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.

This is a follow up question to my previous question here.

I'm confused about the following: in Atiyah-Macdonald they state that there exists a unique isomorphism $M \otimes N \to N \otimes M$, $m \otimes n \mapsto n \otimes m$.

I'm not sure why AM write unique: If I already know the map, $m \otimes n \mapsto n \otimes m$, then there is no other map that is exactly the same. So I think I get uniqueness for free and all I have to show is that $m \otimes n \mapsto n \otimes m$ is an isomorphism.

On the other hand, and that's the way I understood the proposition in the book, if I want to show that there exists a unique isomorphism (without knowing what it is in advance) then I can use the universal property of the tensor product to get uniqueness and the map will turn out to be $m \otimes n \mapsto n \otimes m$ which is an isomorphism.

What am I missing?

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 6 down vote accepted

You are misreading Atiyah-Macdonald.

You are reading: "There is only one linear map $M \otimes N \rightarrow N \otimes M$. Furthermore this map has the property that $m \otimes n \mapsto n \otimes m$.

They mean: "Consider the set of all linear maps $M \otimes N \rightarrow N \otimes M$ which satisfy the property $m \otimes n \mapsto n \otimes m$. There is only one such map."

The former can't possibly be right because you could precompose with any endomorphism of $M \otimes N$. The only times you'll have a unique linear map between those two spaces is if one of M and N is the zero vector space (otherwise you have this map and the zero map).

share|improve this answer

Not every element of $M \otimes N$ is of the form $m \otimes n$. So we've only defined our function on some of $M \otimes N$, and the point is that there's a unique way to extend this function to an everywhere-defined isomorphism.

share|improve this answer
    
So we use the universal property of the tensor product to show that this map extends uniquely? Is the other way around also correct: assume we don't know what it looks like, apply the universal property and see that it is the map given in the proposition? –  Rudy the Reindeer Jun 8 '12 at 15:18

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.