4
$\begingroup$

Theorem 9.1.7 in Weibel's homological algebra reads as follows (I will change the notation slightly):

Let $f:k\to \ell$ be a morphism of commutative rings. Denote $\otimes = \otimes_k$. Let $A$ be a $k$-algebra. Consider $\ell \otimes A$: it is an $\ell$-algebra where $\ell$ acts on the left.

Let $Q$ be an $(\ell \otimes A)$-bimodule. In particular, it is an $A$-bimodule by restriction of scalars. Then:

$\operatorname{HH}^\ell_*(\ell \otimes A,Q) \cong \operatorname{HH}^k_*(A,Q)$.

He proves it as follows: consider the canonical $k$-isomorphism

$$ Q \otimes_\ell (\ell \otimes A)^{\otimes_\ell n} \cong Q \otimes A^{\otimes n}$$

He claims this yields an isomorphism of the Hochschild complexes, but I fail to see how it commutes with the last face map. So let's look at it in detail. The isomorphism is

$$q\otimes((\lambda_1\otimes a_1)\otimes \dots \otimes (\lambda_n \otimes a_n)) \mapsto (q\cdot (\lambda_1\dots \lambda_n \otimes 1)) \otimes a_1\otimes \dots \otimes a_n.$$

We need to check that the following square commutes. $$ \require{AMScd} \begin{CD} Q \otimes_\ell (\ell \otimes A)^{\otimes_\ell n} @>>> Q \otimes A^{\otimes n} \\ @VVV {} @VVV \\ Q \otimes_\ell (\ell \otimes A)^{\otimes_\ell n-1} @>>> Q \otimes A^{\otimes n-1} \end{CD} $$

But I believe that going first horizontally and then vertically makes $q\otimes((\lambda_1\otimes a_1)\otimes \dots \otimes (\lambda_n \otimes a_n))$ land in

$$ (1\otimes a_n) \cdot q \cdot (\lambda_1 \cdots \lambda_n \otimes 1) \otimes a_2\otimes \dots \otimes a_n$$

and going in the other direction makes it land in

$$ (\lambda_n \otimes a_n) \cdot q \cdot (\lambda_1 \cdots \lambda_{n-1} \otimes 1) \otimes a_2 \otimes \dots \otimes a_n$$

and I don't see why these two should be equal. If the bimodule $Q$ were symmetric, this would be true, but why would it be true in general?

So where is my mistake?

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

I think the question is what Weibel means by "$R_\ell$-$R_\ell$-bimodule" in his Theorem 9.1.7. When algebraists talk of an "$\left(A,B\right)$-bimodule" (Weibel writes "$A$-$B$-bimodule"), they rarely mean literally an additive group endowed with a left $A$-module structure and a right $B$-module structure satisfying the "associativity law"

(1) $\left(ac\right)b=a\left(cb\right)$ for all $a \in A$, $b \in B$ and $c \in C$.

Usually, what they mean is a relative version of this notion. Namely, they usually work over a commutative "base ring" $k$, for which both $A$ and $B$ are $k$-algebras. Then, they define an $\left(A,B\right)$-bimodule to mean a $k$-module endowed with a $k$-bilinear left $A$-module structure and a $k$-bilinear right $B$-module structure satisfying the "associativity law" (1). Strictly speaking, it is a bad idea to suppress the $k$ from the notation, as it leads to confusion (see, e.g., math.stackexchange #889130), but in practice it works most of the time when the $k$ is really clear from the context. (I personally prefer to keep the $k$ explicit and speak of "$\left(A,B\right)_k$-bimodules".)

Now, I think that when Weibel speaks of "$R_\ell$-$R_\ell$-bimodule", he wants $\ell$ (not $k$) to be the common base ring. If that is so, then your diagram commutes. This is less clear in your restatement of the theorem, because the tensor product $\ell \otimes A$ does not suggest a full base change as strongly as the notation $R_\ell$. But of course, the right solution is not to rely on suggestion, and clarify the notation.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks a lot! I didn't know this convention: as you suspected, I was only aware of the "ring"-version of a bimodule... It's nice to learn it by making a small tedious routine verification and realizing that something was missing. $\endgroup$ Jan 2 '16 at 1:59

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.