Ok, this problem is driving me nuts. At first, I thought I did it. But when reading another textbook (having a similar proposition, they (the problem in my textbook, and the proposition in the other book) are not exactly the same), so I went over my work again, and figured out a big flaw in my work, so I redid it, but I just couldnot complete it. Here is the problem of my textbook:


Notice: In the following problem $A$; $J$, and $P$ are all $R-$modules.

Prove that $J$ is injective iff for every epimorphism $f:A \to J$, and monomorphism $g:A \to P$ (where $P$ is some projective module), there must exist a homomorphism $\varphi: P \to J$, such that $\varphi g = f$.

And the other version is without the epimorphism part, it just requires $f$ to be any module map.

And here's my work

  1. The $\Rightarrow:$ part should be straight-forward from the definition of injective modules.
  2. Now, the $\Leftarrow:$ part. I'll prove $J$ injective, by proving that every short exact sequence of the form $0 \to J \xrightarrow{\chi} A \xrightarrow{\sigma} B \to 0$ splits. And to prove that, my aim is to construct an inverse of $\chi$. So consider the following diagram:

enter image description here

Where $R^A$, and $R^J$ are respectively free modules generated by elements of $A$, and $J$. $i$ is the natural injection, since $J$ can be thought of as a submodule of $A$, and $p_1$, $p_2$ are epimorphisms.

Since $R^A$ is free, hence projective. So according to the problem, there exists $\gamma: R^A \to J$, so that the bottom left triangle commutes.

At first, I thought I can construct $\beta: A \to J$ by using the on to property of $p_2$, i.e, for every $a \in A$, there exists $(\alpha_i)_{i \in A} \in R^A$, such that $p_2((\alpha_i)_{i \in A}) = a$. And I can define $\beta (a) = \gamma((\alpha_i)_{i \in A})$. However, with that definition, I cannot prove that $\beta$ is well-defined, let alone, a module map, and I don't really think it's a map at all. But, maybe I'm wrong.

So, can someone help me, am I missing something here? Or is the book wrong? Or should I start with a different way?

Thanks everyone,

And have a good day,

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Your proof cannot work since $\gamma$ exists without any assumption on $J$. Extension on free modules is trivial. By the way, you should write somewhere in the beginning that you work with $R$-modules. $\endgroup$ – Martin Brandenburg Apr 25 '13 at 10:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ When you don't require that $f$ is epi, you may even assume that $P=R$. This is Baer's criterion for injectivity. $\endgroup$ – Martin Brandenburg Apr 25 '13 at 10:17
  • $\begingroup$ Hint: Let $B$ be the pull-back of $p_1$ and $\chi$. The pull-back square gives a surjection $B \to J$ and an injection $B \to R^A$. Apply the assumed property of $J$ to these maps to find $\varphi \colon R^A \to J$. Then use that the square involving $P$ is also a push-out to find a splitting of $\chi$ using $\varphi$. $\endgroup$ – Martin Apr 25 '13 at 10:31
  • $\begingroup$ I get the first 2 lines, but I'm a little bit lost on the last line, what's $P$? $\endgroup$ – user49685 Apr 25 '13 at 12:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ No, I meant to say that the pull-back $$\begin{array}{lll} J & \xrightarrow{\chi} & A \\ \uparrow & & \uparrow \\ B & \rightarrow & R^A \end{array}$$ is both is also a push-out ($P$ was a typo for $B$). Now use that $1_J \colon J \to J$ and $\varphi\colon R^A \to J$ give a commutative square involving $B, J, R^A$ and the map $A \to J$ obtained from the push-out yields a splitting of $\chi$. $\endgroup$ – Martin Apr 25 '13 at 21:53

I think it could be easier to work directly with the basic definition of injectivity, i.e. that if $A \hookrightarrow B$ is an embedding, then any $A \to J$ extends to $B$.

