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.

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

Let's $(K^{\bullet}, d^{\bullet})$ is the complex over field $A$ (i.e. all $K^{i}$ are vector spaces over this field) and $(L^{\bullet}, {\delta}^{\bullet})$ such that $$L^{i}=H^{i}(K)~\text{and all}~{\delta}^{i}=0.$$ Why this two complexes $K$ and $L$ are quasi-isomorphic? Why it's wrong for complex over ring?

Thanks a lot!

share|cite|improve this question

The result you mention is true for complexes of modules over a ring of global dimension at most one. It is not entirely trivial to prove, see section 2.5 in these lecture notes by Keller. Note that fields have global dimension zero.

share|cite|improve this answer

To show that $K$ and $L$ are quasi-isomorphic, try splitting each vector space $K^n$ as $\operatorname{im} d^{n-1}\oplus H^n(K)\oplus (K^n/\ker d^n)$, such that $d^n$ acts in an appropriate way. Then show that the maps $H^n(K)\to K^n$ define a quasi-isomorphism.

To show that this fails over a ring, you need to find a chain complex that doesn't split in this way.

share|cite|improve this answer
but $\operatorname{im} d^n \subset \ker d^{n+1}$ – Aspirin Jul 19 '12 at 20:00
Aspirin: yes, that was wrong. It's something like that though – Colin McQuillan Jul 19 '12 at 20:07

The general statement for why this may be false over a ring goes like this: for two $R$-modules $A,B$ consider $\mathrm{Ext}^2(A,B)$. This parameterizes extensions $0\to A\to X\to Y \to B\to 0$ under Baer sum. It is straightforward to check that for a non-zero class in $\mathrm{Ext}$ given by $0\to A\to X\to Y\to B\to 0$, $0\to A\to B \to 0$ with 0 differential has the same homology as $0\to X\to Y\to 0$ with the same differential is in the 4-term sequence, but it may happen that there are no maps between $A$ and $X$, and so there cannot be a quasi-isomorphism. Unfortunately, an illuminating example does not spring to mind right now.

share|cite|improve this answer

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.