TITLE: Does induction for a functor algebra imply it is initial?
QUESTION [9 upvotes]: By "induction" I mean "no proper subalgebras". My thinking goes like this:

For natural numbers, recursion and induction are in some sense the same thing. In particular, given a recursive definition of $f$ you would prove its totality roughly by saying "if I can define $f$ on $1\dots n$, then I can define it on $n+1$", i.e. by induction.
The proper categorical notion of recursion is initial algebras – in particular, for $F(X) = 1\sqcup X$ an initial algebra is a natural number object, the property of being initial being precisely what you need to define functions by recursion.
An initial algebra automatically has a notion of induction: initial objects have no proper subobjects, so if you have some subobject that is closed under the algebra operations, this means precisely that the inclusion is an algebra homomorphism, and therefore an isomorphism.
I'd really like to go the other way, but in general the implication "$I$ is initial $\implies$ every mono into $I$ is an iso" cannot be reversed (its dual has a counterexample in $\mathbf{Set}$, in that every epi from $0$ is an iso but $0$ is not terminal).

Are there circumstances where an algebra having no proper subalgebra means it is initial?

REPLY [2 votes]: After receiving no answers here, I reposted this question on MathOverflow, and got an answer from Todd Trimble.
https://mathoverflow.net/questions/127540/does-induction-for-a-functor-algebra-imply-it-is-initial