Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I've heard that taking direct limits is an exact functor in the category of modules, and I'm trying to figure out why, as I couldn't find a proof.

Suppose you have homomorphisms $\varphi_i: K_i\to N_i$ and $\psi_i: N_i\to M_i$ for $(K_i,h^i_j)$, $(N_i,g^i_j)$, and $(M_i,f^i_j)$ directed systems of modules such that $0\to K_i\to N_i\to M_i\to 0$ is exact for every $i$.

Why is $0\to\varinjlim K_i\to\varinjlim N_i\to\varinjlim M_i\to 0$ also exact?

So I let $\varphi:\varinjlim K_i\to\varinjlim N_i$ and $\psi:\varinjlim N_i\to\varinjlim M_i$ be the natural homomorphisms. Take $x\in\ker\psi$. Then $x=g^i(x_i)$ for some $x_i\in N_i$. Then $0=\psi(g^i(x_i))=f^i(g^i(x_i))$. I know there exists some $j\geq i$ such that $f^i_j(g^i(x_i))=0$ in $M_j$. But $f^i_j\circ\psi_i=\psi_j\circ g^i_j$, so $g^i_j(x_i)\in\ker\psi_j=\text{im}(\varphi_j)$. Then $g^i_j(x_i)=\varphi_j(y_j)$ for some $y_j\in K_j$, so $$ x=g^i(x_i)=g^j(g^i_j(x_i))=g^j(\varphi_j(y_j))=\varphi(h^j(y_j)) $$ and so $\ker\psi\subseteq\text{im}\varphi$.

Conversely, suppose $x\in\text{im}\varphi$. Then $x=\varphi(y)$ for some $y=h^i(y_i)$ and $y_i\in K_i$. So $x=\varphi(h^i(y_i))=g^i(\varphi_i(y_i))$. Thus $$ \psi(x)=\psi(g^i(\varphi_i(y_i)))=f^i(\psi_i(\varphi_i(y_i)))=0 $$ since $\psi_i\circ\varphi=0$. Then $\ker\psi=\text{im}\varphi$. (Please let me know if I've written nonsense, too many maps can cause me to get lost!)

What is bugging me is, is $\varphi$ injective and $\psi$ surjective to see that the short exact sequence is in fact exact? Is there some obvious fact I'm missing? If possible, is there an explanation in the same vein as the above (i.e. using the maps and manipulating the elements without relying on more general facts from category theory? I'm not too knowledgeable about the latter.) Thanks.

share|cite|improve this question
All colimits (and so direct limits in particular) commute with colimits (and so cokernels in particular), thus $\psi$ is automatically an epimorphism. You do need to prove that $\phi$ is a monomorphism though, but this is straightforward enough. – Zhen Lin Mar 16 '12 at 23:43
Thanks @ZhenLin. If $x\in\ker\varphi$, then $x=h^i(x_i)$ for some $x_i\in K_i$. Then $$\varphi(x)=\varphi(h^i(x_i))=g^i(\varphi_i(x_i))=0.$$ This last equality implies $g^i_j(\varphi_i(x_i))=0$ for some $j>i$, so $\varphi_i(x_i)\in\ker g^i_j$. Is there a way to conclude $x_i=0$ or something, or have I gone off track? – Jacqueline Pauwels Mar 17 '12 at 0:03
You know $g^i_j(\varphi_i(x_i)) = 0$, so $\varphi_j(h^i_j(x_i)) = 0$, and you know $\varphi_j$ is injective. – Zhen Lin Mar 17 '12 at 9:59
up vote 15 down vote accepted

It suffices to show that if $K_i\to M_i\to N_i$ is exact at $M_i$ for each $i$ (and the appropriate squares commute), then $\varinjlim K_i\to \varinjlim M_i\to \varinjlim N_i$ is exact at $\varinjlim M_i$.

(To get that $\varinjlim$ sends short exact sequences to short exact sequences from this, simply apply the argument to $0\to K_i\to M_i$, exact at $K_i$; to $K_i\to M_i\to N_i$; and then to $M_i\to N_i\to 0$).

Call the first map $f_i$ (with induced map of limits $f$), the second $g_i$ (with induced map $g$); use $\kappa$, $\mu$, and $\nu$ for the structure maps.

Given $[(k,i)]$, we have $g(f([(k,i)])) = g([f_i(k),i]) = [g_i(f_i(k)),i] = [0,i]$, so the composition is trivial. That is, $\mathrm{Im}(f)\subseteq \mathrm{Ker}(g)$.

Now assume that $g([(m,i)]) = [(0,j)]$. Then there exists $t\geq i$ such that $\nu_{it}(g_i(m)) = 0$; hence $g_t(\mu_{it}(m)) = 0$, so by exactness of the original diagram we know that there exists $k\in K_t$ such that $f_t(k) = \mu_{it}(m)$. Therefore, $$f([k,t]) = [(f(k),t)] = [(\mu_{it}(m),t)] = [(m,i)],$$ so $[(m,i)]$ lies in the image of $f$. Thus, $\mathrm{Im}(f)\supseteq \mathrm{Ker}(g)$, proving equality.

Now, this proves that $\varinjlim$ is exact; as to "why" it is exact (is there some deep why it is exact)? I don't know if I can answer.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank you Arturo. – Jacqueline Pauwels Mar 17 '12 at 17:21

Your Answer


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.