MHB Exact Sequences - Dummit and Foote Ch 10 - Proposition 28

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sequences
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Dummit and Foote, Section 10.5 : Exact Sequences - Projective, Injective and Flat Modules.

I am studying Proposition 28 (D&F pages 387 - 388)

I need some help in order to fully understand the proof of the last statement of Proposition 28.

Proposition 28 (Ch 10, D&F pages 387-388) reads as follows:

View attachment 2487The proof of the last statement of the proposition reads as follows:View attachment 2488
View attachment 2489

In the proof, after the statement:

"In general, $$ Hom_R (R, X) \cong X $$, the isomorphism being given by mapping a homomorphism to its value on the element $$1 \in R $$"

D&F write:

Taking D = R in (10), the exactness of the sequence:

$$ 0 \longrightarrow L \stackrel{\psi}{\longrightarrow} M \stackrel{\psi}{\longrightarrow} N $$

follows easily.

Can someone please explain how/why this follows easily? ... ... ... that is how/why does taking D=R in (10) lead easily to the result that the sequence $$ 0 \longrightarrow L \stackrel{\psi}{\longrightarrow} M \stackrel{\psi}{\longrightarrow} N $$ is exact?Further, it seems strange to me that in an exact sequence of modules we are putting D = R where (I assume) R is a ring. (Yes, I understand that a ring can be viewed as a module over itself, but it seems it is a special case, which we are using to establish a general result?) Can someone please clarify this issue?Hope someone can help.

Peter
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
If we assume that:

$0 \to \text{Hom}_R(D,L) \stackrel{\psi'}{\to} \text{Hom}_R(D,M) \stackrel{\phi'}{\to} \text{Hom}_R(D,N)$

for ANY $D$ is exact, then taking $D=R$ and using the fact that $\text{Hom}_R(R,X) \cong X$ for $X = L,M,N$

makes this obvious.

Let's put this in context. If we start with the exact sequence of modules, we can form (for any particular module $D$) the sequence of hom-sets. The sequence of hom-sets has DERIVED properties from the original sequence.

Now, we get a LOT of sequences from this (one for every different $D$). The "special case" $D = R$ picks out a particular sequence that mimics our original sequence in every detail.

In other words, to make the "return" trip of a one-to-many correspondence, we ought to pick a "special" (distinguished) element in the image.
 
Deveno said:
If we assume that:

$0 \to \text{Hom}_R(D,L) \stackrel{\psi'}{\to} \text{Hom}_R(D,M) \stackrel{\phi'}{\to} \text{Hom}_R(D,N)$

for ANY $D$ is exact, then taking $D=R$ and using the fact that $\text{Hom}_R(R,X) \cong X$ for $X = L,M,N$

makes this obvious.

Let's put this in context. If we start with the exact sequence of modules, we can form (for any particular module $D$) the sequence of hom-sets. The sequence of hom-sets has DERIVED properties from the original sequence.

Now, we get a LOT of sequences from this (one for every different $D$). The "special case" $D = R$ picks out a particular sequence that mimics our original sequence in every detail.

In other words, to make the "return" trip of a one-to-many correspondence, we ought to pick a "special" (distinguished) element in the image.

Oh ... neat ... yes, solution was staring at me! ...

Thanks so much for the help ...

Peter
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
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...
##\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...
Back
Top