For a multiplicatively closed subset $S$ of $A$, we have a functor $S^{-1}: A-Mod \rightarrow S^{-1}A-Mod$.

I am trying to understand this functor a little bit better and I was thinking about the following universal property:

Given a ring homomorphism $g: A \rightarrow B$ where every element of $S$ is sent to a unit, there is a unique map $\tilde{g}: S^{-1}A \rightarrow B$ where $\tilde{g} \circ f=g$. Here $f$ is the usual map $A \rightarrow S^{-1}A$ which sends $a \mapsto a/1$.

I learned about universal properties formally as initial objects in comma categories (MacLane). This is also stated as a universal arrow from some object $c$ in a category $C$ to some functor $T: D \rightarrow C$.

I was wondering if it was possible to view the above property in terms of this language. I've gotten a bit confused thinking about it now

Some Thoughts We can view $B$ as an $B$ module and hence as an $A$ module via $a \cdot b=g(a)b$. We can also probably view $B$ as an $S^{-1}A$ module via $(a/s) \cdot b= g(a)g(s)^{-1}b$.

I am a bit stuck from here.


Well, that universal property is a statement about purely ring homomorphisms, so I describe a solution along these lines.

Consider the category ${\bf C}:={\bf Ring^{mlt}}$ of objects $(R,S)$ where $S$ is a multiplciatively closed subset of the ring $R$ and morphisms $\varphi:(R,S)\to(R',S')$ with $\varphi:R\to R'$ ring homomorphism such that $\varphi(s)\in S'$ for all $s\in S$.

Let $\bf D$ be its full subcategory on objects $(R,S)$ with $S\subseteq R^{-1}$, i.e. each $s\in S$ is invertible in $R$.

Then, the property translates as $(S^{-1}R,\,S)$ is just the reflection of $(R,S)$ on $\bf D$, that is, a universal arrow to the inclusion functor ${\bf D}\hookrightarrow{\bf C}$.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, I was wondering along the lines of a restricted subcategory of commutative rings. What you have said seems to be exactly what I was looking for. Thanks for taking the time for writing this, it's of great help. $\endgroup$ – user135520 Mar 2 '15 at 4:58
  • $\begingroup$ Is that really correct? I think the reflective subcategory should consist of the objects $(R, S)$ where $S$ contains all the units, not the other way around. (Consider the extreme case where $S = \emptyset$.) $\endgroup$ – Zhen Lin Mar 2 '15 at 9:14
  • $\begingroup$ Well, isn't it the case that if $S\subseteq R^{-1}$ then $S^{-1}R=R$? $\endgroup$ – Berci Mar 3 '15 at 19:34

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.