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 $0 \to A \to B\to C$ is a left exact sequence of $R$-module, then for any $R$-module $M$, $0 \to Hom_R(M,A)\to Hom_R(M,B)\to Hom_R(M,C)$ is left exact.

I proved the above, and highlighted what I'm a little unfamiliar with: Let $0 \to A\ \xrightarrow{i}\ B\ \xrightarrow{f}\ C$ and $0 \to Hom(M,A)\ \xrightarrow{Hom(M,i)}\ Hom(M,B)\ \xrightarrow{Hom(M,f)}\ Hom(M,C)$. We need to show that $\ker(Hom(M,f))=Hom(M,i)(Hom(M,A))$.

Let $i \circ \varphi \in RHS$. Then $f \circ i \circ \varphi : M \to C$ is $0$ since $f \circ i \circ \varphi(M) \subseteq f( i(A)) = f(ker(f))=0$.

Conversely, let $\psi \in LHS$. Then $f \circ \psi = 0$ so that $ f(\psi(M))=0$. Hence $\psi(M) \subseteq ker(f)=i(A)$. Since the image of $\psi$ is contained in the image of $i$, we may factor $\psi$ as $\psi=i \varphi$ with $\varphi : M \to A$. (Here is my trial, but I'm not fully understanding this: Since $i$ is injective, $i(A)$ is isomorphic with $A$. So $i^{-1}(\psi (M)) \subseteq A$ and if we let $\varphi=i^{-1} \psi$, then $\psi = i \varphi$.)

And I have one more question: The above looks very messy, especially the notation. Is there a better proof/understanding about it?

share|improve this question
4  
Re: notation. Why not use $i_{\ast}$ and $f_{\ast}$ instead of $Hom_{R}(M,i)$ and $Hom_{R}(M,f)$? –  t.b. Jun 24 '11 at 13:23
    
This is supposed to follow from the fact that $\text{Hom}(-, A)$ preserves limits, but I am not sure about the details. –  Qiaochu Yuan Jun 24 '11 at 13:24
    
If $N$ is an $A$-module, then we can consider the functors (from the category of $A$-modules to itself) $M\to M\otimes N$ and $P\to \text{Hom}(N,P)$ which we denote by $T$ and $U$, respectively. We then have $\text{Hom}(T(M),P)=\text{Hom}(M,U(P))$. In particular, we say that $U$ is a $\textbf{right adjoint}$ of $T$. It is a general fact that any functor which is a right adjoint is left exact. Therefore, $U$ is a left exact functor. –  Amitesh Datta Jun 24 '11 at 14:02
2  
@Amitesh: yes, that's indeed true. In fact, you can get the left exactness from abstract nonsense simply by recalling what the definition of a limit means and saying $\operatorname{Hom}(M,-)$ preserves limits tautologically. –  t.b. Jun 24 '11 at 14:38
2  
Dear Gobi, Theo's explanation below is (as usual) very helpful. I think it is also worth emphasizing that this is very important: in fact, it is essentially the definition of exactness of such a sequence in an abelian category! Or, restated, it is the universal property of the kernel: a map $X \to B$ factors through $A$ if and only if the composite $X \to B \to C$ is zero (and then the factorization through $A$ is unique). –  Akhil Mathew Jun 24 '11 at 21:36

1 Answer 1

up vote 21 down vote accepted

Well, your proof is okay. Let me suggest a slightly different way of looking at it:

Consider a sequence

$$ 0\; \xrightarrow{\phantom{ij}} \; A \; \xrightarrow{i\phantom{j}}\; B\; \xrightarrow{j\phantom{i}} \; C$$ and look at $$ 0\; \xrightarrow{\phantom{j_{\ast}}} \operatorname{Hom}{(M,A)}\; \xrightarrow{i_{\ast}}\operatorname{Hom}{(M,B)} \;\xrightarrow{j_{\ast}}\; \operatorname{Hom}{(M,C)},$$ where I write $i_{\ast} = \operatorname{Hom}(M,i)$ and $j_{\ast} = \operatorname{Hom}(M,j)$.

