Topology in a Category: Compactness,
{\em Portugal. Math.} {\bf 53}(4), 397--433.

\bibitem[Lawvere, 1966]{law66} F.W. Lawvere (1966), {\em The Category of Categories as a Foundation for Mathematics},
Proceedings of the Conference on Categorical Algebra, La Jolla, 1965, Springer, New York, 1-20.

\bibitem[Lawvere, 1994]{law94} F.W. Lawvere (1994), {\em Unity and Identity of Opposites in Calculus and Physics},
Proceedings of the ECCT Tours Conference.

\bibitem[Lawvere, 2003]{law03} F.W. Lawvere (2003), Foundations and Applications: Axiomatization and Education,
{\em Bull. Symb. Logic} {\bf 9}(2), 213-224.

\bibitem[Pisani, 2007a]{pis} C. Pisani (2007a), Components, Complements and the Reflection Formula,
{\em Theory and Appl. Cat.} {\bf 19}, 19-40.

\bibitem[Pisani, 2007b]{pis2} C. Pisani (2007b), Components, Complements and Reflection Formulas, preprint, math.\-CT/0701457.

\bibitem[Pisani, 2007c]{pis3} C. Pisani (2007c), Categories of Categories, preprint, math.CT/0709.0837

\bibitem[Street \& Walters, 1973]{stw73} R. Street and R.F.C. Walters (1973), The Comprehensive Factorization of a Functor,
{\em Bull. Amer. Math. Soc.} {\bf 79}(2), 936-941.

\end{refs}

\end{document}


\section{Introduction}

High energy gamma rays from AGN have been reported by\ the EGRET detector at
the Compton Observatory \cite{compton} and by Cerenkov Detectors\cite%
{cerenkov}. More recently a possible correlation between high energy cosmic
rays and the distribution of AGN locations has been reported\cite{auger}. In
this respect, the author had proposed a model for the emission of high
energy particles from AGN since 1985, and the implications of the knee
energy in high energy cosmic ray spectrum had been clarified. In this
report, the author summarizes the proposed model and further explores the
implication of the knee energy. As an additional prediction of the model,
the ratio of neutrinos and gamma rays from AGN is computed.

\section{Summary of the model}

In a series of articles\cite{cr1}-\cite{cr9}, the author has presented a
model for the emission of high energy particles from AGN. The following is a
summary of the model.

1) Quantum effects on gravity yield repulsive forces at short distances\cite%
{cr1},\cite{cr3}.

2) The collapse of black holes results in explosive bounce back motion with
the emission of high energy particles.

3) Consideration of the Penrose diagram eliminates the horizon problem for
black holes\cite{cr4}. Black holes are not black anymore.

4) The knee energy for high energy cosmic rays can be understood as a split
between a radiation-dominated region and a matter dominated region, not
unlike that in the expansion of the universe. (See page 10 of the lecture
notes\cite{cr1}-\cite{cr3}.)

5) Neutrinos and gamma rays as well as cosmic rays should have the same
spectral index from each AGN. They should have the knee energy phenomenon, a
break in the energy spectral index, similar to that for the cosmic ray
energy spectrum.

6) The recent announcement by Hawking rescinding an earlier claim about
information paradox\cite{hawking} is consistent with this model.

The discussion of the knee energy in the model is recapitulated in the next
section, both for the sake of the subject itself, and to introduce the
formulation of the model in order to calculate the ratio of neutrino flux
and gamma ray flux from AGN. This discussion yields the existence of a new
mass scale at the knee energy, which is presented in the subsequent section.
The computation of the neutrino flux and gamma ray flux follows.

