We knew that some counter-examples: $\mathbb{Q}$ is a flat $\mathbb{Z}$-module but not a projective $\mathbb{Z}$-module; $\mathbb{Z}$ is a flat $\mathbb{Z}$-module but not an injective $\mathbb{Z}$-module.

So, is there a flat module but neither projective nor injetive?


Yes, your example is pointing in the right direction. The fact that $\mathbb{Q}$ is flat over $\mathbb{Z}$ follows from the general theorem that if $A$ is a commutative ring and $S$ is some multiplicative system in $A$, for example the complement of some prime ideal, then the localization $S^{-1}A$ is a flat $A$-module. It doesn't need to be, however, injective or projective.

To be concrete, let $S$ be all the integers coprime to $p$ and let $Z _{(p)} = S^{-1} \mathbb{Z}$ be the localization. We have $$Z _{(p)} = \left\{ \frac{a}{b} : b \text{ non-zero, coprime to }p \right\} \subseteq \mathbb{Q}$$ as a subring of the rationals. Now, $Z _{(p)}$ is flat, as it is a localization, but it is not injective. This can be proved by the classification of injective modules over $\mathbb{Z}$, which have to be rational vector spaces if they are torsion free, but to give a concrete proof that it is the case consider the inclusion $\mathbb{Z} \hookrightarrow \mathbb{Z} _{(p)}$. One sees that this map cannot be extended to $\mathbb{Q}$. (Hint: Where would $\frac{1}{p}$ go under the extension?)

To observe it's not projective, one can again use the general theorem that projective modules over principal ideal domains must be free and $\mathbb{Z} _{(p)}$ is not (Hint: Show that it is not generated by a single element and that any two elements in it are linearly dependant.) For a direct proof, consider the surjection

$$\phi: \bigoplus_{\substack{q \text{ prime distinct from p}\\ n \in \mathbb{N}}} \mathbb{Z} \rightarrow \mathbb{Z} _{(p)}$$

where the $(q, n)$-th copy of $\mathbb{Z}$ is taken to $\phi (1_{n}) = q^{-n}$. If $\mathbb{Z} _{(p)}$ were projective, there should exist a map $\psi: \mathbb{Z} _{(p)} \rightarrow \oplus \mathbb{Z}$ such that $\phi \psi = \text{id}$. However, there are no non-zero maps in this direction. (Hint: Let $\psi: \mathbb{Z} _{(p)} \rightarrow \oplus \mathbb{Z}$ be a homomorphism. Note that $\psi(1)$ has the property that for all $k \in \mathbb{N}$ there exists some $a \in \oplus _{n \in \mathbb{N}} \mathbb{Z}$ such that $q^{k}a = \psi(1)$, because this is true for $1 \in \mathbb{Z} _{(p)}$. Are there any non-zero elements like this in any direct sum of $\mathbb{Z}$?)

  • $\begingroup$ Injective modules are divisible (over any integral domain). This simplifies a little bit one of the arguments. $\endgroup$ – Martin Brandenburg Oct 4 '13 at 12:55

Here is a simple example based on your given examples, in the category of $\mathbb{Z}$-modules: $\mathbb{Q}$ is flat but not projective, $\mathbb{Z}$ is flat but not injective, so put them together: $\mathbb{Q}\oplus\mathbb{Z}$ is flat, since the direct sum of flat modules is flat. It is not projective, since a direct summand of it is not projective, and it is not injective, since it is not divisible.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Could you please give an counter example of $\mathbb{Q} \oplus \mathbb{Z}$ that it is not projective? I understood your reason, but just wish to see a really concrete example with specific maps to show it just cannot be projective? Thanks a lot. $\endgroup$ – TLR May 24 '14 at 14:15

Another example is $\mathbb{Z}[\frac{1}{2}]$ over $\mathbb{Z}$.

  • It is torsion-free, hence flat. Alternatively, $\mathbb{Z}[\frac{1}{2}] = \mathrm{colim}(\mathbb{Z} \xrightarrow{2} \mathbb{Z} \xrightarrow{2} \dotsc)$ is a directed colimit of free modules, hence flat.
  • Since $2 \notin \mathbb{Z}^*$, there is no homomorphism $\mathbb{Z}[\frac{1}{2}] \to \mathbb{Z}$ extending the inclusion. Hence $\mathbb{Z}[\frac{1}{2}]$ is not projective.
  • Since $3 : \mathbb{Z}[\frac{1}{2}] \to \mathbb{Z}[\frac{1}{2}]$ is not surjective, it follows that $\mathbb{Z}[\frac{1}{2}]$ is not divisible, hence not injective.
  • $\begingroup$ Point 1 and 3 are OK. In point 2, "2 $\notin \mathbb{Z}^*$"?. $\endgroup$ – Rachel Oct 4 '13 at 17:26
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, $2$ is not invertible. $\endgroup$ – Martin Brandenburg Oct 4 '13 at 21:25
  • $\begingroup$ So, what's the theorem u use to assert it's not projective? Universal property? $\endgroup$ – Rachel Oct 5 '13 at 0:10
  • $\begingroup$ I don't follow point 2 either, because one can also say there is no homomorphism $\mathbb{Z} \to \mathbb{Z}$ that extends $1_\mathbb{Z}$ along the inclusion $2 \cdot -: \mathbb{Z} \to \mathbb{Z}$. But it's clear that $\mathbb{Z}[\frac1{2}]$ is not free, because there is a linear dependence between any two elements. Hence it is not projective. $\endgroup$ – user43208 Oct 6 '13 at 17:58

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.