In my current work I have to deal a lot with ext-groups (of modules). I feel kind of familar with the formalism, e.g. the connection between n-th extensions and ext. But I don't have a feeling about the meaning of $Ext$. Is there a informal/intuitive (geometric) interpretation of $Ext(M,N) $ in terms of Morphisms $M \to N$?

For example, how far is the following interpretation away from beeing right?

Consider a free resolution $\cdots \to F_n \to \cdots \to F_1 \to F_0 \to M$ of $M$ does $Ext^i(M,N)$ tells me something about the morphisms in the i-th syzygy $M_i$? e.g consists $Ext^1(M,N)$ of the morphisms of the module generated by the relations of the generators of $M$ modulo the ones, which come from the trivial relations?

I'm mostly interested in the case of $\mathcal{O}_X$-Modules for (toric) varieties or $\mathbb{C}[S]$-Algebras for a semi-groups $S$.

best regards, Johannes

  • 4
    $\begingroup$ This was crossposted from MO. In the future, when you post your question in multiple fora please provide links to the other posts - as you can imagine, it would be frustrating for someone to put time into answering your question here, only to see hear from you that you'd already gotten the solution elsewhere. $\endgroup$ – Zev Chonoles Jan 4 '13 at 11:11

You specifically ask about Ext in terms of syzygies. Consider modules over a ring $R$, let $F_* \to M$ be a projective resolution with differential $d_*$, write $\Omega^n (M)$ for the $n$th syzygy $\ker d_{n-1}$ in this resolution. Then $$\operatorname{Ext}_R^n(M,N) \cong \hom_R(\Omega^n(M), N) / X$$ (isomorphism of abelian groups) where $X$ denotes the space of morphisms factoring through $\Omega^n(M) \hookrightarrow F_n$. In special circumstances you can assume $X=0$, e.g. $N$ simple, $F_*$ a minimal resolution. A good place to learn about this stuff in more detail is Benson's Representations and Cohomology I.

  • $\begingroup$ 2mt_: thnx, something like this is exactly what I was looking for. can you give me a source or idea of the proof of this statement? $\endgroup$ – Johannes Jan 4 '13 at 18:25
  • $\begingroup$ I gave you a source in my last sentence. The idea is that in $\hom_R(F_*,N)$, a morphism $f$ is in the kernel of the differential iff $f \circ d = 0$ iff $f$ kills $\operatorname{im} d$, in which case $f$ induces a well-defined map on $F_n / \operatorname{im} d_{n+1} = F_n/\ker d_n \cong \operatorname{im} d_n = \Omega^n(M)$. $\endgroup$ – Matthew Towers Jan 4 '13 at 18:50

As mentioned on MO, this http://www.math.wayne.edu/~isaksen/Expository/carrying.pdf gives a wonderful elementary viewpoint.

I have another, simple explanation using matrices that explicitly shows why cocycles arise.

Suppose we consider representations of a group $G$ over a field $K$. Suppose we have two one-dimensional representations $\chi_1,\chi_2$ (also known as "characters"). We'd like to find extensions of $\chi_2$ by $\chi_1$, i.e. representations $V$ such that there is an exact sequence $$1 \to \chi_1 \to V \to \chi_2 \to 1.$$

Now $V$ will automatically be two-dimensional (over $K$), so we can write the representation as $\rho:G \to \mathrm{GL}_2(K)$. Choose a basis adapted to the subspace $\chi_1$, so that $\rho(g)$ for $g \in G$ has a matrix representation $$ \begin{pmatrix} \chi_1(g) & f(g)\\ 0 & \chi_2(g) \end{pmatrix}$$

where $f$ is some function $G \to K$. Notice that if $f$ is always zero, then $V$ is the trivial extension (i.e. the product of the two one-dimensional representations), and conversely, if $V$ is trivial, then choosing an appropriate basis makes the function $f$ equal to $0$. In other words, this upper right matrix entry governs the non-triviality of the extension.

Now, the fact that $\rho(gh)=\rho(g)\rho(h)$ implies that $$ \begin{pmatrix} \chi_1(gh) & f(gh)\\ 0 & \chi_2(gh) \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \chi_1(g) & f(g)\\ 0 & \chi_2(g) \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} \chi_1(h) & f(h)\\ 0 & \chi_2(h) \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \chi_1(gh) & \chi_1(g)f(h)+\chi_2(h)f(g)\\ 0 & \chi_2(gh) \end{pmatrix} $$

Therefore, $f(gh)= \chi_1(g)f(h)+\chi_2(h)f(g)$. One can (and should) think of this as a cocycle condition for this map $G \to K$.

In particular, if $\chi_1=\chi_2=1$, then $f$ is a homomorphism $G \to K$.

Intuitively, this explains why representations of a finite group over a field of characteristic prime to the order of the finite group should be semisimple; the only homomorphisms from that finite group to the additive group of the field are trivial.

Exercise: Think about how an isomorphism between two extensions gives a coboundary making the two cocycles cohomologous.

Note that one can cook up cocycles for arbitrary finite-dimensional representations; the block structure would just look a bit different. If we examine $\mathrm{Ext}(K,M)$, where $K$ is the trivial one-dimensional representation and $M$ has degree $m$, then an extension will be a representation of $G$ into $(m+1) \times (m+1)$ matrices, with a block of $m$ in the upper left corresponding to $M$. The "upper right" will be a column of length $m$. This makes sense - the target of the mapping out of $G$ should be into $M$. In fact, this is a cocycle for the first group cohomology of $M$. More generally, a cocycle for an element of $\mathrm{Ext}^1(N,M)$ is a map from $G$ into $\mathrm{Hom}_K(N,M)$. This makes sense, for if $N$ has degree $n$, then the upper-right entry should be an $m \times n$ matrix, which should represent an element of $\mathrm{Hom}_K(N,M)$.


"Is there a informal/intuitive (geometric) interpretation of $\text{Ext}(M,N)$ in terms of Morphisms $M \longrightarrow N$?"

There is an interpretation of $\operatorname{Ext}$ groups exactly as some kind of morphisms $M \to N$. For this you consider instead of abelian category $A$ (of modules or sheaves of modules) derived category $D(A)$, then $$ \text{Ext}^i(M,N)=\text{Hom}_{D(A)}(M,N[i]). $$ This is nothing more than interpretation of $\operatorname{Ext}$ in terms of resolutions, but sometimes it could simplifies calculations (for example, definition of product is obvious) and it looks (at least for me) like more conceptually clear definition.

  • $\begingroup$ thnx, I heared of it. but I did not remember. That's a very nice formula, but now you have to give me an intuition about derived categories ;) $\endgroup$ – Johannes Jan 4 '13 at 18:23

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.