40

This is Exercise 2.20 in Atiyah-Macdonald.

How can we prove that $\varinjlim (M_i \otimes N) \cong (\varinjlim M_i) \otimes N$ ?

Atiyah-Macdonald give a suggestion, they say that one should obtain a map $g \colon (\varinjlim M_i )\times N \longrightarrow \varinjlim (M_i \otimes N)$, but I don't know how to do this.

Thanks.

user26857
  • 52,094
Jr.
  • 4,026

2 Answers2

50

One way is to use the adjunction property of the tensor product. For any $R$-module $P$, we have the following sequence of canonical $R$-module isomorphisms:

$$\begin{eqnarray}\hom(\varinjlim(M_i \otimes N), P) \cong&& \varprojlim \hom(M_i \otimes N, P) \\ \cong && \varprojlim \hom(N, \hom(M_i, P)) \\ \cong && \hom(N, \varprojlim \hom(M_i, P)) \\ \cong&& \hom(N,\hom(\varinjlim M_i, P)) \\ \cong&& \hom((\varinjlim M_i) \otimes N, P)\end{eqnarray}$$

and thus $$\hom(\varinjlim(M_i \otimes N), -) \cong \hom((\varinjlim M_i) \otimes N, -).$$

By the Yoneda lemma, $$\varinjlim(M_i \otimes N) \cong (\varinjlim M_i) \otimes N.$$

Of course, I made no use of the properties of the tensor product, other than its left-adjointness. The same argument shows that a functor which is left adjoint commutes with direct limits. Dually, a functor which is right adjoint commutes with inverse limits.

The proof which A&M suggest is basically just an expanded version of the same argument - see if you can figure it out!

Addendum: I'm not going to write the detailed proof from first principles (it's long) but I'll expand a bit on the hint in A&M. Here is the hint as it is in my edition, where they write $P=\varinjlim(M_i \otimes N)$ and $M=\varinjlim M_i$:

[...] For each $i\in I$, let $g_i:M_i \times N\to M_i\otimes N$ by the canonical bilinear mapping. Passing to the limit we obtain a mapping $g: M\times N \to P$. Show that $g$ is $A$-bilinear and hence defines a homomorphism $\phi: M\otimes N \to P$. Verify that $\psi\circ \phi$ and $\phi \circ \psi$ are identity mappings.

Here $\phi: P \to M\otimes N$ has been defined earlier as the limit of all the canonical homomorphisms $\mu_i\otimes 1 : M_i\otimes N \to M \otimes N$ where $\mu_i$ is the canonical homomorphism $M_i \to M$.

It's a pretty good hint! The only difficulty is the part in bold. We do not know how to take the limit of the $M_i \times N$ because we are not considering those as $R$-modules in the construction of the tensor product. We are considering $M_i \times N$ as a suitable domain for bilinear maps. Obtaining the map $\psi$ will be done in a few stages:

  1. Obtain bilinear maps $M_i \times N \to P$ by composing $g_i$ with the canonical homomorphism $M_i\otimes N \to P$;
  2. Convert these to homomorphisms $M_i \to \hom(N,P)$ by using the fact that a bilinear map $M_i \times N \to P$ is the same thing as family of homomorphism $N \to P$ parametrized $R$-linearly by the elements of $M_i$;
  3. Show that the homomorphisms $M_i \to \hom(N,P)$ thus obtained commute with the structure maps $\mu_i$ of the direct system of the $M_i$'s, and therefore obtain a homomorphism $M \to \hom(N,P)$ by the universal property of the direct limit.
  4. Convert this homomorphism back to a bilinear map $M \times N \to P$. Use the universal property of the tensor product to factor this map through $M\otimes N \to P$, which is the $\psi$ you need.

Then you must verify that $\psi$ and $\phi$ are inverses to each other.

