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.

I am reading a paper where the following trick is used:

To compute the left derived functors $L_{i}FM$ of a right-exact functor $F$ on an object $M$ in a certain abelian category, the authors construct a complex (not a resolution!) of acyclic objects, ending in $M$, say $A_{\bullet} \to M \to 0$, such that the homology of this complex is acyclic, and this homology gets killed by $F$. Thus, they claim, the left-derived functors can be computed from this complex.

Why does this claim follow? It seems like it should be easy enough, but I can't seem to wrap my head around it.

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer

Compare with a projective resolution $P_\bullet\to M\to 0$. By projectivity, we obtain (from the identiy $M\to M$) a complex morphism $P_\bullet\to A_\bullet$, which induces $F(P_\bullet)\to F(A_\bullet)$. With a bit of diagram chasing you shold find that $H_\bullet(F(P_\bullet))$ is the same as $H_\bullet(F(A_\bullet))$.

A bit more explict: We can build a resolution of complexes $$\begin{matrix} &\downarrow && \downarrow&&\downarrow\\ 0\leftarrow &A_2&\leftarrow&P_{2,1}&\leftarrow&P_{2,2}&\leftarrow\\ &\downarrow && \downarrow&&\downarrow\\ 0\leftarrow &A_1&\leftarrow&P_{1,1}&\leftarrow&P_{1,2}&\leftarrow\\ &\downarrow && \downarrow&&\downarrow\\ 0\leftarrow &M&\leftarrow &P_{0,1}&\leftarrow&P_{0,2}&\leftarrow\\ &\downarrow && \downarrow&&\downarrow\\ &0&&0&&0 \end{matrix} $$ i.e. the $P_{i,j}$ are projective and all rows are exact. The downarrows are found recursively using projectivity so that all squares commute: If all down maps are called $f$ and all left maps $g$, then $f\circ g\colon P_{i,j}\to P_{i-1,j-1}$ maps to the image of $g\colon P_{i-1,j}\to P_{i-1,j-1}$ because $g\circ(f\circ g)=f\circ g\circ g=0$, hence $f\circ g$ factors through $P_{i-1,j}$, thus giving the next $f\colon P_{i,j}\to P_{i-1,j}$. We can apply $F$ and take direct sums across diagonals, i.e. let $B_k=\bigoplus_{i+j=k} FP_{i,j}$. Then $d:=(-1)^if+g$ makes this a complex. What interest us here, is that we can walk from the lower row to the left column by diagram chasing, thus finding that $H_\bullet(F(P_{0,\bullet}))=H_\bullet(F(A_\bullet))$. Indeed: Start with $x_0\in FP_{0,k}$ with $Fg(x_0)=0$. Then we find $y_1\in FP_{1,k}$ with $Ff(y_1)=x_0$. Since $Ff(Fg(y_1))=Fg(Ff(y_1))=0$, we find $y_2\in FP_{2,k-1}$ with $Ff(y_2)=y_1$, and so on until we end up with a cycle in $A_k$. Make yourself clear that the choices involved don't make a difference in the end (i.e. up to boundaries). Also, the chase can be performed just as well from the left column to the bottom row ...

share|improve this answer
    
Could you elaborate on the diagram chasing, this is exactly what my problem is. –  Bart Rutgers Dec 29 '12 at 13:50
    
There's also a small typo: $H_{\bullet}(F(A_{\bullet}))$. –  Bart Rutgers Dec 30 '12 at 10:38
add comment

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.