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


I have to worry you one more time with these acyclicity problems, but as I am currently working on derived functors in a.g., I really need to understand derived functors in a very general form.

So my question is just: I have an exact functor $F: K^{+}(A)\rightarrow K(B)$ of the homotopy categories of abelian categories A and B and I know that the derived $RF: D^{+}(A)\rightarrow D(B)$ exists (in the sense of: it is exact and has universal property). Then this does not a priori imply that for each complex in $K^{+}(A)$ I can find a quasiiso to a complex of F-acyclics? I myself would guess that one has to have a triangulated subcategory L of $K^{+}(A)$ which is adapted to F, in the sense of Hartshorne, Residues and Duality. A short hint to if I am right is totally enough, thanks.

share|cite|improve this question
Why do you want to do this? – Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Aug 7 '11 at 22:51
To follow up on Mariano's question: Can you give an example where you find yourself this situation? Moreover, I don't think Hartshorne's R&D uses the word adapted at all (I think this appears in Gelfand-Manin only). What is your main reference and what do you actually want to do? Why are the references you were given so far not sufficient? – t.b. Aug 8 '11 at 8:03
That's right, Hartsorne just speaks of a triangulated subcategory L "as in Theorem I, 5.1.". So as an abbreviation I would like to call such L simply adapted, as in Gelfand-Manin. Well, I want to know this because it seems to me of principal interest: in the simple situation when you have a left exact functor $F:A\rightarrow B$ and an F-adapted class, then you know that the derived exists. Furthermore one knows that then the class of F-acyclic objects also is an F-adapted class, i.e. one can find acyclic resolutions. I am asking whether the existence of the derived implies already enough acycs – Descartes Aug 8 '11 at 10:20
Okay, you clarified the terminology and the academic motivation. Still, you haven't addressed my main question: can you give me an example in which you know that the derived functor exists and you don't know that there exist enough acyclics? – t.b. Aug 8 '11 at 10:40
Well, I don't know such an example, but that's exactly my question: can there be such examples or does the existence of the derived automatically imply enough acyclics. – Descartes Aug 8 '11 at 10:47

If your functor $F$ is exact, meaning that it sends quasi-isomorphisms (quis) to quasi-isomorphisms, then you don't need anything to derive it: by definition of the derived categories, it induces a functor $F':D^+(A) \longrightarrow D(B)$ defined on objects as $F'( \gamma (a)) = \gamma (F(a))$ and on morphisms as $F'(\gamma (f )\circ \gamma (s^{-1})) = \gamma ( F(f) )\circ \gamma (F(s)^{-1}) $.

Here, $\gamma $ denotes both the localising functors $K(A) \longrightarrow D(A)$ and $K(B) \longrightarrow D(B)$

This definition makes sense, since you can represent morphisms on the derived category as compositions $f\circ s^{-1}$, where $f, s$ are morphisms of $K(A)$ and $s$ is a quis, going in the opposite direction, but you're inverting them when you construct the derived category, so $s^{-1}$ is a real morphism in the derived category. Now, since $F$ sends quis to quis, $F(s)$ is also a quis, so you can also invert them.

Exercise 1. Verify that $F'$ is well-defined.

Exercise 2. Once convinced, it is handy to delete all the $\gamma$'s in the previous formulas: everybody understands what do you mean.

It is obvious that this $F'$ verifies $\gamma F = F' \gamma$. So it is the right and left derived functor for $F$ simultaneously.

share|cite|improve this answer
I don't think that this is the intention. Many people (confusingly) call a triangle functor (i.e. one sending distinguished triangles to distinguished triangles) an exact functor. The idea being "distinguished triangles correspond to short exact sequences". The precise definition of course involves a pair $(F,\alpha)$ of a functor and a natural transformation $\alpha : F\Sigma \to \Sigma F$ "commuting $F$ with the shift $\Sigma$". – t.b. Aug 7 '11 at 18:06
Yes, sorry, I thought the notion "exact" in this context should be clear. Yes, what I mean is also called a triangulated or delta functor, i.e. commuting with shift and sending distinguished triangles into distinguished ones. – Descartes Aug 8 '11 at 6:18
Thanks Theo and Descartes. So my answer doesn't apply to your problem. – a.r. Aug 8 '11 at 12:34

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.