Tell me more ×
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.
up vote 8 down vote favorite
7

What is a simple example, without getting into the mess of triangulated categories, of an additive category that is not abelian?

share|improve this question

4 Answers

up vote 7 down vote

The category of finitely generated modules over a non-Noetherian ring.

The category of filtered modules over a ring is an example given in Gelfand-Manin.

share|improve this answer
2  
The category of modules over any ring is abelian. You mean the category of finitely generated modules over a non-Noetherian ring. Also, the category of filtered modules (over any ring) will do; you don't need to pass to chain complexes. – Matt E Aug 10 '10 at 2:06
@Matt E. What's the problem with filtered modules? There aren't kernels? Images? – Agustí Roig Aug 10 '10 at 6:21
@Matt E: Thanks. I will make the changes. – LLN BBK Aug 10 '10 at 10:54
4  
The problem is that images and coimages are not isomorphic. Let's just talk about filtered vector spaces. Let V and W be one dimensional vector spaces. Filter them so that V_i=(0) for $i \leq 0$ and V_i = k for i>0, while W_i=(0) for i<0 and W_i=k for i \geq 0. The isomorphism V \to W is a map of filtered vector spaces. I leave it to you to compute that the cokernel of the kernel is 0 in degree 0, while the kernel of the cokernel is one dimensional. – David Speyer Aug 10 '10 at 16:40
3  
Dear Agusti, David has answered your question, so let me just add: filtered modules is a basic example of an additive category admitting kernels, cokernels, images, and coimages, but which is not abelian, because images and coimages don't coincide in general. Another such example is the category of topological vector spaces (or Banach spaces, if you like), over $\mathbb R$ or $\mathbb C$. (In general, filtrations behave a lot like topologies as a structure, and give the same kind of categorical difficulties.) – Matt E Aug 10 '10 at 20:18
show 1 more comment
up vote 6 down vote

In infinite dimensions, all hell breaks loose. For example, neither the category of Banach spaces nor the category of Hilbert spaces, although additive, are abelian.

share|improve this answer
up vote 4 down vote

There are at least two kinds of (interesting) examples.

I. When we can get an abelian category, but have to add more (co)kernels: 1) the category of free modules over a ring; 2) the category of projective modules over a ring; 3) the category of vector bundles on a topological space (if fact, 3 is a particular case of 2). (From 1 or 2 one gets abelian category of all modules over the ring, from 3 — abelian category of sheafs of vector spaces on X.)

II. When we already have (co)kernels ("category is pre-abelian") but not all mono-/epimorphisms are normal. As explained in another answer, an example is the category of filtered modules.

share|improve this answer
The problem with free modules over a ring is that submodules of free modules need not be free? If that's the case, the category of all free modules over a PID is abelian... please correct me if I'm wrong. – Bruno Stonek Jun 12 '11 at 14:17
@BrunoStonek The problem with free modules is the co-kernels, not the kernels. The category of free modules over a PID only has all co-kernels if the PID is actually a field. – Thomas Andrews Mar 28 '12 at 15:12
up vote 3 down vote

Another nice example is the category of finite-dimensional vector bundles over a fixed base space (with bundle maps over the identity as morphisms).

If the base space is not too simple (the interval suffices), then this category is not (pre-)Abelian because there are, in general, neither kernels nor cokernels. Intuitively speaking, the obvious candidate for the kernel of a bundle map need not form a vector bundle because its dimension need not be locally constant.

share|improve this answer
what's the problem with this one? – Soarer Aug 10 '10 at 16:38
Sorry if I overlooked something, but why isn't this abelian? – Soarer Aug 10 '10 at 17:26
@Soarer: I have added clarification to my answer. I deleted my previous comment because it contained a false statement. – Rasmus Aug 10 '10 at 18:03

Your Answer

 
discard

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