Now you are supposed to reduce to the case when $A \to J$ is surjective, and $B$ is projective. You can always just add a copy of $J$ to $A$ and $B$ to get surjectivity. And you can always write $B \oplus J$ as a quotient of some projective $P$ and form an appropriate pull-back to assume $B$ is projective. I leave the details to you.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ I don't really get the last part, but I'll give it a try. So basically, what I'm trying to prove is, given any injection $i: I \to R$, where $I$ is an ideal of $R$, and any homomorphism $f: I \to J$, it can be lifted. If $f$ this is epi, then everything works out as expected, if not, I'll consider the map: $\tilde{f}: I \oplus J \to J$, where $\tilde{f}(i; j) = f(i) + j$, this map is indeed epi, and the map $f \oplus \mbox{id}_J : I \oplus J \to R \oplus J$ is an injection. So what's left is to prove $R \oplus J$ is projective. $\endgroup$ – user49685 Apr 25 '13 at 13:19
  • $\begingroup$ My comment is too long, so I'll split it in two: I know how to form pull-backs, but I don't see how pull-backs and projectivity relate? So is what I do above the same as what you are hinting me? And hopefully, I'm still on track, ain't I? @.@ $\endgroup$ – user49685 Apr 25 '13 at 13:21
  • $\begingroup$ Ok, on thinking a bit, it doesn't seem true at all, if, say $R \oplus J$ is projective, then $J$ must be projective. And clearly $J$ is not projective. $\endgroup$ – user49685 Apr 25 '13 at 13:28
  • $\begingroup$ @user49685: Dear user, As I indicated in my sketch, there is another step needed: you need to choose a projective module that surjects onto $R \oplus J$, and then make a corresponding modification of $I \oplus J$. Regards, $\endgroup$ – Matt E Apr 25 '13 at 13:52
  • $\begingroup$ I'm sorry, but I still don't see where it goes, don't be mad at me... Ok, so the projective module that surjects onto $R \oplus J$ is clearly $R^{R \oplus J}$, and $I \oplus J$ should become $R^{I \oplus J}$, the maps are still injective, and surjective, so there exists $\gamma: R^{R \oplus J} \to J$, how can I go from $\gamma$ to some map $\beta: R \to J$, isn't it still where I'm stuck? $\endgroup$ – user49685 Apr 25 '13 at 14:18

Ok, so I've been working on this problem for more than half a day, and finally it pays off. I don't really know if there's any flaws left in this solution, but it seems true to me. It's midnight here, and I may make some kind of stupid mistake. So if someone can confirm it for me, I would be very glad.

My aim is to use Baer's criterion to solve it. So for every injective $i: I \to R$, and for every homomorphism $f: I \to J$, I need to lift it to some $g: R \to J$.

  1. If $f$ is epi, then it's done, since $R$ is free, hence projective.
  2. If $f$ is not epi, I construct an epimorphism $\gamma: R^J \to J$. So we have the following diagram: $\begin{array}{ccc} I \oplus R^J & \xrightarrow{i\oplus\mbox{id}_{R^J}} & R \oplus R^J \\ \downarrow^{\tilde{f}} \\ J \end{array}$

where $\tilde{f}(i; (r_k)_{k \in J}) = f(i) + \gamma((r_k)_{k \in J})$, since $\tilde{f}$ is epi, and $i \oplus \mbox{id}_{R^J}$ is injective, and $R \oplus R^J$ is free hence projective, so there's a homomorphism $\varphi: R \oplus R^J \to J$, such that the diagram commutes. It's easy to see that $g = \varphi \circ j$ is the module map I'm looking for, where $j$ is an injective map from $R$ to $R \oplus R^J$, i.e $j(b) = (b; 0_{R^J})$.

Does this look good?

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Dear user, This looks good. And I'm sorry if my partial answer caused frustation; hopefully working out the answer for yourself made it worthwhile, though. Best wishes, $\endgroup$ – Matt E Apr 26 '13 at 10:35

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.