\section{The high energy cosmic ray knee energy}

There is a break in the slope of the cosmic ray energy spectrum at around a
few PeV (=10$^{15}$eV). This value is called the knee energy. This
phenomenon was explained as a change of expansion rate in the model\cite{cr1}%
-\cite{cr3}. The number of particles of type X with spin $s$ emitted with
energy E is given by%
\begin{equation}
f_{X}(E)=\frac{2s+1}{2\pi ^{2}}\int \eta _{X}(E/kT)\frac{E^{2}V_{S}dt}{%
e^{E/kT-\mu /kT}\pm 1},  \label{eq1}
\end{equation}%
where $V_{S}$ is the effective volume around the surface of the system with
temperature $T$\ that emits particles, \ $\eta _{X}(E/kT)$ is the emissivity
and $\mu $ is the chemical potential. The $\pm $ sign in the denominator is
for fermions/bosons. It is reasonable to assume that the emissivity for
black holes with a repulsive potential core is close to unity, since
absorption is perfect for black holes and reflection is sure to follow from
the repulsive force:%
\begin{equation}
\eta _{X}(E/kT)\approx 1.
\end{equation}%
With the assumption%
\begin{equation}
V_{S}=\frac{4\pi a}{(kT)^{3}}
\end{equation}%
and the expansion rate%
\begin{equation}
t=bR^{\alpha }  \label{rate}
\end{equation}%
and%
\begin{equation}
R=\frac{d}{kT},
\end{equation}%
where $a$, $b$ and $d$ are constants, one can compute the number of
particles, $f_{X}(E)$, in Eq. (\ref{eq1}),%
\begin{equation}
f_{X}(E)=\frac{A_{X,\alpha }}{E^{\alpha +1}},
\end{equation}%
where%
\begin{equation}
A_{X,\alpha }=\frac{2(2s+1)ab\alpha d^{\alpha }}{\pi }\int_{0}^{\infty }%
\frac{x^{\alpha +2}dx}{e^{x-\mu _{0}}\pm 1}
\end{equation}%
and%
\begin{equation}
\mu _{0}=\mu /kT,\text{ \ \ }x=E/kT.
\end{equation}%
From the expansion rate in cosmology, the exponent $\alpha $ in Eq. (\ref%
{rate}) can be estimated as%
\begin{equation}
\alpha =2\text{ }at\text{ }high\text{ }temperature\text{ }or\text{ }radiation%
\text{ }do\min ated\text{ }era
\end{equation}%
and%
\begin{equation}
\alpha =3/2\text{ }at\text{ }low\text{ }temperature\text{ }or\text{ }matter%
\text{ }do\min ated\text{ }era.
\end{equation}%
For the latter, the exponent varies depending on the assumed mixture of
radiation and matter. Note that all relativistic particles behave like
radiation as far as the relationship between pressure and energy density is
concerned. (i.e., $p=\rho /3$ for radiation as well as for relativistic
particles.)

For high temperature or high energy ($\alpha =2$), the energy spectrum
behaves as%
\begin{equation}
f_{X}(E)\approx 1/E^{3}
\end{equation}%
and for low temperature or low energy ($\alpha =1.5$), the energy spectrum
behaves as%
\begin{equation}
f_{X}(E)\approx 1/E^{2.5}.
\end{equation}%
This is consistent with the observed cosmic ray energy spectrum. It explains
the existence of the knee energy in the cosmic energy energy spectrum. How
about its magnitude? That is the subject of the next section.

\section{The existence of a new mass scale}

At the knee energy of a few PeV or at the corresponding temperature, all
particles of rest mass below the GeV or TeV scale are moving with
relativistic speed, so they contribute as radiation-like or they give the
relationship, $p=\rho /3$. Then, one cannot get a knee energy at the PeV
scale in the model of this article. They would give a knee energy in their
rest mass range. In order to create a knee energy in the cosmic ray spectrum
at a few PeV, one has to assume the existence of particles of a few PeV mass
in black holes. Or equivalently there has to exist a mass scale that creates
significant amounts of particles of a few PeV inside black holes, so that a
significant departure from the radiation-like relationship, $p=\rho /3$, is
established. This can be viewed as observational evidence for a new mass
scale at a few Pev. It is, then, important to establish such a mass scale by
other experimental observations.

An important question is what is the least massive particle at this new mass
scale, so that it can be observed as a stable or at least a quasi-stable
particle. Let us consider some possibilities.

A. The lowest mass is less than a few TeV. This particle can be produced at
LHC. This is a lucky case for the LHC experimental groups. However, it is
not clear whether one can produce a cosmic ray knee energy at the PeV range
by unstable particles at these mass ranges.

B. The lowest mass is larger than a few TeV. This is an unlucky case for
LHC. The Pierre Auger Project would be the only way to detect such
particles. In the analysis of secondary shower particles, one can inquire
whether various combinations of subsystems can make a bump at a particular
mass value. That can be applied to a search for stable or unstable
particles. One can make a search for masses with a fraction of a PeV for
production in the atmosphere or up to the Pev mass scale for stable
particles produced in black holes. These are conceivable for the Pierre
Auger Project.

If any of the stable particles discussed above is weakly interacting, it
becomes a candidate for dark matter. For a discussion of a PeV-scale
supersymmetric theory, see\ e.g., reference\cite{pevss}.

If one gives a name for particles at this PeV mass scale, a designation
based on the word for knee may be appropriate. If one uses a latin word,
genu (or ginocchio for italian), it may become genon. Since this could be
confused with a biological usage, one may call it simply kneeon\cite%
{alternative}.

