Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

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

There is an interesting result in Rotman's homological algebra book. Let $A$ be an $R$-module, $B$ be an $(R,S)$-bimodule and $C$ an $S$-module. (All rings commutative). Then Corollary 10.61 (in the 2009 version) states

If ${}_R B_S$ is flat on either side then $$\text{Tor}^S_n(A \otimes_R B,C) \simeq \text{Tor}^R_n(A,B \otimes_S C)$$

If particular if we let $B = S$ (assuming this is also an $R$-module but not necessarily $R$-flat) then $$\text{Tor}^S_n(A \otimes_R S,C) \simeq \text{Tor}^R_n(A,C)$$

Yet if we start with a projective resolution of $A$, $P^\bullet \to A$, $\text{Tor}^R_*(A,C)$ is the homology of complex $P^\bullet \otimes_R C$. But it doesn't appear automatic that $P^\bullet \otimes_R S \to A \otimes_R S$ will be a projective resolution unless $S$ is $R$-flat.

What am I missing?

Edit: Here is an outline argument that Rotman gives. If $A_R$ and ${}_RB_S$ satisfy $\text{Tor}^R_i(A,B\otimes_S,P) = 0$ for all $i \ge 0$ whenever ${}_S P$ is projective, then there is a spectral sequence $$\text{Tor}_p^R(A,\text{Tor}_q^S(B,C))\Rightarrow \text{Tor}_n^S(A \otimes_RB,C)$$

Now if $B_S$ is flat and ${}_SP$ is projective (hence flat) then $B \otimes_S P$ is a flat $R$-module$^\ast$, then the hypothesis of the spectral sequence holds, and it collapses to the desired isomorphism.

($^\ast$Is this true?)

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 4 down vote accepted

It should be part of the hypotheses that $S$ is a flat $R$-module. I doubt the theorem is true for general ring extensions.

I suspect that what Rotman means by "flat on either side" is that it is flat on both sides.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks. I've always thought this was the case. The proof he gives is definitely only on one side. I've sketched it above, along with the part that I don't quite see. – Drew Feb 28 '13 at 0:24
The *'d comment in your edit is certainly true when $_RB_S$ is flat as an $R$-module. It is not in general true when $_RB_S$ is not flat as an $R$-module. – Jim Feb 28 '13 at 0:27
Right. Which is exactly what Rotman (seems to be) assuming – Drew Feb 28 '13 at 0:34

This is true in general (assuming, as I'm sure was meant, that $B$ is flat "on either side" means on both sides), and I don't think you need the rings to be commutative. If $P_* \to A$ is a free resolution, then $P_* \otimes_R B$ has homology groups $Tor^R(A,B)$, and so it's also exact above degree zero. It's then a resolution too -- not by free or projective objects, but (since $P_*$ was free) by direct sums of copies of $B$. This makes $P_* \otimes_R B$ into a resolution of $A \otimes_R B$ by flat right $S$-modules, and that's good enough to compute Tor.

This makes the homology of the complex $(P_* \otimes_R B) \otimes_S C$ into something that computes $Tor_S(A \otimes_R B, C)$.

On the other hand, it is isomorphic to the complex $P_* \otimes_R (B \otimes_S C)$, which more directly is something that computes $Tor_R(A,B \otimes_S C)$.

(This feels a little ad-hoc. One perspective on Tor is that you're allowed to take a resolution of one side, or the other side, or of both sides and tensor together the resolutions; this is how you usually show that Tor over a commutative ring is symmetric. For this problem, that means that you can take resolutions of $A$ and $C$ simultaneously, which from a certain perspective might clean this argument up.)

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks Tyler. I agree with what you are saying. (I emailed Rotman and it appears it is just an error in the book) – Drew May 14 '13 at 3:24

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.