1
$\begingroup$

Let $A,B$ be modules. An extension of $A$ by $B$ is a short exact sequence $$B\to E\to A$$. Let $Ext(A,B)$ be a set of equivalence classes of such modules $E$. The book said that this admit an abelian group structure. I would like to confirm is it true that the zero object is the split short exact sequence $B\to A\oplus B\to A$? I wanna prove this, but I am stuck at making an isomorphism between $E$ and $E\oplus A\oplus B$. And I have no clue about the inverse element of $B\to E\to A$: that is $B\to X\to A$ such that $E\oplus X$ is isomorphic to $A\oplus B$. Any help is appreciated.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You can't get an isomorphism between $E$ and $E\oplus A\oplus B$ since these will rarely be isomorphic. You need to look at what the actual sum is on the extensions (it is not just direct sum). $\endgroup$ – Tobias Kildetoft Oct 3 '16 at 9:58
  • $\begingroup$ My thesis contains just this and all the proofs :-) $\endgroup$ – Zelos Malum Oct 3 '16 at 10:13
  • $\begingroup$ @TobiasKildetoft, yes. I think that does not work $\endgroup$ – Chen M Ling Oct 4 '16 at 5:12
3
$\begingroup$

For two extensions $$A\to E \to B$$ and $$A\to F \to B$$ we define the sum of them to be be the quotient of the pullback $X$ on the morphisms $$\pi_e: E\to B$$ $$\pi_f: F\to B$$ with the module $$N=\{\imath_e(a)\oplus-\imath_f(a):a\in A\}$$

Then the baer sum is $X/N$. Let $A\oplus B$ be given and $E$ an extension, then we have. $$X=\{(a\oplus b)\oplus e:\pi(a\oplus b)=\pi_e(e)\}$$ $$=\{a\oplus b\oplus e:b=\pi_e(e)\}$$ $$=\{(a\oplus b)\oplus e:b=\pi_e(e)\}$$ $$\cong\{a \oplus e\}$$ $$=A\oplus E$$ and for the submodule we have through a similar reasoning that $N\cong A\cong A\oplus 0$ and taking their quotient you get the rest. I recommend you look into MacLanes book on it.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I do not get what is wrong with my definition and why it does not work. I think something should have been missing. But the way you define the zero element works. Thanks. $\endgroup$ – Chen M Ling Oct 4 '16 at 5:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The inverse is just the same chain but the negative epimorphism. What is wrong is that you cannot establish them being equivalent through commutative diagrams, like this we can. $\endgroup$ – Zelos Malum Oct 4 '16 at 5:32
  • $\begingroup$ I see. Thanks for your explanation :) $\endgroup$ – Chen M Ling Oct 5 '16 at 8:23
  • $\begingroup$ @ChenMLing welcome, it all really boils down to generalizations and commutative diagrams, as i mentioned i did an entire thesis on this :-) $\endgroup$ – Zelos Malum Oct 5 '16 at 8:35

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.