A question about derived functors

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim Kata
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between adjoint functors and their derived functors, specifically focusing on whether the derived functors ext^n and tor_n maintain the adjointness property. Participants explore theoretical implications and specific theorems related to this topic.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions if the derived functors of two adjoint functors are also adjoint, specifically referencing ext^n and tor_n, suggesting it seems intuitively true but lacks formal proof.
  • Another participant argues against this idea, citing that left adjoint functors are right exact and recalling that the only right exact functor that commutes with direct sums is the tensor product, implying that tor_n cannot be a left adjoint.
  • A later reply acknowledges that the previous answer may not apply due to the assumptions required by the theorem mentioned, specifically in the context of localized categories.
  • One participant thanks another for their contribution, indicating that the provided explanation seems to work for their understanding.
  • Another participant elaborates on the Eilenberg-Watts theorem, describing a process involving modules and the application of functors, suggesting that the results lead to isomorphisms under certain conditions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether the derived functors of adjoint functors retain the adjointness property, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that the discussion is limited by assumptions regarding the categories involved and the specific properties of the functors being considered, which may affect the applicability of certain theorems.

Jim Kata
Messages
198
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:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
5K