5
$\begingroup$

In Commutative Algebra: with a View Toward Algebraic Geometry Eisenbud describes the Kähler-Differential as a functor that assigns $\Omega_{S/R}$ to an $R$-Algebra $S$ and to a commutative diagramm $$ S \xrightarrow{\hspace{1cm}} S' \\ \uparrow \hspace{1.5cm} \uparrow \\ R \xrightarrow{\hspace{1cm}} R' $$ of rings the corresponding morphism $\Omega_{S/R} \to \Omega_{S'/R'}$ which makes the diagramm $$ \Omega_{S/R} \xrightarrow{\hspace{.5cm}} \Omega_{S'/R'} \\ \uparrow \hspace{1.5cm} \uparrow \\ S \xrightarrow{\hspace{1cm}} S' $$ commute. Then he writes

It is right-exact in the same sense that the zeroth relative homology functor is a right-exact functor of pairs of spaces in topology.

Question: What is that supposed to mean? Does he maybe mean the relative cotangent sequence? For ringmorphisms $R \to S \to T$ we get an exact sequence of $T$-modules $$ T \otimes_S \Omega_{S/R} \to \Omega_{T/R} \to \Omega_{T/S} \to 0.$$

As I understand this, the two left morphisms in this exact sequence come from the construction above. However I don't understand how this statement can be understood as right-exactness, because we would have to start with an exact sequence but we don't. Also I couldn't find anything to understand his statement about the zeroth relative homology functor.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

I think he is referring to the relative cotangent sequence, indeed. I doubt that his statement about "right exactness" should be taken too literally. What does it even mean to say that "the zeroth relative homology functor is a right-exact functor of pairs of spaces"? It means that if you have pair of spaces $(X,A)$, hence a sequence of maps of pairs $(A,\emptyset)\rightarrow(X,\emptyset)\rightarrow(X,A)$, you obtain an exact sequence $H_0(A)\rightarrow H_0(X)\rightarrow H_0(X,A)\rightarrow 0$. (But of course $(A,\emptyset)\rightarrow(X,\emptyset)\rightarrow(X,A)$ is not really an exact sequence in the sense of classical homological algebra, what does it even mean to say this for a sequence of maps?). I believe that he is referring to the evident formal similarity with this sequence; this interpretation is reasonable, as you can see from what he says on page 389 (just after the relative cotangent sequence), that the Andre-Quillen homology functors play the role of the higher homology functors.

$\endgroup$

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.