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.

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

If there is an exact sequence of $R$-modules $0 \rightarrow A \stackrel{\alpha}{\longrightarrow} B \stackrel{\beta}{\longrightarrow} C \rightarrow 0$, then $\mathrm{pd}(B) \leq \mathrm{max}\{ \mathrm{pd}(A), \mathrm{pd}(C) \}$.

Here, $\mathrm{pd}(B)$ denotes the projective dimension of $R$-module $B$.

Let $(D,d)$ be a projective resolution of $A$, then there is an exact sequence:

$\cdots \stackrel{d_2}{\longrightarrow} D_1 \stackrel{d_1}{\longrightarrow} D_0 \stackrel{\epsilon}{\longrightarrow} A \longrightarrow 0.$

So, there is also a sequence,

$\cdots \stackrel{d_2}{\longrightarrow} D_1 \stackrel{d_1}{\longrightarrow} D_0 \stackrel{\alpha \epsilon}{\longrightarrow} B \longrightarrow 0.$

In this sequence, $\mathrm{Ker} \alpha \epsilon = \mathrm{Ker} \epsilon = \mathrm{Im}d_1$, because $\alpha$ is injective. But this sequence might not be exact, as $\alpha$ might not be surjective.

Let $(D',d')$ be a projective resolution of $C$, then there is an exact sequence:

$\cdots \stackrel{d_2'}{\longrightarrow} D_1' \stackrel{d_1'}{\longrightarrow} D_0' \stackrel{\epsilon'}{\longrightarrow} C \longrightarrow 0.$

$D_0'$ is projective, then there exists a module homomorphism $\phi: D_0' \rightarrow B$, such that $\epsilon' = \beta \phi$.


$\cdots \stackrel{d_2'}{\longrightarrow} D_1' \stackrel{d_1'}{\longrightarrow} D_0' \stackrel{\phi}{\longrightarrow} B \longrightarrow 0.$

Here, $\mathrm{Ker} \phi$ might be contained properly in $\mathrm{Ker} \epsilon'$. Meanwhile, $\phi$ is not necessarily surjective.

Then, how can I piece together all the facts to get a projective resolution of $B$ in order to prove the conclusion?

Many thanks.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 3 down vote accepted

This is an immediate consequence of the Horseshoe lemma.

Note that you haven't used the assumption on the dimensions of $A$ and $C$ which tells you that you can find projective resolutions $P_{\bullet}' \to A$ and $P_{\bullet}'' \to C$ of lengths $\leq l = \max{\{\operatorname{pd}{A},\operatorname{pd}{C}\}}$ of $A$, and $C$, respectively. The horseshoe lemma then tells you that there is a projective resolution $P_{\bullet} \to B$ with $P_{n} = P_{n}' \oplus P_{n}''$. As a consequence, $P_{n} = 0$ for $n \gt l$, hence $\operatorname{pd}{B} \leq l$.

The map $P_{0} \to B$ is obtained by lifting the map $P_{0}'' \to C$ over $B \to C$ using projectivity of $P_{0}''$ and composing $P_{0}' \to A \to B$. Use the five lemma to see that the map $P_{0} \to B$ thus obtained is actually surjective. Replace $A,B,C$ by the kernels of the maps $P_{0}' \to A$, $P_0 \to B$ and $P_0'' \to C$, note that these sit in a short exact sequence by the nine lemma and proceed by induction.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank you very much! – ShinyaSakai Sep 26 '11 at 8:24

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.