Bruno Joyal
  • 54,711
  • 2
    I don't think the Yoneda Lemma is mentioned in chapter 2! –  Mar 28 '12 at 22:15
  • 1
    It's not, unfortunately. (However we don't even need it in full generality - we only need that $\hom(V,-) \cong \hom(V',-) \Rightarrow V \cong V'$.) – Bruno Joyal Mar 28 '12 at 22:18
  • How did you see that result above? Wwe have $\bar{u} : \operatorname{Hom}(M,N) \rightarrow \operatorname{Hom}(M',N)$, defined by $\bar{u}(f) = f \circ u$ where $u \in \operatorname{Hom}(M',M)$ being an isomorphism. So if $\bar{u}$ is an isomorphism then $\ker \bar{u}$ is trivial and every map $g : M' \rightarrow N$ factorises into $f' \circ u$ for some $f' \in \operatorname{Hom}(M,N)$, how do we get that $M \cong M'$ in the end? –  Mar 28 '12 at 22:30
  • I'm not sure I understand... you're wondering how to prove the Yoneda lemma? – Bruno Joyal Mar 28 '12 at 22:32
  • No I'm wondering how you deduced that $\operatorname{Hom}(M,-) \cong \operatorname{Hom}(M',-) \implies M \cong M'$. –  Mar 28 '12 at 22:36
  • 4
    It follows directly from the Yoneda lemma! We can put it in this way: the objects $M$ and $M'$ both represent the same functor (namely the functor $\hom(M,-)\cong \hom(M',-)$). And representing objects are unique up to isomorphism. If $\hom(M,-)\cong \hom(M',-)$, then in particular $\hom(M,M)\cong \hom(M',M)$. The image of the identity $1_M$ is a map $M' \to M$; it is the desired isomorphism. Check out any book on category theory, or the wikipedia page on the Yoneda lemma. In any case I'll write a more fleshed-out proof later. – Bruno Joyal Mar 28 '12 at 22:41
  • I have just finished the end of chap 2 in AM and I don't know any category theory! Is there any way to show this without the Yoneda Lemmma? –  Mar 28 '12 at 22:42
  • The original problem? I'll come back to it later when I have more time to write a full solution. :) – Bruno Joyal Mar 28 '12 at 22:46
  • Not the original problem, but to show $\operatorname{Hom}(M',-) \cong \operatorname{Hom}(M,-) \implies M' \cong M$ without the Yoneda Lemma. –  Mar 28 '12 at 22:55
  • @Bruno Sorry, I just know some very very elementary concepts in category theory such as example of categories and functors, therefore I don't understand your answer. If you have a time to post another solution I would be very grateful. – Jr. Mar 29 '12 at 00:14
  • 1
    @Jr. I might write out a complete solution later or tomorrow. However, it's going to be very complicated from a notational point of view, and very long. I think it's a cruel exercise to give to someone who hasn't necessarily much familiarity with this kind of formal reasoning - the full argument is just painful. – Bruno Joyal Mar 29 '12 at 01:18
  • @Bruno Do you think the questions about direct limit is essential for the rest of the reading(Atiyah's book)? – Jr. Mar 29 '12 at 02:14
  • 2
    @Jr. No, I don't think it's essential to the book, but it's nonetheless an important construction in algebra and geometry. It's an example of a colimit, dual to the notion of limit. I expanded a bit on the hint in the book. Good luck! – Bruno Joyal Mar 29 '12 at 02:43
  • 2
    Maybe this is a bit silly, but It seems to me that you're taking the "wrong" variable to the other side. Writing $L = {-} \otimes N$ and $R = \hom(N,{-})$ you get:

    $$\begin{align} \hom(L\varinjlim M_i, P) & = \hom(\varinjlim M_i, R P) \ & = \varprojlim\hom(M_i,RP) \ & = \varprojlim\hom(LM_i,P) \ & = \hom(\varinjlim LM_i, P)\end{align}$$ requiring one commutation less (and only in the first variable of $\hom$). This doesn't detract from your nice answer!

    – t.b. Aug 07 '12 at 15:39
6

Here's an idea for a proof that doesn't involve Yoneda:

To show $(\varinjlim M_n) \otimes N \cong \varinjlim(M_n \otimes N)$ it is enough to verify that $(\varinjlim M_n) \otimes N $ satisfies the universal property of $\varinjlim(M_n \otimes N)$. This means that if $(M_n, f_{nm})$ is the direct system with limit $(\varinjlim M_n, f_n)$ and $(Y, g_n)$ is any $R$-module such that $g_n = g_m \circ (f_{nm} \otimes id_N)$ for all $n \geq m$ then there exists a unique homomorphism $\alpha : (\varinjlim M_n) \otimes N \to Y$ such that the following diagram commutes (diagonal arrows omitted):

$$\begin{matrix} (\varinjlim M_n) \otimes N & \xrightarrow{\alpha} & Y \\ \left\uparrow{f_n \otimes id_N}\vphantom{\int}\right. & & \left\uparrow{g_m}\vphantom{\int}\right.\\ M_n \otimes N& \xrightarrow{f_{nm} \otimes id_N} & M_m \otimes N \end{matrix}$$

Define $\alpha$ as follows: for $m \otimes n \in (\varinjlim M_n) \otimes N $ there exist $k$ and $m_k \in M_k$ such that $f_k(m_k) = m$. Set $\alpha (m \otimes n) = g_k (m_k \otimes n)$. We need to show that $\alpha$ is well-defined, an $R$-module homomorphism, makes the diagram commute and is unique.

