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 $A$ and $B$ be commutative rings. Let $F$ be a functor from the category of $A$ modules to the category of $B$ modules. Suppose that $F$ preserves injectivity and surjectivity: whenever $f : X\rightarrow Y$ is an injective map of $A$-modules, we have that $F(f) : F(X)\rightarrow F(Y)$ is an injective map of $B$ modules, and similarly for a surjective map. In other words, $F$ is both left and right exact. Is $F$ necessarily exact, in the sense that it takes short exact sequences to short exact sequences?

It seems like all of the examples of non-exact functors one usually sees ($Hom$, $\otimes$, etc.) fail to preserve either injectivity or surjectivity, so I am wondering if there are any examples which preserve both.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 11 down vote accepted

No. For example, the symmetric square functor $S^2(-) : \text{Vect} \to \text{Vect}$ preserves both injective and surjective maps, but it is not exact.

Your assertion that $F$ is left exact if $F$ preserves injective maps is false without the additional assumption that $F$ is additive (edit: and now that I think about it may be false even with this assumption...?). It is true that if $F$ is an additive functor which is both left and right exact, then $F$ is exact. But there are several equivalent definitions of left exactness for an additive functor (between abelian categories) which are no longer equivalent if $F$ is not additive.

share|cite|improve this answer
Can you give a more detailed description of the "symmetric square" functor? – user15464 Jan 3 '13 at 2:06
@user: it sends a vector space $V$ to the quotient of the tensor square $V \otimes V$ by the subspace of vectors of the form $v \otimes w - w \otimes v$. Feel free to substitute the tensor square functor if you're more comfortable with that. If $e_1, e_2, ...$ is a basis of $V$, then $\{ e_i e_j : i \le j \}$ is a basis of $S^2(V)$. – Qiaochu Yuan Jan 3 '13 at 2:08
Perhaps it's worth mentioning that a right exact functor between abelian categories is exact if and only if it preserves monomorphisms – which is probably where the flawed analogy comes from. – Zhen Lin Jan 3 '13 at 4:41
For a nice example of an additive functor between abelian categories which preserves monos but is not left exact, one can see Martin Brandenburg's answer here. – Ben Dyer Jul 11 '15 at 23:08

To amplify, let me point out that it is not even true that an additive functor that preserves epimorphisms/surjections also preserves cokernels. For example, let $\mathcal{C}$ be the full subcategory of $\textbf{Ab}$ spanned by the torsion-free abelian groups. This category, perhaps unexpectedly, is an additive category with kernels and cokernels – but is not an abelian category. Indeed, in $\mathcal{C}$, the cokernel of $2 \cdot {-} : \mathbb{Z} \to \mathbb{Z}$ is $0$, so the inclusion $\mathcal{C} \hookrightarrow \textbf{Ab}$ is an additive functor that preserves surjections but not cokernels (or even epimorphisms in general!). In fact, $\mathcal{C} \hookrightarrow \textbf{Ab}$ is even a right adjoint, and so is left exact in particular. (When I say left/right exact, I always mean a functor that preserves finite limits/colimits.)

However, what is true is that a left exact functor $F : \mathcal{A} \to \mathcal{B}$ that preserves (normal) epimorphisms will be exact, provided $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ are both abelian. Indeed, since $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ are additive, to show that $F$ is right exact it is enough to show that it is additive and preserves cokernels. Now, it is known that a functor $\mathcal{A} \to \mathcal{B}$ that preserves finite products is automatically additive; but a left exact functor preserves finite products, so is an additive functor in particular. Consider a sequence of morphisms $$0 \longrightarrow A' \longrightarrow A \longrightarrow A'' \longrightarrow 0$$ in $\mathcal{A}$, and suppose $A' \to A$ is kernel of $A \to A''$ and $A \to A''$ is the cokernel of $A' \to A$. Since $F$ preserves kernels, we get an exact sequence $$0 \longrightarrow F A' \longrightarrow F A \longrightarrow F A''$$ in $\mathcal{B}$, and since $A \to A''$ is a (normal) epimorphism, we can extend the above to a short exact sequence in $\mathcal{B}$: $$0 \longrightarrow F A' \longrightarrow F A \longrightarrow F A'' \longrightarrow 0$$ Thus, $F$ preserves cokernels of normal monomorphisms. In general, if we have a morphism $X \to A$ in $\mathcal{A}$, we can factor it as $X \to A' \to A$ where $X \to A'$ is the cokernel of the kernel of $X \to A$, and it is not hard to show that the cokernel of $A' \to A$ is also the cokernel of $X \to A$. Since $F$ preserves all kernels and also cokernels of (normal) monomorphisms, $F$ preserves this factorisation, and therefore the cokernel of $F A' \to F A$ is also the cokernel of $F X \to F A$. However, because $\mathcal{A}$ is an abelian category, $A' \to A$ itself is a (normal) monomorphism, so $F$ preserves its cokernel. Thus $F$ actually preserves all cokernels and is therefore right exact.

Dually, of course, a right exact functor between abelian categories is exact if and only if it preserves (normal) monomorphisms. This explains the classical fact that $M$ is flat if and only if $- \otimes_R M$ preserves injective homomorphisms: $- \otimes_R M$ is a left adjoint and so right exact in particular.

share|cite|improve this answer
What do you mean by your repeated parenthesis "(normal)"? The exactness of the last displayed short exact sequence ultimately relies on the axiom/lemma that an epimorphism in an abelian category is the cokernel of its kernel, right? – Martin Jan 3 '13 at 8:05
A normal mono/epimorphism is one that is a kernel/cokernel. An abelian category is precisely an additive category with kernels and cokernels in which all monomorphisms and all epimorphisms are normal. – Zhen Lin Jan 3 '13 at 8:29
Got it. Thanks. – Martin Jan 3 '13 at 8:35

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.