MHB Each exact sequence can be arised by short exact sequences

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the concept that every exact sequence can be constructed from short exact sequences. It begins by establishing that if two exact sequences are given, their composition also forms an exact sequence. The user seeks clarification on how to prove that all exact sequences can be derived from short exact sequences, suggesting an inductive approach. The base case is established with a simple exact sequence, and the inductive hypothesis assumes the claim holds for sequences of length n. The user is encouraged to explore further in Rotman's "An Introduction to Homological Algebra" for additional insights.
mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :o

Let $R$ be a commutative ring with unit.

We have that if the sequences $0\rightarrow A\rightarrow B\overset{f}{\rightarrow}C\rightarrow 0$ and $0\rightarrow C\overset{g}{\rightarrow}D\rightarrow E\rightarrow 0$ are exact, then the sequence $0\rightarrow B\overset{gf}{\rightarrow} D\rightarrow E\rightarrow 0$ is exact.

So, each exact sequence can be arised by short exact sequences as above, right? (Wondering)

But how could we prove this? Could you give me a hint? (Wondering)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Do we show that maybe using induction on the length of a sequence?

Base case: We consider the sequence $0\rightarrow A\rightarrow B\rightarrow 0$. This is exact.

Inductive hypothesis: We assume that each exact sequnez of length $n$ is made by short exact sequences.

Inductive step: We consider a sequence of length $n+1$. The first $n$ are made by short exact sequences, because of the inductive hypothesis, right? How could we continue? (Wondering)
 
See exercise 2.6 on p.65 of Rotman - An Introduction to Homological Algebra 2nd edition 2009.
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K