Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I recently read about the result that the tensor product distributes over direct sums. I was curious if it also distributes over direct products, but google tells me it doesn't.

What are some simple counterexamples to why this property isn't true? I know that there is a natural homomorphism $$ \left(\prod M_i\right)\otimes N\to \prod (M_i\otimes N) $$ given by $(\prod m_i)\otimes n\mapsto \prod (m_i\otimes n)$ when $M$ and $N$ are modules over some commutative ring $R$. Are there standard examples where this homomorphism is not injective/surjective and hence not an isomorphism?

share|improve this question
2  
You need infinitely many factors; otherwise, the direct product is isomorphic to the corresponding direct sum. –  Arturo Magidin Mar 11 '12 at 4:57

2 Answers 2

up vote 13 down vote accepted

We consider $\mathbb{Z}$-modules (i.e., abelian groups).

Since $\mathbb{Q}$ is divisible, if $A$ is a torsion abelian group, then $A\otimes\mathbb{Q}$ is trivial.

Let $G$ be the direct product of cyclic group of order $p^n$, with $p$ a prime, and $n$ increasing; that is: $$G = \prod_{n=1}^{\infty}\mathbb{Z}/p^n\mathbb{Z}.$$

Then $$\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}\left(\mathbb{Z}/p^n\mathbb{Z}\otimes\mathbb{Q}\right) = 0.$$

But $G\otimes\mathbb{Q}$ is not trivial: if we let $x$ be the element that corresponds to the class of $1$ in every coordinate, then $x$ has infinite order. Therefore, $$\langle x\rangle \otimes\mathbb{Q}\cong \mathbb{Z}\otimes\mathbb{Q} \cong\mathbb{Q};$$ but tensoring with $\mathbb{Q}$ over $\mathbb{Z}$ is exact; therefore, the embedding $\langle x\rangle \hookrightarrow G$ induces an embedding $\langle x\rangle\otimes G\hookrightarrow G\otimes \mathbb{Q}$. Therefore, $G\otimes\mathbb{Q}\neq 0$. Thus, we have $$\left(\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}\mathbb{Z}/p^n\mathbb{Z}\right)\otimes \mathbb{Q}\not\cong \prod_{n=1}^{\infty}(\mathbb{Z}/p^n\mathbb{Z}\otimes\mathbb{Q}).$$

share|improve this answer
    
Thank you Arturo! I'm still easing my way into this sort of thing. Is there a pedestrian way to see from this example that the natural homomorphism is neither injective nor surjective? –  hmIII Mar 11 '12 at 8:57
1  
Similar example: $G = \prod_{n = 1}^\infty \mathbf Z$, again tensoring with $\mathbf Q$ over $\mathbf Z$. The issue is that an element of $\prod \mathbf Q$ can involve infinitely many denominators. –  Dylan Moreland Mar 11 '12 at 15:53
    
@hmIII: Since, in this case, $\prod(M_i\otimes N)$ is the trivial module, the map is necessarily onto; since $(\prod M_i)\otimes N$ is not trivial, the map is necessarily not one-to-one. –  Arturo Magidin Mar 11 '12 at 22:14

Let $X$ and $Y$ be indeterminates.

For an example where your map is not surjective, take $M_i:=R$ for all $i\in\mathbb N$, and $N:=R[Y]$.

Then you get the natural map $$ R[[X]][Y]\to R[Y][[X]], $$ and $$ \sum_{i\in\mathbb N}\ X^i\ Y^i $$ is not in the image.

EDIT. Same example with different notation: Put $$ A:=\left(\prod M_i\right)\otimes N,\quad B:=\prod\ (M_i\otimes N), $$ and, for all $i,j\in\mathbb N$, $$ M_i=R_i=R_j=R_{ij}=R. $$ Set also $N:=\bigoplus R_j$. Then we have canonical isomorphisms $$ A=\bigoplus_j\ \prod_i\ R_{ij},\quad B=\prod_i\ \bigoplus_j\ R_{ij}. $$ We also have the inclusions $$ A\subset B\subset\prod_{i,j}\ R_{ij}, $$ and your map becomes the first inclusion.

Note that the Kronecker symbol $(\delta_{ij})$ is in $B$ but not in $A$.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks Pierre-Yves! Do you mind saying a quick word why $\sum_{i\in\mathbb N}\ X^i\ Y^i$ is not in the image? Is it because there are only finitely many powers of $Y$ with nonzero coefficient for an element of $R[[X]][Y]$? –  hmIII Mar 11 '12 at 9:57
    
Dear hmIII: Yes! Every nonzero element of $R[[X]][Y]$ has a finite $Y$-degree. But, clearly, $$\sum_{i\in\mathbb N}\ X^i\ Y^i$$ has no such $Y$-degree. But I like your formulation better than mine... –  Pierre-Yves Gaillard Mar 11 '12 at 10:16
    
Thanks again. I wish I could accept both answers, since each answered a different part of my question. –  hmIII Mar 12 '12 at 2:24
    
Dear @hmIII: You're welcome. I would also have accepted Arturo's answer: it was the first one, and it is outstanding. My goal is to be as helpful as possible. –  Pierre-Yves Gaillard Mar 12 '12 at 3:27

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.