6
$\begingroup$

Let $C^{\textbf{.}}$ be a complex in some abelian category (edit: assuming it has enough projectives). I would like to know if there exist a complex $X^{\textbf{.}}$ consisting of projective objects and a quasi-isomorphism $f:C^{\textbf{.}}\to X^{\textbf{.}}$.

This question comes from "Cohomology of Number Fields", page 110 in the second edition. In the book it is assumed that the category is of modules over a dedekind domain, so mabye it is only true with this hypothesis. Another hypothesis about the special case in which the authors use this statement, is where $C^{\textbf{.}}$ is bounded above.

$\endgroup$
6
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Some abelian category? No chance, if the abelian category does not have enough projectives. Otherwise, if we are talking about chain complexes of modules over a ring, then this is a classical result of Cartan and Eilenberg. However, the superscript bullet makes me think you want something about cochain complexes... $\endgroup$
    – Zhen Lin
    Apr 5, 2013 at 18:58
  • $\begingroup$ @Zhen Lin: This is an answer, not a comment. $\endgroup$ Apr 5, 2013 at 18:59
  • $\begingroup$ I would have posted it as an answer if the OP used subscript bullets! (Is it true that every cochain complex (in non-negative cochain degrees) has a projective resolution?) $\endgroup$
    – Zhen Lin
    Apr 5, 2013 at 19:04
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Zhen Lin: It is true, for modules anyway. One way of stating this is that the category of (possibly unbounded) complexes has a model structure in which quasi-isomorphisms are weak equivalences and cofibrant objects are certain kinds of complexes of projectives. Check out chapter 2 in Mark Hovey's book on model categories for a more precise statement. $\endgroup$
    – chthonian
    Apr 5, 2013 at 21:05
  • $\begingroup$ What is the difference between cochain complexes and chain complexes? isnt it just a matter of notation? $\endgroup$
    – edo arad
    Apr 6, 2013 at 11:49

2 Answers 2

9
$\begingroup$

The statement you've asked for is true provided some conditions on the abelian category: there are enough projectives, all colimits exist, and all filtered colimits are exact.

Suppose first that a cochain complex $A^\bullet$ is bounded above. In this case, we can find a quasi-isomorphism $P^\bullet \to A^\bullet$ with $P^\bullet$ a complex of projectives as long as there are enough projectives in the abelian category. This is a classical result: you can do this by constructing a Cartan-Eilenberg resolution of $A^\bullet$ and taking its total complex, but you can also give an elementary proof by induction. Inductively, suppose that for all $i > n$, we have constructed projective objects $P^i$, differentials $d_P^i : P^i \to P^{i+1}$, and morphisms $f^i : P^i \to A^i$ which commute with the differentials and which induce isomorphisms $\ker(d_P^{i+1})/\mathrm{im}(d_P^i) \to H^{i+1}(A^\bullet)$. Since $A^\bullet$ is bounded above, the base case of the induction is satisfied since we can just take $P^i = 0$ for all big enough $i$. The fact that the map $f^{n+1} : P^{n+1} \to A^n$ commutes with the differentials tells us that there is an induced map $\ker(d_P^{n+1}) \to Z^{n+1}(A^\bullet)$. We know that $B^{n+1}(A^\bullet) \subset Z^{n+1}(A^\bullet)$. If we form the pullback $\ker(d_P^{n+1}) \times_{Z^{n+1}(A^\bullet)} B^{n+1}(A^\bullet)$, since there are enough projectives we can find an epimorphism $$ P^n \twoheadrightarrow \ker(d_P^{n+1}) \times_{Z^{n+1}(A^\bullet)} B^{n+1}(A^\bullet). $$ Now there is obviously a map $d_P^n : P^n \to P^{n+1}$ which is factors through $\ker(d_P^{n+1})$ so $d_P^{n+1} \circ d_P^n = 0$. There is also a map $P^n \to B^{n+1}(A^\bullet)$, and we have an epimorphism $A^n \twoheadrightarrow B^{n+1}(A^\bullet)$, so we can construct a map $f^n : P^n \to A^n$ using the fact that $P^n$ is projective. Now if you do a little diagram chasing, you can show that the inductive hypotheses continue to be satisfied, which completes the induction and produces us a quasi-isomorphism $f^\bullet : P^\bullet \to A^\bullet$ with $P^\bullet$ a complex of projectives.

