1
$\begingroup$

if we have this diagram in modules

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc} & & 0 & & 0 & & & & \\ & & \downarrow & & \downarrow & & & & \\ 0 & \longrightarrow & K & \longrightarrow & P & \longrightarrow & L & \longrightarrow & 0 \\ & & \downarrow & & \downarrow & & \downarrow & & \\ 0 & \longrightarrow & A & \longrightarrow & U & \longrightarrow & L & \longrightarrow & 0 \\ & & \downarrow & & \downarrow & & & & \\ & & F & & F & & & & \\ & & \downarrow & & \downarrow & & & & \\ & & 0 & & 0 & & & & \\ \end{array}$$

..00
0KPL0
0AUL0
..FF
..00

with KAF and KPL exact,and U is pushout,why also AUL and PUF are exact?

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

The pushout of a monic is monic in any abelian category, which accounts for the arrows $P\to U$ and $A\to U$. The arrows $U\to F$ and $U\to L$ are epic since the epics $A\to F$ and $P\to L$, respectively, factor through them. The maps out of $U$ kill the corresponding maps into $U$ by definition.

So all that remains to show is that the image of $P\to U$ contains the kernel of $U\to F$, and similarly for the other sequence. It's enough to show that every map $U\to M$ killing $P\to M$ admits a unique factorization $U\to F\to M$. Indeed, such a map induces a map $A\to M$ which kills $K\to A$ by commutativity of the pushout square, and so a unique factorization $A\to F \to M=A\to U\to F\to M$, inducing a factorization as desired by the pushout property of $U$. The argument for $U\to L$ is exactly symmetric.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry,I don't know by which definition:The maps out of U kill the corresponding maps into U by definition. By definition of pushout?How? $\endgroup$ – user168818 Aug 30 '14 at 15:26
  • $\begingroup$ By the definition of the maps, actually. The only map we know to exist from $P\to F$ is the zero map, so the map $U\to F$ must be defined in terms of that and the given map $A\to F$. This determines a unique map by the pushout property since $0:P\to F$ and $A\to F$ agree on $K$. $\endgroup$ – Kevin Carlson Aug 30 '14 at 19:21
  • $\begingroup$ I'm afraid that I still don't understand the statement:,so the map U-->F must be defined in terms of that and the given map A-->F;What do you mean by "defined in terms" and how the given map A-->F affects U-->F? $\endgroup$ – user168818 Aug 31 '14 at 14:54

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.