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.

Here's a problem I already solved.

Prove that a homomorphism $r: M \rightarrow N$ of right A-modules admits a section $v: N \rightarrow M$ if and only if $r$ is surjective and $M = L \oplus \operatorname{ker}(r)$ where $L$ is a submodule of $M$. Call this (*)

Now here's the problem.

Suppose that the sequence $0 \rightarrow L \rightarrow M \rightarrow N \rightarrow 0$ of right $A$-modules is exact, where $u: L \rightarrow M$ and $r: M \rightarrow N$.

Prove that the homomorphism $u$ admits a retraction $p: M \rightarrow L$ if and only if $r$ admits a section $v: N \rightarrow M$.

My try:

=>) This is the one that bothers me. Do we really need to assume $u$ is a retraction? by exactness of the sequence we have that $r$ is surjective. So define a section $v: N \rightarrow M$ as follows: for each $n \in N$ pick $m \in M$ such that $r(m) = n$. Set $v(n) = m$ then $r \circ v = 1_{N}$, so that $r$ admits the section $v$.

<=) Suppose $r: N \rightarrow M$ admits a section, then by (*) $M = \operatorname{ker}(r) \oplus \operatorname{Im}(v)$ and by exactness we have $M=\operatorname{Im}(u) \oplus \operatorname{Im}(v)$. Notice that by exactness we also have that $u$ is an injection. Define a retraction $p: M \rightarrow L$ as follows: given $m \in M$ write $m$ as $u(l)+v(n)$ where $l \in L$ and $n \in N$. Then set $p(m)=l$.

Since $M$ is a direct sum of $\operatorname{Im}(u)$ and $\operatorname{Im}(v)$ and $u$ is an injection we have that $p$ is well-defined and by construction $p \circ u = 1_{L}$ so that $p$ is a retraction of $u$.

Where is the mistake?

share|improve this question
add comment

2 Answers 2

up vote 2 down vote accepted

So the only thing that remains is to show that if $$0\to L\stackrel{u}{\to} M\stackrel{r}{\to} N\to 0$$ is an exact sequence, and $u$ admits a retraction $p\colon M\to L$, then $r$ admits a section $v\colon N\to M$.

Intuition: The retraction is just the projection onto the direct summand. You can isolate the "other factor" of the direct sum by looking at the composition going "the other way"; that is, by considering the submodule of $M$ given by $u\circ p$. Then every element can be written as something in $u\circ p(M)$ and something in a submodule that will turn out to be isomorphic to $N$; the obvious way to do this is to start with $m\in M$, and write it as $m= u(p(m)) + (m - u(p(m)))$. So that's what guides us below.

Let $p$ be a retraction of $u$, so that $p\circ u = \mathrm{id}_N$.

Given $n\in N$, we define $v(n)$ as follows: there exists $m\in M$ such that $r(m)=n$. Define $v(n) = m-u(p(m))$. (This "twist" to your idea is what makes it work).

First, I claim that this is well-defined: if $n=r(m)=r(m')$, then $m-m'\in \mathrm{ker}(r)=\mathrm{Im}(u)$, so there exists $t\in N$ such that $m-m'=u(t)$. Then $$u(p(m)) - u(p(m')) = u(p(m-m')) = u(p(u(t)) = u(t) =m-m',$$ hence $m-u(p(m)) = m'-u(p(m'))$. Thus, $v(n)$ depends only on $n$, and not the chosen preimage.

Second, I claim that $v$ is a homomorphism: if $n,n'\in N$, let $m,m'\in M$ with $r(m)=n$, $r(m')=n'$. Then $r(m+m')=n+n'$, so $$\begin{align*} v(n+n') &= (m+m') - u(p(m+m')) \\ &= m+m' + u(p(m)) + u(p(m')) \\ &= (m+u(p(m))) + (m'+u(p(m')))\\ &= v(n)+v(n'); \end{align*}$$ and if $n\in N$ and $\alpha\in R$, then letting $m\in M$ be such that $r(m)=n$, then $r(\alpha m) = \alpha n$, so $$v(\alpha n) = (\alpha m) - u(p(\alpha m)) = \alpha m - \alpha u(p(m)) = \alpha(m-u(p(m))) = \alpha v(n).$$

Third, I claim that $v$ is a section of $r$: indeed, let $n\in N$. If $m\in M$ is such that $r(m)=n$, then: $$r(v(n)) = r(m+u(p(m))) = r(m) + r(u(p(m))) = r(m)+0 = r(m) = n.$$ Thus, $r\circ v = \mathrm{id}_N$, as desired.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your map $v$ is not well defined. For example, look at the short exact sequence $0\to\mathbb{Z}\to\mathbb{Z}\to\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}\to 0$. Then by your reasoning, we can define a map $v\colon\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}\to\mathbb{Z}$ by $v(0)=6$ and $v(1)=17$. This does satisfy $rv=1$, but $v$ is most certainly not a homomorphism.

share|improve this answer
    
I see now, thanks. Is the second part correct? –  user10 Sep 27 '11 at 18:43
    
@user10: Yes, the $\Leftarrow$ direction is correct. –  Arturo Magidin Sep 27 '11 at 19:01
1  
@user10: To get the "thick" arrow, use \Rightarrow instead of \rightarrow or \to; similarly, \Leftarrow and \Leftrightarrow. –  Arturo Magidin Sep 27 '11 at 19:04
add comment

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.