A little problem on exact sequences, part 2.

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter steenis
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sequences
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

This discussion revolves around the formulation and proof of a dual statement related to exact sequences in the context of module theory. Participants explore the concepts of kernel and cokernel, and the implications of isomorphisms induced by module homomorphisms.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant requests clarification on the term "dual," suggesting it could refer to either reversing arrows or considering dual modules.
  • Another participant expresses uncertainty about the use of "dual," indicating that the discussion pertains to the dual notions of kernel and cokernel.
  • A detailed proof is presented regarding the left-exactness of the sequence involving maps between left R-modules, asserting that the image of one map equals the kernel of another and that the first map is injective.
  • Further clarification is provided, indicating that the dual of the diagram involves reversing arrows and labeling them appropriately, while maintaining the context of kernels and cokernels.
  • One participant expresses appreciation for the clarity of the explanation provided by another participant.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There is no consensus on the correct interpretation of "dual," as participants present competing views on its meaning and implications. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the precise formulation of the dual statement.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the complexity of defining dual notions in the context of exact sequences, with participants relying on specific definitions and interpretations that may not align.

steenis
Messages
312
Reaction score
18
Part 1 of this little problem is here: http://mathhelpboards.com/linear-abstract-algebra-14/little-problem-exact-sequences-19368.html.

This is part 2: who can formulate and prove the dual statement?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You should clarify what you mean by "dual", which might mean:

a) The statement obtained by "reversing all the arrows", or

b) the statement obtained by considering the "dual modules" $\text{Hom}_R(-,R)$.
 
I am afraid it is neither a) nor b), so I doubt if I used the term "dual" correctly. But it is about the dual notions ker and coker. This is what I know of the solution:We have two R-maps $f:A\to B$ and $g:B\to C$ of left R-modules.
And we have an isomorphism $A\cong \ker g$ "induced by f" .
Then prove that the sequence $S:0\to A\to _f B\to _g C$ is left-exact, i.e.,
$\mbox{im} f = \ker g$ and $f$ is injective.Proof:
Let $\overline f : A\to \ker g : a\mapsto f(a)$ be the isomorphism between $A$ and $\ker g$ induced by f. This implies that $\mbox{im }f \subset \ker g$ and the well-definition of $\overline f$ (because $f$ is well-defined).
Subsequently, we have:
$x\in \ker g \Leftrightarrow \exists (a\in A) \mbox{ } \overline f (a) = f(a) = x \Leftrightarrow x\in \mbox{im }f$, i.e., $\mbox{im }f = \ker g$.
And:
$x\in \ker f \Rightarrow x\in \ker \overline f \Rightarrow x=0$, i.e., $f$ is injective. $\Box$

Your comments, please.
 
Last edited:
steenis said:
I am afraid it is neither a) nor b), so I doubt if I used the term "dual" correctly. But it is about the dual notions ker and coker. This is what I know of the solution:We have two R-maps $f:A\to B$ and $g:B\to C$ of left R-modules.
And we have an isomorphism $A\cong \ker g$ "induced by f" .
Then prove that the sequence $S:0\to A\to _f B\to _g C$ is left-exact, i.e.,
$\mbox{im} f = \ker g$ and $f$ is injective.Proof:
Let $\overline f : A\to \ker g : a\mapsto f(a)$ be the isomorphism between $A$ and $\ker g$ induced by f. This implies that $\mbox{im }f \subset \ker g$ and the well-definition of $\overline f$ (because $f$ is well-defined).
Subsequently, we have:
$x\in \ker g \Leftrightarrow \exists (a\in A) \mbox{ } \overline f (a) = f(a) = x \Leftrightarrow x\in \mbox{im }f$, i.e., $\mbox{im }f = \ker g$.
And:
$x\in \ker f \Rightarrow x\in \ker \overline f \Rightarrow x=0$, i.e., $f$ is injective. $\Box$

Your comments, please.
That is "dual" as in a) of my previous post. Note that in part 1), $B/(\text{im }f)$ *is* $\text{coker }f$, so that the dual of the diagram:

$A \stackrel{f}{\to}B \stackrel{g}{\to}C \cong \text{coker }f \to 0$ is:

$0 \to C\cong \text{ker }k\stackrel{h}{\to}B\stackrel{k}{\to}A$

(I have labelled the reverse arrows $C \to B$ and $B \to A$ by $h$ and $k$ to avoid thinking of them as "inverse functions"), with the isomorphisms *induced* by the arrow just before on part 1), and just after in part 2).
 
Thank you, Deveno, very clear.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K