\section{Ratio of neutrino flux and gamma ray flux}

The flux of gamma rays and neutrinos in this model can be written as ($%
\lambda =\alpha +1$)%
\begin{equation}
f_{X}(E)=\frac{A_{X,\lambda -1}}{E^{\lambda }}
\end{equation}%
where%
\begin{equation}
A_{\gamma ,\lambda -1}=\frac{2K_{\lambda }}{\pi }\int_{0}^{\infty }\frac{%
x^{\lambda +1}}{e^{x}-1}dx
\end{equation}%
for gamma rays and%
\begin{equation}
A_{\nu ,\lambda -1}=\frac{3K_{\lambda }}{\pi }\int_{0}^{\infty }\frac{%
x^{\lambda +1}}{e^{x}+1}dx
\end{equation}%
for neutrinos, where%
\begin{equation}
K_{\lambda }=2ab(\lambda -1)d^{\lambda -1}
\end{equation}%
Here, the chemical potential for gamma rays is zero, and the same is assumed
for mass zero neutrinos. Then, one gets%
\begin{equation}
\frac{A_{\nu ,\lambda -1}}{A_{\gamma ,\lambda -1}}=\frac{3\sum_{n=1}^{\infty
}(-1)^{n}\frac{\Gamma (\lambda +2)}{n^{\lambda +2}}}{2\sum_{n=1}^{\infty }%
\frac{\Gamma (\lambda +2)}{n^{\lambda +2}}}=\frac{3}{2}(1-\frac{1}{%
2^{\lambda +1}})
\end{equation}%
This ratio is given as%
\begin{equation}
\frac{3}{2}(7/8,\text{ }0.912,\text{ }15/16)\text{ \ \ for \ \ }\lambda =(2,%
\text{ }2.5,\text{ }3)
\end{equation}%
Obviously, the factor 3 for the neutrino flux is for three kinds of
neutrinos and the factor 2 for the gamma rays is for two polarizations. The
three neutrinos have equal intensities and there is no oscillation when they
propagate. The last statement is independent of the massless assumption for
neutrinos.

It is also obvious that gamma rays and neutrinos should have the same
spectral index and that both should have the same knee energy for each AGN.\
As the result of a new mass scale, the knee energy has an approximately
universal value. Each AGN has different physical conditions for
gravitational collapse and subsequent expansion and each can have different
spectral index below the knee energy. However, a spectral index of 3 above
the knee energy is most likely to be universal since it is caused by
radiation domination. Below the knee energy, the spectral index is decided
by the mixing of radiation-dominated component of light particles and a
matter-dominated component of heavy particles. Thus, each AGN can have
different spectral index, as seen in the gamma ray observations\cite{compton}%
,\cite{cerenkov}. More explicitly,%
\begin{equation}
\text{for \ \ }p=\frac{\epsilon }{3}\rho ,
\end{equation}%
with%
\begin{equation}
0\leq \epsilon \leq 1,
\end{equation}%
one gets%
\begin{equation}
\alpha =\frac{3+\epsilon }{2}
\end{equation}%
and
\begin{equation}
\lambda =\alpha +1=2.5+\epsilon /2.
\end{equation}%
If one includes the curvature term in the Friedman metric, one ends up with
a more complicated form.

\section{Discussion}

The observation of a knee energy at a few PeV implies the existence of a new
mass scale in nature in this model. It may be characteristic of \ the
appearance of new physics, a conclusion already indicated from the
observation of high energy cosmic rays with a knee energy. It suggests to
find such evidence from other experimental observation, most likely from a
detailed analysis of the Pierre Auger Project data.

A further important point of this model is that the properties of black
holes have been completely changed, a revolutionary change. The highest
energy cosmic rays observed on Earth may be coming from black holes, an
irony considering the classical description of black holes, \ which tells us
that nothing comes out of them. The Hawking radiation emitted by massive
black holes is miniscule, since the Hawking temperature is inversely
proportional to the black hole mass. High energy gamma rays as well as high
energy neutrinos are coming out of them, too.

Jets coming from AGN can be understood from this model. They are low energy
components, which were accummulated by the magnetic field in the AGN.

In this modified form of black holes, a lot of stuff is coming out. As a
result, the mass of a black hole can be reduced by the emission process. In
the old picture, the mass of a black hole can only increase. This creates a
new scenario for the development of AGN or black holes. The core of AGN can
become smaller on a historical time scale. This may have something to do
with the observational fact that large massive black holes in AGN are at
larger distances or at a long gone past, while all galaxies in our
neighborhood have core black holes with smaller masses at the center. One
can postulate that an ordinary galaxy with a small central black hole can be
a derivative of an AGN from the old days that has a massive black hole\cite%
{massdistance}.

A black hole can become a neutron star by reducing mass by emission. If the
remnant core of SN 87A is a black hole at the present time, it may become a
neutron star at some later time. That is a possible scenario now.

Finally, I should point out the possibility of the formation of massive
black holes made of dark matter. If they are surrounded by dark matter, then
one does not observe them as visible AGN. In other words, they are invisible
AGN. Then, such objects can emit particles, dark matter particles, gamma
rays, neutrinos and possibly ordinary cosmic rays. They become sourceless
cosmic rays as far as the optical signature is concerned. In such cases, the
only signature is high energy gamma rays and neutrinos. A recent report on
high energy cosmic rays in the northern hemisphere that are not correlated
with known AGN\cite{pysicstoday} may be correlated with invisible AGN. One
has to consider a correlation with gamma ray sources in such a case. One
might ask why such a signature was observed in the northern hemisphere only
so far. There is another observation data where a north-south asymmetry is
observed\cite{center}.

\bigskip

\begin{acknowledgments}
\bigskip The author would like to thank Jean Krisch, James Wells and David
N. Williams for useful discussions.
\end{acknowledgments}

\bigskip