Short Exact Sequences 0→A→B→C→0: Explained

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter gentsagree
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sequences Short
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
2 replies · 3K views
gentsagree
Messages
93
Reaction score
1
[tex]0\rightarrow A\rightarrow B\rightarrow C\rightarrow 0[/tex] is a short exact sequence if the image of any morphism is the kernel of the next morphism.

Thus, the fact that we have the 0 elements at the two ends is said to imply the following:

1. The morphism between A and B is a monomorphism because it has kernel equal the zero-set {0}, since the image of the map from 0 to A is {0}.

2. The morphism between B and C is an epimorphism because its image is the whole of C.

I understand the first point, but not the second. Why do we require the kernel of [itex]C\rightarrow 0[/itex] to be the whole of C?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
gentsagree said:
[tex]0\rightarrow A\rightarrow B\rightarrow C\rightarrow 0[/tex] is a short exact sequence if the image of any morphism is the kernel of the next morphism.

Thus, the fact that we have the 0 elements at the two ends is said to imply the following:

1. The morphism between A and B is a monomorphism because it has kernel equal the zero-set {0}, since the image of the map from 0 to A is {0}.

2. The morphism between B and C is an epimorphism because its image is the whole of C.

I understand the first point, but not the second. Why do we require the kernel of [itex]C\rightarrow 0[/itex] to be the whole of C?

Because the image of [itex]C[/itex] is [itex]\{0\}[/itex], so by definition everything in [itex]C[/itex] is in the kernel.
 
Of course, thank you.