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.

Let $\cdots\rightarrow F_1 \rightarrow F_0 \rightarrow M \rightarrow 0$ be a free resolution of the $A$-module $M$. Let $N$ be an $A$-module. I saw in some notes that we have an exact sequence $0 \rightarrow \operatorname{Tor}(M,N) \rightarrow F_1 \otimes N \rightarrow F_0 \otimes N \rightarrow M \otimes N \rightarrow 0$. Why is that true?

Edited:

Let me explain the source of my confusion. In my study, $\operatorname{Tor}_n(M,N)$ was defined as the homology of dimension $n$ of the double complex $K_{p,q}=F_p \otimes Q_q$, where $F_{\cdot}, Q_{\cdot}$ are projective resolutions of $M,N$ respectively. It was shown that $\operatorname{Tor}_n(M,N) = \operatorname{Tor}_n(F_{\cdot} \otimes N)=H_n(F_{\cdot} \otimes N) = \frac{Ker(F_n \otimes N \rightarrow F_{n-1} \otimes N)}{Im(F_{n+1} \otimes N \rightarrow F_{n} \otimes N)}$. Now if the sequence $0 \rightarrow \operatorname{Tor}(M,N) \rightarrow F_1 \otimes N \rightarrow F_0 \otimes N \rightarrow M \otimes N \rightarrow 0$ is exact, then $\operatorname{Tor}_1(M,N) = \operatorname{Ker}(F_1 \otimes N \rightarrow F_{0} \otimes N)$, which means that $\operatorname{Im}(F_{2} \otimes N \rightarrow F_{1} \otimes N)=0$, which does not make sense. What am I missing?

PS: The reference that i am using is Matsumura's Commutative Ring Theory Appendix B. That's as far as i have gone so far with homological algebra.

share|improve this question
3  
Because ${\rm Tor}(-,N)$ is the derived functor of $\otimes N$ and ${\rm Tor}(F,N)=0$ if $F$ is flat ($\Leftarrow$ free). –  Berci Feb 25 '13 at 0:51
    
I am looking for a simpler argument. I am not familiar with derived functors. –  Manos Feb 25 '13 at 0:55
1  
Aha.. Then how ${\rm Tor}$ is defined? Probably the mentioned exact sequence itself defines it, no? –  Berci Feb 25 '13 at 0:57
    
You have a point. Let me think. –  Manos Feb 25 '13 at 1:06
    
@Berci: I thought about it and i identified what confuses me. Please take a look at my edit :) –  Manos Feb 25 '13 at 21:52

2 Answers 2

up vote 2 down vote accepted

You are right to be confused because the statement isn't true as written, for the reason you say. Example: take $A=k[x]/x^2$ and $M=k$ and $N=A$. Then $\operatorname{Tor}_A(M,N)=0$ because $N$ is free therefore flat. A free resolution for $M=k$ begins $$ \cdots A \stackrel{x}\to A \stackrel{x}\to A \to k \to 0 $$ Tensoring with $N=A$ gives $$ \cdots \to A \otimes_A A \to A \otimes_A A \to k \otimes_A A \to 0$$ Your sequence is $$0 \to 0 \to A \to A \to k \to 0 $$ (because the Tor group vanished and $A\otimes _A A \cong A$ and $A \otimes_A k\cong k$) which can't possibly be exact just by considering dimensions.

The correct statement is that $$ 0 \to \operatorname{Tor}_1^A(M,N) \to \ker d_0 \otimes_A N \to F_0 \otimes_A N \to M\otimes_A N \to 0 $$ is exact, where $d_0$ is the map $F_0 \to N$ in the free resolution. This is the long exact sequence for associated to $0 \to \ker d_0 \to F_0 \to N \to 0$; the 0 on the left is $\operatorname{Tor}_1^A(M,F_0)$ which vanishes by flatness of $F_0$.

share|improve this answer
    
Indeed. But maybe $A$ is one of those rings where free resolutions terminate after 2 steps, say, a principal ideal domain. –  Zhen Lin Feb 26 '13 at 17:22
    
Perhaps I should have said "isn't true without extra hypotheses", but the OP's "$\cdots \to F_1$" indicates their resolution doesn't necessarily stop after $F_1$. –  mt_ Feb 26 '13 at 17:30
    
mt_ is correct. I am assuming nothing more than stated. mt_, let me study your answer and i will get back to you. –  Manos Feb 26 '13 at 17:32
    
Excellent answer, thanks. –  Manos Mar 3 '13 at 17:00

The tensor functor is right-exact. We have an exact sequence

$F_1\to F_0\to M\to 0$,

implying that the complex

$F_2\otimes N\to F_1\otimes N\to F_0\otimes N\to M\otimes N\to 0$,

is exact except possibly at $F_1\otimes N$. Now how can you calculate $\mathrm{Tor}_1(M,N)$? You should be able to figure it out from here.

share|improve this answer
    
Maybe it should be pointed out to the OP that we have a zero on the left because $\text{Tor}_1(F,N) = 0$ if $F$ is a free - module. –  user38268 Feb 25 '13 at 3:42
    
@JasonPolak: Could you please take a look at my edit? –  Manos Feb 25 '13 at 21:52

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.