(i) $\alpha$ is well-defined: Let $k,j$ be such that $f_k \otimes id_N (m_k \otimes n) = m \otimes n = f_j \otimes id_N (m_j \otimes n)$.

We want to show that $g_k (m_k \otimes n) = g_j (m_j \otimes n)$. Since we have $f_k (m_k) \otimes n = m \otimes n = f_j (m_j ) \otimes n $ we have $f_k (m_k) = f_j (m_j)$. This means that $m_k$ and $m_j$ map to the same thing in $\varinjlim M_n$ hence by the properties of $\varinjlim M_n$ there exists an $l \geq j,k$ such that $f_{kl}(m_k) = f_{jl}(m_j)$. For the morphisms of $Y$ we have that $g_i = g_j \circ (f_{ij} \otimes id_N)$ where $i \leq j$ hence (as pointed out by t.b. in the comments): $$\begin{align} g_k (m_k \otimes n) &= g_l \circ (f_{kl} \otimes id_N) (m_k \otimes n) \\ &= g_l (f_{kl} (m_k) \otimes n) \\ &= g_l (f_{jl} (m_j) \otimes n) \\ &= g_l \circ (f_{jl} \otimes id_N) (m_j \otimes n) \\ &= g_j (m_j \otimes n) \end{align}$$

(ii) $\alpha$ is an $R$-module homomorphism, that is, $\alpha (m \otimes n + m^\prime \otimes n^\prime) = \alpha (m \otimes n) + \alpha (m^\prime \otimes n^\prime)$:

For $m \otimes n, m^\prime \otimes n^\prime \in (\varinjlim M_n) \otimes N$ there exist $j,k$ such that $m \otimes n = f_{k}(m_k) \otimes n$ and $f_{j} (m_j) \otimes n^\prime$ so that $\alpha (m \otimes n) = g_k (m_k \otimes n)$ and $\alpha (m^\prime \otimes n^\prime) = g_j(m_j \otimes n^\prime) $. Then for all $l \geq k,j$: $g_j(m_j \otimes n^\prime) = g_l (f_{jl}(m_j) \otimes n^\prime)$, similarly for $k$ and hence $$ \alpha (m \otimes n) + \alpha (m^\prime \otimes n^\prime) = g_k(m_k \otimes n) + g_j(m_j \otimes n^\prime) = g_l (f_{kl}(m_k) \otimes n) + g_l (f_{jl}(m_j) \otimes n^\prime) = g_l(f_{kl}(m_k) \otimes n + f_{jl}(m_j) \otimes n^\prime)$$

On the other hand, for $m \otimes n + m^\prime \otimes n^\prime$ there exists $i$ such that $m \otimes n + m^\prime \otimes n^\prime = f_i(m_i) \otimes n+ f_i(m_i^\prime) \otimes n^\prime$ and hence $\alpha (m \otimes n + m^\prime \otimes n^\prime) = g_i (m_i \otimes n + m_i^\prime \otimes n^\prime) = g_i (m_i \otimes n) + g_i (m_i^\prime \otimes n^\prime) = \alpha (m \otimes n) + \alpha (m^\prime \otimes n^\prime)$.


Alternative proof:

It's easier to show it like this: exploit the UP of $\varinjlim(M_n \otimes N)$ to get a unique $R$-module homomorphism $\alpha$ and then show that $\alpha$ is an isomorphism. To this end, consider the following diagram:

$$\begin{matrix} \varinjlim (M_n \otimes N) & \xrightarrow{\alpha} & (\varinjlim M_n ) \otimes N \\ \left\uparrow{f_n \otimes id_N}\vphantom{\int}\right. & & \left\uparrow{f_m \otimes id_N}\vphantom{\int}\right.\\ M_n \otimes N& \xrightarrow{f_{nm} \otimes id_N} & M_m \otimes N \end{matrix}$$

Since the diagram commutes it immediately follows that $\alpha$ is the map $m \otimes n \mapsto m \otimes n$ which is an isomorphism.

