A question about derived functors

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim Kata
  • Start date Start date
Jim Kata
Messages
197
Reaction score
10
Is it true that if two functors are adjoint, then their derived category functors are adjoint? I'm thinking in particular of ext^n and tor_n. The answer seems like it would be obviously yes to me, but I don't think I've seen it spelled out, and I am too lazy to try and prove it. Is there a theorem saying something like if F and G are adjoint functors in two abelien categories then there nth derived functors are also adjoint to one another.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
i don't think so, after a little reading on wikipedia. namely it says there that every left adjoint functor is right exact. but i seem to recall the only right exact functor that commutes with direct sums is tensor product, since tor also commutes with direct sums, it must not be right exact, hence not a left adjoint. does this seem ok?
 
Edit: Better answer above. My answer wasn't really applicable to the question because the theorem I quoted requires too many assumptions on the category being localized.

By the way, the theorem mathwonk mentioned which says that all right exact functors (at least functors between categories of modules) which preserve coproducts are naturally isomorphic to a tensor product functor is called the Eilenberg-Watts theorem if you are interested.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for your answer mathwonk. It seems to work.
 
uh, yes, eilenberg watts, it goes something like this: write a module M as a quotient of free modules, i.e. direct sums of copies of the ring:

SUM(Ri)-->SUM(Rj)-->M-->0. then do two things: apply the functor F to this sequence, and then separately apply the functor F(R)tensor.

The two results are this: SUM(F(Ri))-->SUM(F(Rj))-->F(M)-->0, and SUM(F(Ri))-->SUM(F(Rj))-->F(R)tensorM-->0. (using the facts that both functors are right exact and commute with direct sums, and that F(R)tensorRi ≈ F(R) ≈ F(Ri), since we are tensoring over R≈Ri.)

Note the two sequences are the same at the left, so they are also the same at the right. I.e. F(M) and FG(R)tensorM are both quotients of the same two

modules, so at least if you believe the maps are the same, they are isomorphic.
 
Last edited:
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...
Back
Top