I'm currently reading "Algebra: Chapter 0" by Paolo Aluffi. Before I state my problem, I would like to give here the definition of split exact sequences from the book:

A short exact sequence

$0 \to M_1 \to N \to M_2 \to 0$

"splits" if there is a commutative diagram

enter image description here

in which the vertical maps are all isomorphisms.

Now, I'm having trouble with understandg a part of a given proof of the following proposition:

Let $\phi: M \to N$ be an injective $R$-module homomorphism. Then $\phi$ has a left-inverse(as a homomorphism, not a function) if and only if the sequence

$0 \to M \stackrel{\phi_1}{\rightarrow} N \to coker \ \phi \to 0$


Here is the proof from the book(I will state only the part I'm having trouble understanding with, that is, the "if" part of the statement):

If the sequence splits, then $\phi$ may be identified with the embedding of $M$ into a direct sum $M \oplus M'$, and the projection $M \oplus M' \to M$ gives a left-inverse of $\phi$.

Well, I'm a bit a lost here:

First of all, why $\phi$ can be identified with the embedding of $M \to M \oplus M'$? According to the definition above, it can be identidied with a surjective function $M'_1 \oplus M'_2$ where $M'_1 \cong M$ and $M'_2 \cong \frac{N}{im \ \phi} \cong coker \ \phi$


Suppose the sequence $0\to M\xrightarrow{\phi}N\to\operatorname{coker}\phi\to0$ splits. Then there exists the diagram $$\DeclareMathOperator{\coker}{coker}\require{AMScd} \begin{CD} 0 @>>> M @>\phi>> N @>\pi>> \coker\phi @>>> 0 \\ @. @V{\alpha}V\sim V @V\beta V\sim V @V\gamma V\sim V @. \\ 0 @>>> M' @>f>> M'\oplus C' @>g>> C' @>>> 0 \end{CD} $$ as specified in the definition.

Our task is to find $\psi\colon N\to M$ such that $\psi\phi=1_M$. It is implicit in the definition that the maps in the bottom row are the canonical ones, so there exists $h\colon M'\oplus C'$ such that $hf=1_{M'}$.

Now define $\psi=\alpha^{-1}h\beta$; then $$ \psi\phi=\alpha^{-1}h\beta\phi=\alpha^{-1}hf\alpha= \alpha^{-1}\alpha=1_M $$ The “identification” is exactly considering $f$; it seems that the author is trying to confuse the reader instead of applying the definition.

For proving the converse, you need to build the diagram by exploiting the existence of $\psi\colon N\to M$ with $\psi\phi=1_M$. The diagram is $$ \begin{CD} 0 @>>> M @>\phi>> N @>\pi>> \coker\phi @>>> 0 \\ @. @V{1_M}V\sim V @V\beta V\sim V @V1_{\coker\phi} V\sim V @. \\ 0 @>>> M @>f>> M\oplus\coker\phi @>g>> \coker\phi @>>> 0 \end{CD} $$ where $\beta(x)=(\psi(x),\pi(x))$. The diagram commutes because $g\beta=\pi$ and, for $x\in M$, $$ \beta\phi(x)=(\psi\phi(x),\pi\phi(x))=(x,0)=f(x) $$

  • $\begingroup$ Can you please elaborate on "it is implicit in the definition that the maps in the bottom row are the canonical ones, so there exists $h" M' \oplus C' \to M'$ such that $hf = 1_{M'}$? How do you know it's necessarily that $f(m') = (m',0)$ and $g(m',c') = c'$? Unfortunately, I don't see it. $\endgroup$ – Jxt921 Jun 10 '16 at 18:49
  • $\begingroup$ @Jxt921 The maps must be those, or the result would be false. It's not necessarily true that an exact sequence $0\to A\to A\oplus B\to B\to 0$ is split. The “canonical” exact sequence is. $\endgroup$ – egreg Jun 10 '16 at 19:45
  • $\begingroup$ Could you show me how do we deduce that? If it's split, than we have $\beta \phi = f \alpha$. Still, an exact definition for $f$ relies on $\beta, \phi$ and $\alpha$. I just don't see how we get from the diagram you drew to the formula for $f(m') = (m', 0)$. Or we have from the diagram $\gamma(\phi(m) + im \ \phi) = g(f(\alpha(m)))$. Still doesn't say much about $f$ and $g$ to claim they are canonical. $\endgroup$ – Jxt921 Jun 10 '16 at 20:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Jxt921 $f$ is defined as $f(x)=(x,0)$. It is the canonical injection in the direct sum. $\endgroup$ – egreg Jun 10 '16 at 20:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Jxt921 No, not some $f$ and $g$; the map $f$ is defined by $f(x)=(x,0)$ and $g$ by $g(x,y)=y$. This is the implicit assumption in the book definition. Otherwise you have no hope to prove the result. $\endgroup$ – egreg Jun 10 '16 at 20:31

