0
$\begingroup$

Fact A : If $E_i$ is a directed system of $R$-modules, and $F$ is another $R$-module. Then

$$\varinjlim(F\otimes E_{i})=F\otimes(\varinjlim E_{i}).$$

Fact B : "Every module is a direct limit of its finitely generated submodules."

How does Fact A implies Fact B?

Serge Lang claims this in his Algebra book.

$\endgroup$
16
  • $\begingroup$ possible duplicate of Tensor products commute with direct limits $\endgroup$ – rschwieb Aug 5 '14 at 13:25
  • $\begingroup$ @rschwieb: I am not asking for the proof of the expression I just wrote. I am asking how does it follow from that "Any module is a direct limit of its finitely generated submodule." $\endgroup$ – Babai Aug 5 '14 at 13:27
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Yes, that's the reduction. My thought right now is to further reduce to the case of $R=k$, a field, but I'm not having so much luck managing it. $\endgroup$ – Cass Aug 5 '14 at 14:39
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Just as a note, by the way, I don't really see why any of this is necessary. The map $f:lim E_i \rightarrow E$ is injective because direct limit preserves injectivity. $f$ is also surjective because every element $e$ of $E$ can be put into a finitely generated submodule, namely $Re$. So $f$ is an isomorphism. Maybe there's some other way with this Fact, but the proof I just gave is about as straight ahead as anyone could hope. $\endgroup$ – Cass Aug 5 '14 at 14:56
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Take the trivial directed system $F_i = E$ for all $i$ over the same index set as $E_i$. Then, we have injective maps $E_i \rightarrow F_i$ for all $i$ and these are compatible with directed system maps. Take direct limit on both sides. lim is left (and right) exact, so you get an injective map $lim E_i \rightarrow lim F_i$. But $lim F_i$ is clearly $E$. $\endgroup$ – Cass Aug 5 '14 at 15:14
1
$\begingroup$

I am 100% sure that Fact A and Fact B cannot be proven from another.

[So in some sense, I don't give an answer here, but rather the meta-answer that there is no answer.]

$\endgroup$
2
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ You've misread his question. He is not trying to prove the tensor product fact (call it Fact A) using the Fact B = "Modules Are Limits of F.G. Submodules". He is trying to prove Fact B using Fact A. He already believes Fact A is true. But in any case, as I said in a comment, I agree that it is not necessary or even useful to appeal to Fact A in proving Fact B. $\endgroup$ – Cass Aug 6 '14 at 1:13
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You are right, I've misread the question. But as for the original version, is was quite easy to misunderstand it ... the new version is more precise. I've edited accordingly. $\endgroup$ – Martin Brandenburg Aug 6 '14 at 13:10

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.