Let $0 \rightarrow M' \xrightarrow{f} M \xrightarrow{g} M'' \rightarrow 0$ be an exact sequence of modules on a commutative unitary ring.

We say that the exact sequence is split when M can be written as the direct sum of $M_1$ and $M_2$ such that $f$'s corestriction to $M_1\oplus \lbrace 0 \rbrace$ is an isomorphism and $g$'s restriction to $\lbrace 0 \rbrace \oplus M_2$ is also one.

Is it correct to say that it is split if and only if $M \simeq \text{Im}f \oplus M/\text{Im}f$ ? I think this property is always true of vector spaces and probably free modules, and I know that this kind of exact sequence is always split when it involves vector spaces.

I ask this because $f$'s corestriction to $\text{Im}f$ is obviously an isomorphism since $f$ is injective, and because $\text{Im}f=\text{ker}g$, $g$ is actually a function on the supplementary submodule alone.

  • $\begingroup$ What is your definition of a split exact sequence? $\endgroup$ – Bernard May 25 '17 at 21:50
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, I've edited the post. $\endgroup$ – James Well May 25 '17 at 23:01

No, this is not correct. For instance, let the ring be $\mathbb{Z}$ and let $M=\mathbb{Z}\oplus V$ where $V$ is an infinite-dimensional vector space over $\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$. Let $M'=2\mathbb{Z}\oplus 0\subset M$ with $f$ the inclusion map, and let $M''=M/M'$ with $g$ the quotient map. Note that $M'\cong\mathbb{Z}$ and $M''\cong \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}\oplus V\cong V$ since $V$ is infinite-dimensional, so $M\cong M'\oplus M''$.

However, the short exact sequence $0\to M' \to M\to M''\to 0$ does not split. Indeed, notice that if $x\in M$, then $2x\in M'$, so if $M_2\subset M$ is any submodule such that $M_2\cap M'=0$, then $2x=0$ for all $x\in M_2$. This implies every element of $M_2$ has the form $(0,v)$ for $v\in V$. But then $M'+M_2$ cannot be all of $M$, since the first coordinate of every element of $M'+M_2$ is even. So there does not exist any $M_2\subset M$ such that $M$ is the (internal) direct sum of $M'$ and $M_2$.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, what is $\mathbb{Z}/2$ ? I read it as $\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$ is that correct ? $\endgroup$ – James Well May 25 '17 at 23:10
  • $\begingroup$ That's correct. (I have also simplified the example: you need only one copy of $\mathbb{Z}$.) $\endgroup$ – Eric Wofsey May 25 '17 at 23:10
  • $\begingroup$ It seems to me like you have split the sequence, I'll give it another read in a short while to see if I can find where I'm going wrong $\endgroup$ – James Well May 25 '17 at 23:23
  • $\begingroup$ I've added more explanation for why it doesn't split. $\endgroup$ – Eric Wofsey May 26 '17 at 1:25
  • $\begingroup$ Why is $V\oplus \mathbb Z/2\mathbb Z$ isomorphic to $V$ ? The former has torsion, e.g. $(0,1)+(0,1)=0$ whereas the latter does not, as it is a vector space. $\endgroup$ – James Well May 26 '17 at 13:58

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.