Zulip Chat Archive

Stream: maths

Topic: Tensor product and exact sequences


Andrew Yang (May 22 2024 at 18:06):

Say we have two exact sequence of RR-modules: 0ABC00 \to A \to B \to C \to 0 and 0ABC00 \to A' \to B' \to C \to 0 with BB flat. If ADBDA \otimes D \to B \otimes D is injective, how can I show that ADBDA' \otimes D \to B' \otimes D is also injective? This is trivial by showing Tor1(C,D)=0\operatorname{Tor}_1(C, D) = 0 but is there a more mathlib-friendly proof?

Brendan Seamas Murphy (May 22 2024 at 21:59):

You can prove it by taking a flat resolution PQD0P \to Q \to D \to 0. First apply the snake lemma to part of the diagram you get by tensoring this resolution and 0ABC00 \to A \to B \to C \to 0 and you'll find that CPCQC \otimes P \to C \otimes Q is injective. Then this allows you to apply to the snake lemma to part of the diagram you get by tensoring the resolution with 0ABC00 \to A' \to B' \to C \to 0, and this implies that ADBDA' \otimes D \to B' \otimes D is a kernel of BDCDB' \otimes D \to C \otimes D (hence injective). I think this is what you would get by unraveling the Tor proof.

Here are some pictures with the subdiagrams you'd want to apply the :snake: lemma too highlighted in orange 257c32c9-4d5c-42c3-bb76-04b0e73b89e6.png

4d8ca4fd-2d44-4516-94e1-0078c60a5cdd.png

Brendan Seamas Murphy (May 22 2024 at 22:00):

Can't say this is especially "mathlib-friendly" though

Brendan Seamas Murphy (May 22 2024 at 22:01):

Oops, I swapped the order in the tensor product without noticing when drawing the diagrams. I'll leave fixing that to the reader

Andrew Yang (May 23 2024 at 02:48):

Thanks a lot! Now let me try to make this work in mathlib...

Brendan Seamas Murphy (May 26 2024 at 16:48):

What I wrote above isn't right. You need to take an exact sequence 0PQD00 \to P \to Q \to D \to 0 (and we can't assume PP is flat here). Without this injectivity of CPCQC \otimes P \to C \otimes Q is hopeless. The proof still works but the top left zero in each diagram shouldn't be there (bc tensoring with PP isn't left exact)

Brendan Seamas Murphy (May 26 2024 at 16:50):

This makes the second part of the argument even more annoying, bc you need to argue that the image of APAQA' \otimes P \to A' \otimes Q is the same as the image of ker(BPCP)AQ\ker(B' \otimes P \to C \otimes P) \to A' \otimes Q, but I think it's fine in the end


Last updated: May 02 2025 at 03:31 UTC