  • 1
    What do you mean by the "diagonal arrows" you omitted? $f_m \otimes {\rm id}N$? I'm a bit confused by your argument: are you assuming that your directed system is linear? Otherwise I don't understand why there is $f{kj}$ in the first place. Btw: All your $\varprojlim$'s should be $\varinjlim$'s. – t.b. Aug 07 '12 at 15:55
  • @t.b. :,( Yes, there should be two diagonal arrows, $g_n$ and $f_m \otimes id_N$. I don't know what linear means. This question is from the chapter about modules so all the objects are modules and all the homos are linear. Is this what you mean? – Rudy the Reindeer Aug 07 '12 at 16:17
  • @t.b. Are you saying the idea is completely wrong? – Rudy the Reindeer Aug 07 '12 at 16:18
  • 1
    No, that's not at all what I'm saying. Your argument works fine if your index system is, say, the natural numbers (which are linearly ordered) and the maps in your system (the bonding maps) are all injective. In general you only have a directed system as an indexing system and no assumptions, so $M_k$ and $M_j$ need not be related at all, but there's an $M_l$ they map into. If your bonding maps are injective then this is enough, otherwise you need to go further up in the directed system to identify $m_k$ and $m_j$ (since they map to the same $m$ they must eventually be identified). – t.b. Aug 07 '12 at 16:25
  • @t.b. The index set should be a directed set. And I do not have the assumption of injectivity on my transition (bonding) maps. The going further up in the system (without assuming injectivity) is what I'm trying to do. Are you referring to where I'm trying to verify well-definedness of $\alpha$ or to the entire proof idea? I really want to fix this and do it the way I have outlined above but without assuming anything additional on my direct system. – Rudy the Reindeer Aug 07 '12 at 16:56
  • 1
    Yes, well-definedness is the point of contention. You start with $m_j,m_k$ where $j,k$ are arbitrary. Now by directedness there's $l$ such that $j,k \leq l$. But you don't know that $m' = f_{jl}m_j \in M_l$ and $m'' = f_{kl}m_k \in M_l$ are equal, only that their image in the colimit is the same. So: when are two $m',m'' \in M_l$ identified? If and only if there is ... – t.b. Aug 07 '12 at 17:04
  • @t.b. I have to go and have dinner now, I'm very sorry about this. I'll ping you when I have worked out the argument. Thank you very much for helping me! – Rudy the Reindeer Aug 07 '12 at 17:25
  • @t.b. Two thingies $m^\prime, m^{\prime \prime}$ in $M_l$ are the same if $f_{lk}(m^\prime) = f_{lk}(m^{\prime \prime})$ for $k$ large enough? But that follows from being mapped to the same element in the limit? – Rudy the Reindeer Aug 07 '12 at 18:57
  • Two $m',m'' \in M_l$ are mapped to the same $m$ in $\varinjlim M_i$ if and only if there is $n$ such that $f_{ln}(m') = f_{ln}(m'')$. Call this $\tilde{m}$ or whatever (running out of letters :)) Now with this $\tilde{m} = \varphi_{in}(m_i) = \varphi_{kn}(m_k)$ you can argue as you did, and get the well-definedness of $\alpha$. – t.b. Aug 07 '12 at 19:04
  • Reading again your first comment with the explanation I think I'm starting to understand. Will write it up / correct it in the answer. – Rudy the Reindeer Aug 08 '12 at 10:43
  • 1
    Never mind my previous comments. $\DeclareMathOperator{id}{id}$ Take $m \in \varinjlim M_i$, pick $m_j \in M_j$ such that $m = f_j(m_j)$ and put $\alpha(m\otimes n) = g_j(m_j \otimes n)$, similarly with index $k$. Now you know that $f_{jl}(m_j) = f_{kl}(m_k)$ for large enough $l \geq j,k$, so $$ \begin{align} g_j(m_j \otimes n) & = g_l(f_{jl} \otimes \id)(m_j \otimes n) \ & = g_l(f_{jl}(m_j) \otimes n) \ & = g_l(f_{kl}(m_k) \otimes n) \ & = g_l(f_{kl} \otimes \id)(m_k \otimes n) \ & = g_k(m_k \otimes n) \end{align}$$ as you wanted. Note: $g_j = g_l \circ (f_{jl} \otimes \id)$! – t.b. Aug 08 '12 at 10:49
  • @t.b. Thank you, I corrected my post accordingly. Would you agree that life is much simpler if one does it the other way (as I suggest in the post)? – Rudy the Reindeer Aug 08 '12 at 11:25
  • 1
    I agree that you get the map $\alpha$ this way (the left-hand upwards arrow is labeled in a rather suspicious way, btw.) but I don't see how it immediately follows that $\alpha$ is an isomorphism, there's at least something to be said... Untangling this brings you back to what you did. Further glitch in the first part: Since you want to verify that $(\varinjlim M_i)\otimes N$ has the universal property of $\varinjlim (M_i \otimes N)$ your maps $g_n$ in the first argument are maps $g_n\colon M_n \otimes N \to Y$, so they have to satisfy $g_m = g_n \circ (f_{nm} \otimes {\rm id})$. – t.b. Aug 08 '12 at 11:32
  • @t.b. I don't understand what you mean by labelled in a suspicious way. Now I tried to show the next part, that $\alpha$ is a homomorphism, but something must be wrong since I only use the "on the other hand part". – Rudy the Reindeer Aug 08 '12 at 16:47