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

If I have two exact triangles $X \to Y \to Z \to X[1]$ and $X' \to Y' \to Z' \to X'[1]$ in a triangulated category, and I have morphisms $X \to X'$, $Y \to Y'$ which 'commute' (i.e., such that $X \to Y \to Y' = X \to X' \to Y'$), thene there exists a (not necessarily unique) map $Z \to Z'$ which completes what we've got to a morphism of triangles.

Is there a criterion which ensures the uniqueness of this cone-map?

I'd like something along the lines of: if $\operatorname{Ext}^{-1}(X,Y')=0$ then yes.

(I might be too optimistic, cfr. Prop 10.1.17 of Kashiwara-Schapira Categories and Sheaves: in addition to $\operatorname{Hom}{(X[1],Y')} = 0$ they also assume $\operatorname{Hom} {(Y,X')} =0$. I really don't have this second assumption.)

(In the case I'm interested in $X=X', Y=Y'$ and $X\to X'$, $Y \to Y'$ are the identity maps.)

(If it makes things easier, although I doubt it, you can take the category to be the bounded derived category of coherent sheaves on some, fairly nasty, scheme.)

In the context I have in mind $X, Y, X', Y'$ are all objects of the heart of a bounded t-structure. If we assumed $\operatorname{Hom}{(Z,Y')} = 0$ or $\operatorname{Hom}{(X[1],Z')} = 0$ then the result easily follows. I don't think I'm happy making those assumptions though.

share|cite|improve this question
After all, you have the following weak functoriality in general: the mapping cone and the mapping cone triangle are unique up to non-canonical isomorphism. – Rasmus Feb 25 '11 at 13:59
I can't access KS at the moment. Is Prop 10.1.17 the BBD-criterion $\operatorname{Hom}(X[1],Z') =0$? I would also appreciate some hint why you think that $\operatorname{Hom}{(X[1],Y')}=0$ should help, I can't fit this information into any exact sequence relevant to your question. – t.b. Feb 25 '11 at 14:38
I'll make some edits. – slackenerny Feb 25 '11 at 15:19
@Theo: In KS they use the Hom(Z,-) exact sequence to find a morphism $Z \to Y'$, the Hom(-,Z') exact sequence to find a morphism $X[1] \to Z'$. These morphisms satisfy $Z \to Y' \to Z' = Z \to X[1] \to Z'$. By axioms of triang'd cats we complete to morphism of triangles via map $Y[1] \to X'[1]$. This map has to be zero by KS's assumptions. By applying again Hom exact sequences we get a map $X[1]\to Y$, which has to be zero by assumption, thus the map we had $X[1]\to Z'$ is zero, thus $Z\to Z'$ is zero. (Yes, without drawing diagrams it's pretty incomprehensible.) Thanks for your interest guys. – slackenerny Feb 25 '11 at 15:30

The uniqueness condition of the maps between cones is very restrictive. If it holds for every commutative square, this indeed means that you could define a "cone functor" $\mathrm{Mor}(\mathcal T) \to \mathcal T$ from the category of morphisms of your triangulated category $\mathcal T$ to $\mathcal T$ itself (just choose a cone object for each morphism, then your uniqueness condition ensures that the cone functor is well defined on morphisms). It turns out that this makes $\mathcal T$ a semisimple abelian category, if $\mathcal T$ is assumed to be Karoubian (i.e. every idempotent splits; many common triangulated categories are Karoubian). I found a proof of this claim in the following article:

In conclusion: you can't expect your uniqueness condition to hold globally in "useful" triangulated categories. There is a technique to overcome this problem, that is, using pre-triangulated dg-categories (introduced by Bondal and Kapranov) to "lift" triangulated categories. In this new framework you indeed have functorial cones.

Perhaps this doesn't answer your specific question (which, as I understand, is about a given commutative square), but it should point out that the desired uniqueness is, roughly speaking, very difficult to obtain in general.

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.