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.

If $0 \rightarrow A_{\bullet} \rightarrow B_{\bullet} \rightarrow C_{\bullet} \rightarrow 0$ is a short exact sequence of chain complexes (of R-modules), then, whenever two of the three complexes $A_{\bullet}$,$B_{\bullet}$,$C_{\bullet}$ are exact, so is the third.

This exercise 1.3.1 in Weibel's Introduction to Homological Algebra.

I was trying to tackle the exercise via diagram chasing in the diagram

However, in all three situations I eventually get stuck. I am starting to think that diagram chase might not be the right approach here?

Thank you.

share|improve this question
    
Someone please replace the with link with an image tag (I am not yet allowed to post images). Thank you. –  Felix Hoffmann Apr 13 '11 at 19:53
    
As user8268 points out, the long exact sequence immediately implies the answer, but a diagram chase will also work. –  Grumpy Parsnip Apr 13 '11 at 20:12
3  
My advise: try harder -- this is supposed to work with a diagram chase. ;) –  Rasmus Apr 13 '11 at 20:34
1  
The snake lemma is helpful here (which I believe, if I remember correctly, is cited before this exercise). –  Fredrik Meyer Apr 13 '11 at 22:12
    
No, this result comes before the Snake Lemma in Weibel's book. –  Pete L. Clark Feb 21 '13 at 1:50

4 Answers 4

up vote 4 down vote accepted

Here is an example of the diagram chase when we know $B_\bullet$ and $C_\bullet$ are exact. Let's call the maps $\alpha_n:\ A_n\rightarrow B_n$ and $\beta_n:\ B_n\rightarrow C_n$.

Suppose $a\in A_n$ maps to $0$ in $A_{n-1}$. Then $b=\alpha_n(a)$ maps to $0$ in $B_{n-1}$, so there exists $\hat{b}\in B_{n+1}$ with $\hat{b}$ mapping to $b$.

Since $b$ is the image of $a$, $\beta_n(b)=0$, and so $\hat{c}=\beta_{n+1}(\hat{b})$ maps to $0$ in $C_n$; thus there exists $c^*\in C_{n+2}$ with $c^*$ mapping to $\hat{c}$.

Since the $\beta$ maps are surjective, there is a $b^*\in B_{n+2}$ mapping to $c^*$. Let's call the image of $b^*$ in $B_{n+1}$ $\bar{b}$. Then $\beta_{n+1}(\hat{b})=\beta_{n+1}(\bar{b}) = \hat{c}$, and so $\beta_{n+1}(\hat{b}-\bar{b})=0$. Thus there is an $\hat{a}\in A_{n+1}$ with $\alpha_{n+1}(\hat{a})=\hat{b}-\bar{b}$.

But then $a_0$, the image of $\hat{a}$ in $A_n$, maps to $b$; since the $\alpha$ maps are injective, this implies $a_0=a$.

Phew!

share|improve this answer

For completeness, I think I can cover the case where $A_{\bullet}$ and $B_{\bullet}$ are exact myself now. I will try to stick to the notations used in the other posts.

If $c \in C_n$ with $d(c)=0$, there is, by the surjectivity of $\beta_n$, a $b$ in $B_n$ such that $$\beta_n(b)=c.$$

Then $$\beta_{n-1}(d (b)) = d(\beta_n (b)) = d(c) = 0$$ and thus, by exactness of the n-1-th row, there is an $a$ in $A_{n-1}$ with $\alpha_{n-1}(a) = d(b)$.

For $a$ we have $$\alpha_{n-2}(d(a)) = d(\alpha_{n-1}(a)) = d(d(b)) = 0$$ and, since $\alpha_{n-2}$ is injective, $d(a)=0$ follows.

Then, by exactness of $A_{\bullet}$ we have an $a'$ in $A_n$, such that $d(a')=a$.

Consider $b-\alpha_n(a')$ in $B_n$. We have $$d(b - \alpha_n(a'))=d(b) - d(\alpha_n(a')) = d(b) - \alpha_{n-1}(d(a')) = d(b) - d(b) = 0,$$ thus by exactness of $B_{\bullet}$, there is a $b'$ in $B_{n+1}$, such that $d(b')=b-\alpha_n(a')$.

Finally, $\beta_{n+1}(b')$ is the desired pre-image of $c$ in $C_{n}$, since $$d(\beta_{n+1}(b'))=\beta_n(d(b'))=\beta_n(b) - \beta_n(\alpha_n(a')) = c.$$

Thanks, everyone!

share|improve this answer
1  
This looks good, thanks for taking the time to complete the set of answers. –  t.b. Apr 14 '11 at 19:58

unless you're not supposed to use the corresponding long exact sequence:

well - then use it :) It will tell you that if the cohomology of two of $A$, $B$, $C$ vanishes, then it vanishes also for the 3rd complex.

share|improve this answer
1  
<del>yes of course, you are not supposed to. This exercise leads up to the theorem. I will add this in the description.</del> Actually, this might be what is meant by the exercise, since I don't think the existence of the long exact sequence relies on the nine lemma? (the exercise is used in the next one to proof the nine lemma). –  Felix Hoffmann Apr 13 '11 at 20:12
    
@Felix: I did feel I was cheating with such a trivial answer. But I guessed that proving what you want is not really easier that proving the existence of the long exact sequence. –  user8268 Apr 13 '11 at 20:23

With diagram chasing.

Assume, for instance, that $A$ and $C$ are exact and let's show that so is $B$. Call the morphisms between the complexes $\alpha : A \longrightarrow B$ and $\beta : B \longrightarrow C$.

Let $b \in B_n$ be a cycle; that is, $db = 0$. Consider $\beta_n b \in C_n$. Because $\beta$ is a morphism of complexes,

$$ d\beta_n b = \beta_{n-1} db = \beta_{n-1} 0 = 0. $$

So $\beta_n b$ is a cycle, but $C$ is exact, hence there exists $c \in C_{n+1}$ such that $dc = \beta_n b$. Since $\beta_{n+1} : B_{n+1} \longrightarrow C_{n+1} $ is an epimorphism, there exists $b' \in B_{n+1}$ such that $\beta_{n+1}b' = c$.

Now, consider the element $b-db' \in B_n$. Since

$$ \beta_n (b-db') = \beta_n b - \beta_ndb' = \beta_n b - d\beta_{n+1}b' = \beta_n b -dc = 0 \ , $$

we have $b-db' \in \ker \beta_n = \mathrm{im}\ \alpha_n$. So, there is an element $a \in A_n$ such that $\alpha_n a = b - db'$.

This $a$ is a cycle:

$$ \alpha_{n-1}da = d\alpha_n a = db - d^2b' = 0 \ , $$

and, since $\alpha_{n-1}$ is a monomorphism, this implies $da = 0$.

But $A$ is exact. Hence there is some $a' \in A_{n+1}$ such that $da' = a$.

Consider the element $b'+\alpha_{n+1}a' \in B_{n+1}$:

$$ d(b'+\alpha_{n+1}a') = db' + d\alpha_{n+1}a' = db' + \alpha_nda' = db' +\alpha_n a = db'+(b - db') = b \ . $$

So $b$ is also a boundary and we are done.

share|improve this answer

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.