I was reading the proof of Lemma 1.25 in this thesis and I thought I understood it, but I think I don't. The thing that I don't see clearly is in page 26 where he is showing that $\textrm{ker}\ \eta\subseteq Q$. Why did he only shows it for elements of the form $m\otimes\varphi$?

  • $\begingroup$ That does look strange, as usually that would not nearly suffice. $\endgroup$ – Tobias Kildetoft Feb 26 '16 at 11:13
  • $\begingroup$ I'm not saying that the proof is wrong, I mean the result of the lemma certainly is true. In fact, the inverse of the homomorphism is pretty obvious. I just don't understand the proof he gives for the contention of the kernel in $Q$. $\endgroup$ – Antonio Feb 26 '16 at 12:30
  • $\begingroup$ Right, I am not sure if his argument is quite complete, but I did not read it through that thoroughly. $\endgroup$ – Tobias Kildetoft Feb 26 '16 at 12:32
  • $\begingroup$ Well, I think I was misunderstanding the proof by Martin, or at least how did he conclude that $\textrm{ker }\eta\subset Q$. He only did it for elements of the form $m\otimes\varphi\in\textrm{ker }\eta$ since the general case of an element $x\in\textrm{ker }\eta$, which is written as a sum $$x=\sum_{i=1}^{n}m_{i}\otimes\varphi_{i},$$ where not necessarily the elements $m_{i}\otimes\varphi_{i}\in\textrm{ker }\eta$, follows the same lines as the case he did. $\endgroup$ – Antonio Feb 29 '16 at 9:39

I'll take a stab at it and say it is because of the definition of a homomorphism.

For an element $x\in M\otimes N$ we have that $$x=\sum m_i\otimes n_i$$ and for any homomorphism $\varphi:M\otimes N\to Y$ we have that it must be $$\varphi(x)=\varphi(\sum m_i\otimes n_i)=\sum \varphi(m_i\otimes n_i)$$ hence it suffices to show that it is true for any $m\otimes n$ as the rest is just a sum of them.

  • $\begingroup$ But in general it may be the case that $x$ belongs to the kernel even if some of the $m_{i}\otimes n_{i}$ don't right? $\endgroup$ – Antonio Feb 27 '16 at 17:35
  • $\begingroup$ You can have that in the quotient but we are talking about hte kernel which is a closed subgroup of it, thereofre ALL components of $x$ must be in the kernel and all components can be reduced into that way. $\endgroup$ – Zelos Malum Feb 27 '16 at 17:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This answer is incorrect. There is no reason why a kernel should contain those components. For an easy example, consider the natural map from a tensor square to the symmetric square. $\endgroup$ – Tobias Kildetoft Feb 28 '16 at 10:34
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, I was reviewing my Algebra notes and found what you say. I still don't know how to conclude that the kernel is contained in $Q$ and I'm getting worried, I should understand that. $\endgroup$ – Antonio Feb 28 '16 at 11:02

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.