Saying that the first sequence is exact amounts to saying $i = \ker{j}$, that is $ji = 0$ and $i$ has the universal property as depicted in the first diagram below: If $g: M \to B$ is such that $jg = 0$ then there exists a unique $f: M \to A$ such that $if = g$. In other words if $j_\ast g = 0$ then $g = i_{\ast}f$, or yet again $\operatorname{Ker}{j_\ast} \subset \operatorname{Im}{i_{\ast}}$ and $i_{\ast}$ is injective.

property kernel/cokernel

On the other hand, the second diagram says: if $g: M \to B$ is of the form $g = if = i_{\ast}f$ then $j_{\ast}g = 0$ (because $j_\ast g = j_{\ast}i_{\ast} f = (ji)_{\ast}f = 0f = 0$). In other words, $\operatorname{Im}{i_{\ast}} \subset \operatorname{Ker}{j_{\ast}}$.

Summing up, we have shown that for all $M$ the sequence

$$ 0\; \xrightarrow{\phantom{j_{\ast}}} \operatorname{Hom}{(M,A)}\; \xrightarrow{i_{\ast}}\operatorname{Hom}{(M,B)} \;\xrightarrow{j_{\ast}}\; \operatorname{Hom}{(M,C)}$$ is exact both at $\operatorname{Hom}{(M,A)}$ ($i_{\ast}$ is injective) and at $\operatorname{Hom}{(M,B)}$ ($\operatorname{Im}{i_{\ast}} = \operatorname{Ker}{j_{\ast}}$)—you seem to have forgotten about the first point here.


Added: As witnessed by the argument above, left exactness of $\operatorname{Hom}$ is essentially the definition of left exactness in the abelian category of $R$-modules. As the comments try to point out, the importance of this fact cannot be overemphasized.

I would like to add two further points:

  1. A functor $F$ is left exact in your definition if and only if $0 \to F(A) \to F(B) \to F(C)$ is left exact for every short exact sequence $0 \to A \to B \to C \to 0$.

    Indeed, in a left exact sequence $0 \to A \to B \to C$, we may factor $j: B \to C$ over its image as $B \twoheadrightarrow \operatorname{Im}{j} \rightarrowtail C$ and obtain two exact sequences $$0 \to A \to B \to \operatorname{Im}{j} \to 0 \qquad \text{and} \qquad 0 \to \operatorname{Im}{j} \to C \to \operatorname{Coker}{j} \to 0.$$ Applying $F$ to these two exact sequences, we obtain the left exact sequences $$0 \to F(A) \to F(B) \to F(\operatorname{Im}{j}) \qquad \text{and} \qquad 0 \to F(\operatorname{Im}{j}) \to F(C ) \to F(\operatorname{Coker}{j}).$$ Since the kernel of a map is not changed by postcomposing the map with a monomorphism (check this!), we have $$\operatorname{Ker}{(F(B) \to F(\operatorname{Im}{j}))} = \operatorname{Ker}{(F(B) \to F(\operatorname{Im}{j}) \to F(C))},$$ so by functoriality of $F$ we get a left exact sequence $0 \to F(A) \to F(B) \to F(C)$ as desired.

  2. A natural question is: When does $\operatorname{Hom}(M,-)$ send short exact sequences to short exact sequences? In other words, when is $j_\ast = \operatorname{Hom}{(M,j)}$ an epimorphism for all short exact sequences $0\; \xrightarrow{\phantom{ij}} \; A \; \xrightarrow{i\phantom{j}}\; B\; \xrightarrow{j\phantom{i}} \; C \to 0$?

    In view of left exactness of $\operatorname{Hom}{(M,-)}$ the question is: Given any morphism $h: M \to C$ and any epimorphism $j: B \to C$, when is $h$ of the form $h = j_\ast g$ for some morphism $g: M \to B$?
    Lifting property
    As you certainly know, this is precisely the definition of projective modules: $M$ is called projective if and only if $g$ always exists, for all epimorphisms $j: B \twoheadrightarrow C$ and all $h: M \to C$. For emphasis:

    A module $M$ is projective if and only if $\operatorname{Hom}{(M,-)}$ is exact, that is: it sends short exact sequences to short exact sequences.

share|improve this answer
6  
+1 Very informative answer (as usual). –  Amitesh Datta Jun 24 '11 at 14:35
2  
@Amitesh: much appreciated, thanks! –  t.b. Jun 24 '11 at 14:38
3  
Thanks for your great answer! –  Gobi Jun 25 '11 at 8:48
1  
@Gobi: You're welcome. Glad I could help! –  t.b. Jun 25 '11 at 12:15
    
The half-exactness of Hom is the essential "practical" ingredient in proof by a ("small") Yoneda's lemma of the (suitable) half-exactness of left/right adjoint functors. –  paul garrett Jun 26 '11 at 23:04

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.