The difference between cochain complexes and chain complexes is notational, but sometimes people like their cochain complexes to be concentrated in non-negative degrees and their chain complexes to be concentrated in non-negative degrees. The above proof proves that we can find quasi-isomorphisms $P^\bullet \to A^\bullet$ when $A^\bullet$ is, for instance, concentrated in non-positive degrees, which, after a change of notation, proves that we can find quasi-isomorphisms $P_\bullet \to A_\bullet$ of chain complexes when $A_\bullet$ is concentrated in non-negative degrees.

In any case, let's go back to thinking just about cochain complexes. Let $A^\bullet$ be an arbitrary (ie, possibly unbounded) complex. Fix some integer $n$. We know that the (good) truncation $\tau_{\leq n} A^\bullet$ is bounded above, so we can find a quasi-isomorphism $f_n^\bullet : P^\bullet_n \to \tau_{\leq n} A^\bullet$ where $P^\bullet_n$ is a complex of projectives. If we do a little mucking around, we can show that we can extend this to a quasi-isomorphism $f_{n+1}^\bullet : P^\bullet_{n+1} \to \tau_{\leq n+1}A^\bullet$ with $P_{n+1}^\bullet$ a complex of projectives. More precisely, by "extend" I mean that there is a map $P^\bullet_n \to P^\bullet_{n+1}$ which is the identity in all degrees strictly less than $n$, and such that the following diagram of complexes commutes. $$ \newcommand{\ra}[1]{\kern-1.5ex\xrightarrow{\ \ #1\ \ }\phantom{}\kern-1.5ex} \newcommand{\ras}[1]{\kern-1.5ex\xrightarrow{\ \ \smash{#1}\ \ }\phantom{}\kern-1.5ex} \newcommand{\da}[1]{\bigg\downarrow\raise.5ex\rlap{\scriptstyle#1}} \begin{array}{c} P_n^\bullet & \ra{} & P_{n+1}^\bullet \\ \da{f_n^\bullet} & & \da{f_{n+1}^\bullet} \\ \tau_{\leq n} A^\bullet & \ra{} & \tau_{\leq n+1} A^\bullet \\ \end{array} $$ Now since we're assuming that colimits exist, we can take the colimit of these maps $$ P^\bullet := \mathrm{colim} P_n^\bullet \to \mathrm{colim} \tau_{\leq n} A^\bullet = A^\bullet. $$ It's clear that $P^\bullet$ will be a complex of projectives. Moreover, this colimit we're taking is a filtered colimit, and if we assume that filtered colimits in our abelian category are exact, then this map is guaranteed to be an quasi-isomorphism.

This gives a proof of the statement you asked about, but I should probably point out that asking for a quasi-isomorphism $P^\bullet \to A^\bullet$ with $P^\bullet$ a complex of projectives is not a very useful thing to do unless $A^\bullet$ is bounded above. More specifically, I mean the following. A complex $P^\bullet$ of projective objects is called dg-projective if it satisfies the following property: whenever $C^\bullet$ is acyclic, any map $P^\bullet \to C^\bullet$ is null-homotopic. For bounded above complexes, being dg-projective is equivalent to being projective in all degrees, but this is not true for unbounded complexes. When $A^\bullet$ is bounded above, the proof we gave above shows that we can always find a quasi-isomorphism $P^\bullet \to A^\bullet$ with $P^\bullet$ a dg-projective complex, but for unbounded $A^\bullet$, proving that there is always a quasi-isomorphism $P^\bullet \to A^\bullet$ with $P^\bullet$ a dg-projective complex is more involved.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Unfortunately this doesn't work. Unless I'm missing something, the procedure as described gives a zero complex. It is true that if one manages to circumvent the zero step and produce a suitable isomorphism in degree 0 this will induce monomorphisms in homology, however. $\endgroup$
    – Pedro
    Jul 23, 2015 at 18:39
  • $\begingroup$ I think you're right. I'll fix this soon. $\endgroup$
    – chthonian
    Jul 23, 2015 at 21:05
6
$\begingroup$

$\require{AMScd}$ As noted above, the first argument provides an injection in homology, but not an isomorphism. I will set things up inductively so that we get a diagram $$\begin{CD} \\ &{}&{}& C_n @>>> C_{n-1} \\ {}&{}& {} @Af_n AA @A A f_{n-1} A \\ {}&{}&{}&P_{n} @>>d_n> P_{n-1} \\ \end{CD}$$

so that $f_{n-1}$ induces an isomorphism in homology and $f_n$ induces an epimorphism from $\ker d_n$ to $H_n(C_\cdot)$. When $n=0$ this is almost trivial: take $f_{n-1}=0$, $d_{-1}=0$ and $f_0$ induced from covering the zeroeth homology $\rho:P_0\to H_0$ by a projective and obtaining $f_0$ induced from the projection $\pi_0:C_0\to H_0$. This gives a commutative diagram

$$\begin{CD} \\ &{}&{}& C_0 @>\partial_{0}>> 0 \\ {}&{}& {} @Af_0 AA @AAA \\ {}&{}&{}&P_0 @>>d_{0}> 0\\ \end{CD}$$