EDIT: Based on your comment I changed the answer slightly to solve the confusion...

The point is we have an injective map $\phi_1: M\to N$ and we are looking for a map (a retraction) $\rho: N\to M$ such that $\rho\phi_1 = \mathrm{id}_M$. Let $C=\mathrm{Coker}\phi_1$. The exact sequence $0\to M\xrightarrow{\phi_1} N\xrightarrow{\kappa} C\to 0$ is split (where $\kappa$ is the quotient map). So there are $R$-modules $M'_1, M_2'$ such that the diagram you drew is commutative with all the vertical maps isomorphisms. Let us put some names on these isomorphisms $\alpha: M\xrightarrow{\sim} M'_1$, $\beta: C\xrightarrow{\sim} M'_2$ and $\psi: N\xrightarrow{\sim} M'_1\oplus M'_2$.

(This part is new) First of all note that you also have an exact sequence $0\to M\xrightarrow{\imath} M\oplus C\xrightarrow{\pi}C\to 0 $ in addition to $0\to M'_1\xrightarrow{\imath'} M_1'\oplus M_2'\xrightarrow{\pi'}M_2'\to 0 $. Clearly $$ \imath' \circ \alpha = (\alpha\oplus\beta)\circ \imath, \quad \beta\circ\pi = \pi'\circ (\alpha\oplus\beta) $$ This means you can without loss of generality assume that $M'_1=M$, $\alpha=\mathrm{id}_{M}$, $M'_2=C$, $\beta=\mathrm{id}_C$ since 0\to M\xrightarrow{\imath} M\oplus C\xrightarrow{\pi}C\to 0$ also satisfies the conditions you listed in the definition of split exact sequence.

Consider the map $\rho:N\xrightarrow{\psi}M\oplus C\xrightarrow{\pi_M}M$ where the second map is the projection to $M$. The claim is $\rho\phi_1=\mathrm{id}_M$. Note that $\mathrm{Im}(\phi_1)\simeq M$ because $\phi_1$ is injective. Moreover this isomorphism is exactly $\psi$ itself. So take $x\in M$, then $\psi\phi_1(x)=(x,0)$. Hence $\rho\phi_1$ is indeed identity. It is in this sense that $\phi_1$ can be identified with the embedding $M\to M\oplus C$.

  • $\begingroup$ That's what I don't understand: why we have an isomorphism $\psi: N \to M'_1 \oplus M'_2$? We know there are $M'_1 \cong M, M'_2 \cong coker \ \phi$ and $M'_1 \oplus M'_2 \cong N$ but we DON'T know that these isomorphisms are indentities and $M = M'_1$ and $coker \ \phi = M'_2$. The definition of split exact sequence says "isomorphic" and not "equal". I know sometimes structures are considered to be the same up to isomorphism, but I don't see it as the case, since we need to construct specific functions, like projection. $\endgroup$ – Jxt921 Jun 9 '16 at 21:38
  • $\begingroup$ I added a paragraph which should resolve your confusion: The definition of split exact sequence says "there exists" such and such... I explained that you can choose the downstairs exact sequence such that $M_1'=M$ and $M'_2=C$ but the last one $M'_1\oplus M_2'\simeq N$ is just an isomorphism. $\endgroup$ – Hamed Jun 9 '16 at 22:08

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.