1
$\begingroup$

We have the following (commutative) diagram: $$\begin{matrix} 0 & \to & M_1 & \xrightarrow{\phi_1} & M_2 & \xrightarrow{\phi_2} & M_3 & \to & 0 \\ \ & \ & \downarrow^{\alpha_1} & \ & \downarrow^{\alpha_2} \ & \ & \downarrow^{\alpha_3} \\ 0 & \to & N_1 & \xrightarrow{\tau_1} & N_2 & \xrightarrow{\tau_2} & N_3 & \to & 0 \end{matrix}$$ $M_i,N_i$ are modules and $\phi_i,\tau_i$ are homomorphisms with exact rows. We have injections $\phi_1:M_1 \to M_2$ and $\tau_1:N_1 \to N_2$ and surjections $\phi_2, \tau_2$. $\alpha_1,\alpha_3$ are isomorphisms, so that $\tau_1 \circ \alpha_1$ is an injection and $\alpha_3 \circ \phi_2$ is a surjection. Therefore, we have two exact sequences: $$0 \to M_1 \to M_2 \to N_3 \to 0$$ $$0 \to M_1 \to N_2 \to N_3 \to 0$$ Considering the first one we have $M_2/M_1 \cong N_3$ and from the second one we obtain $N_2/M_1 \cong N_3$ and finally $$N_2/M_1 \cong M_2/M_1$$ <<(without loss of generality we can assume that $M_1 \subset M_2 \subset N_2$).>>

My questions:

1. Is this part of proof correct?

2. Does $N_2/M_1 \cong M_2/M_1$ imply $N_2 \cong M_2$?

Thanks in advance.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ It's not true in general that $M_2\subseteq N_2$, since they could very well be different modules that happen to be isomorphic. Everything up to that looks good, though. $\endgroup$ – Santana Afton Jul 31 '17 at 13:31
  • $\begingroup$ For your second question, the answer is yes... But it's really just a reformulation of the Short Five Lemma (with $\alpha_1$ being an identity rather than an iso, but that doesn't make any difference)! $\endgroup$ – Arnaud D. Jul 31 '17 at 14:13
  • $\begingroup$ Hmmm... I didn't use that the diagram is commutative... $\endgroup$ – Nicholas S Jul 31 '17 at 17:32
  • $\begingroup$ @ArnaudD. With 2-year delay I can say that the answer is no. $\endgroup$ – Nicholas S Dec 2 '19 at 20:51
1
$\begingroup$

I think your identifications more obfuscate what’s going on than simplify the problem.

  • If $α_2$ is to make both the left and the right square commute, in the reduced case it must be an inclusion – as all other arrows of the left square are inclusions as and the vertical arrow in the right square is assumed to be the identity as well.
  • Thus, the question becomes: Does $N_2 / M_1 = M_2 / M_1$ imply $N_2 = M_2$?

And yes, it does. Let me rephrase it as: Does $A / C = B / C$ imply $A = B$? The premise says that for any element $x$ of either $A$ or $B$, there is some $y$ in either $B$ or $A$ respectively such that $x + C = y + C$, so in particular $x ∈ B + C$ and $y ∈ A + C$. Since $C ⊆ A$ and $C ⊆ B$, it follows that $A = B$.

But, I think it’s less complicated to do the diagram chase and conclude this fact above as an easy corollary.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

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.