Assume inductively that we have obtained a commutative diagram $$\begin{CD} \\ &{}&{}& C_n @>>> C_{n-1} \\ {}&{}& {} @Af_n AA @AA f_{n-1} A \\ {}&{}&{}&P_{n} @>>d_n> P_{n-1} \\ \end{CD}$$ such that $f_{n-1}$ induces an isomorphism in homology and $f_n$ induces an epimorphism $\ker d_n\to H_n(C_\cdot )$. Take a cover $\rho_{n+1}:P_{n+1}' \to H_{n+1}$ with $P_{n+1}'$ projective and $f_{n+1}'$ induced from the projection $\ker{\partial_{n+1}}\to H_{n+1}$. Now consider the pullback diagram (at $Q_{n+1}$)

$$\begin{CD} \\ &{}&{}& {\rm im}\; \partial_{n+1} @>\iota>> \ker \partial_{n+1} @>\widetilde{j}>> C_n \\ {}&{}& {} @A\psi_n AA @A\widetilde{f_n} AA @Af_nAA \\ P_{n+1}'' @>\Lambda_{n+1}>> Q_{n+1} @>\varphi_n>> \ker d_n @>j>> P_n \\ \end{CD}$$

where we have taken $P_{n+1}''$ projective and $\Lambda_{n+1}$ an epimorphism. Define $d_{n+1}''= j\varphi_n\Lambda_{n+1}$. This also gives an arrow $\psi_n\Lambda_{n+1}:P_{n+1}''\longrightarrow {\rm im}\; \partial_{n+1}$ and we obtain $f_{n+1}'':P_{n+1}''\longrightarrow C_{n+1}$ from the epimorphism $ \tilde\partial_{n+1}:C_{n+1} \longrightarrow {\rm im}\; \partial_{n+1}$. Now let $d_{n+1}:P_{n+1}\longrightarrow C_{n+1}$ where $P_{n+1}=P_{n+1}'\oplus P_{n+1}''$ and $(p',p'')\mapsto d_{n+1}''(p)$. Set $f_{n+1}=f_{n+1}'+f_{n+1}''$. Then

$(1)$ Since the image of $f_{n+1}'$ lies in the kernel of $\partial_{n+1}$, we have

$$\begin{align} \partial_{n+1}f_{n+1}&= \partial_{n+1}f_{n+1}''\\&= \tilde j\iota \tilde \partial_{n+1} f_{n+1}''\\&=\tilde j\iota \psi_n\Lambda_{n+1}\\&=\tilde j\tilde{f_n}\varphi_n \Lambda_{n+1}\\&=f_n j\varphi_n \Lambda_{n+1}\\&=f_n d_{n+1}''=f_n d_{n+1}\end{align}$$

$(2)$ Evidently $d_nd_{n+1}=0$ since $d_{n+1}''$ factors through the kernel of $d_n$. Assume that $z\in\ker d_n''$ is such that $f_n(z)=\partial_{n+1}z ''$. Then $(\partial_{n+1}z'',z)$ lies in $Q_{n+1}$ so there is some $p\in P_{n+1}''$ so that $\Lambda_{n+1}(p)$ equals this. It then follows $d_{n+1}''(p)=z$ and since the images of $d$ and $d''$ coincide we obtain the desired isomorphism.

$(3)$ We have that $\ker d_{n+1}=P_{n+1}'\oplus \ker d_{n+1}''$ maps by $f_{n+1}$ onto $H_{n+1}(C_\cdot)$, since the first summand is already onto.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ For this you need the complex to start somewhere. $\endgroup$ Jul 25, 2015 at 1:50
  • $\begingroup$ @Mariano Yes, I am assuming the complex is zero in negative degrees (i.e. the first part of the argument in the accepted answer) $\endgroup$
    – Pedro
    Jul 25, 2015 at 2:05
  • $\begingroup$ @user1987 Yes, $p$ should be $p''$. What I mean is that $f_n$ sends $(p',p'')$ to $f_n'(p')+f_n''(p'')$. Note that $d_n''$ comes already equipped with the inclusion into $P_n$ as one of the coordinates, so the last equation should make sense. At the moment I cannot look into the details. $\endgroup$
    – Pedro
    Jan 16, 2016 at 2:01

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.