6

It is well known that the tensor product of $R$-modules over some ring $R$ does not, in general, distribute over infinite direct products, an obvious example being $\mathbb Z_p \otimes_\mathbb Z \mathbb Q \neq 0$. I also know that a sufficient condition for the tensor product to distribute is this.

What other sufficient conditions are there? For instance, it would seem intuitive that $\mathbb Q \otimes_\mathbb Z \prod_\mathbb N \mathbb Z \cong \prod_\mathbb N \mathbb Q$. But is it?

user26857
  • 52,094
rollover
  • 1,292
  • 1
    Are you considering these as groups? Please [edit] the question to be more specific. – Shaun Dec 27 '18 at 03:54
  • 1
    @Shaun Thanks for your comment. The isomorphism should be one of $\mathbb Z$-modules, in the example at the end. I'll edit accordingly. – rollover Dec 27 '18 at 04:01

2 Answers2

19

Here is a general criterion. (All tensor products in this answer are over $R$.)

Theorem: Let $R$ be a ring and let $M$ be a right $R$-module. Then the following are equivalent.

  1. The functor $M\otimes -$ preserves products: that is, for every family $(A_i)$ of left $R$-modules, the canonical map $M\otimes\prod A_i\to \prod M\otimes A_i$ is an isomorphism.

  2. $M$ is finitely presented.

Proof: First, suppose $M$ has a finite presentation $$R^m\to R^n\to M\to 0$$ and let $(A_i)$ be any family of left $R$-modules. We then get a commutative diagram $$\require{AMScd} \begin{CD} R^m\otimes \prod A_i @>>> R^n\otimes \prod A_i @>>> M\otimes \prod A_i @>>> 0\\ @VV{}V @VV{}V @VV{}V \\ \prod R^m\otimes A_i @>>> \prod R^n\otimes A_i @>>> \prod M\otimes A_i @>>> 0 \end{CD}$$ whose rows are exact. Now note that $R^m\otimes \prod A_i\cong (\prod A_i)^m$ and $\prod R^m\otimes A_i\cong \prod A_i^m$, and our vertical map between them is easily seen to be the canonical isomorphism which interchanges the products. So the left vertical map is an isomorphism and similarly so is the middle vertical map. By the five lemma, it follows that the right vertical map is an isomorphism, and thus $M\otimes -$ preserves products.

Conversely, suppose $M\otimes-$ preserves products. In particular, then, the canonical map $$\varphi: M\otimes R^M\to M^M$$ is an isomorphism. Considering the identity map $id:M\to M$ as an element of the product $M^M$, we have $$id=\varphi(\sum m_i \otimes f_i)$$ for some finite collection of elements $m_i\in M$ and $f_i:M\to R$. Evaluating both sides of this equation at an element $m\in M$ we find $$m=\sum m_if_i(m).$$ Thus every element of $M$ is a linear combination of the elements $m_i$, so $M$ is finitely generated.

Now let $$0\to K\to F\to M\to 0$$ be a presentation of $M$ with $F$ a finitely generated free module. To conclude $M$ is finitely presented, we must show that $K$ is finitely generated. Now let $(A_i)$ be any family of flat left $R$-modules and consider the commutative diagram $$\require{AMScd} \begin{CD} K\otimes \prod A_i @>>> F\otimes \prod A_i @>>> M\otimes \prod A_i @>>> 0\\ @VV{}V @VV{}V @VV{}V \\ \prod K\otimes A_i @>{\alpha}>> \prod F\otimes A_i @>>> \prod M\otimes A_i @>>> 0 \end{CD}$$ which again has exact rows. The right vertical map is an isomorphism by hypothesis and the middle vertical map is an isomorphism since $F$ is finitely generated and free. Moreover, the map $\alpha$ is injective since the $A_i$ are flat. A simple diagram chase now shows that the left vertical map is surjective.

Thus the canonical map $K\otimes \prod A_i\to \prod K\otimes A_i$ is surjective for any family of flat modules $(A_i)$. In particular, the canonical map $K\otimes R^K\to K^K$ is surjective, which we have seen above implies that $K$ is finitely generated.


By similar arguments, you can show that the canonical map $M\otimes \prod A_i\to\prod M\otimes A_i$ is always a surjection iff $M$ is finitely generated. Indeed, the forward direction is already contained in the forward direction of the proof above, and the reverse direction is similar to the proof of the reverse direction above.

Eric Wofsey
  • 330,363
  • Dear Eric Wofsey, thank you so much for this wonderful answer. I have a follow-up question: are there conditions on the $A_i$ that loosen the requirement on $M$? For instance $\mathbb Q \otimes_\mathbb Z \prod \mathbb Z / p^i \mathbb Z$ clearly does not distribute, while in some sense -- as you commented on Qiaochu Yuan's answer -- $\mathbb Q \otimes_\mathbb Z \prod \mathbb Z$ does. – rollover Dec 28 '18 at 06:13
  • 3
    First of all, you absolutely should not think that $\mathbb Q \otimes_\mathbb Z \prod \mathbb Z$ "distributes" in any reasonable sense. Yes, it is isomorphic to what you would get by distributing, but the isomorphism is highly noncanonical and probably can't even be proved to exist without the axiom of choice. It's essentially a total accident that they are isomorphic. – Eric Wofsey Dec 28 '18 at 06:53
  • 2
    Second, notice that the counterexamples constructed in my proof only ever actually use the case where $A_i=R$ for all $i$. What could be nicer than that? So, I doubt there is any interesting restriction you could put on the $A_i$ that would weaken the condition on $M$. – Eric Wofsey Dec 28 '18 at 06:55
  • @Eric Wofsey, Wow! That is a masterful explanation! That is what I was looking for-a thorough proof without the requirement of flatness. I tried yesterday to prove a version of this statement in one direction in the case of inverse limits of surjective systems and a finitely generated module: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/181004/inverse-limit-of-modules-and-tensor-product/4577954#4577954. It would be helpful to hear your comment on my proof. – Flavius Aetius Nov 19 '22 at 11:48
  • A natural question is the following: Since the inverse limit of an inverse system ${A_i}$ is a subspace of the product $\prod_iA_i$, shouldn’t the inverse limit commute with $M\otimes_R(-)$ for any finitely presented $A$-module $M$, too? I tried partially to answer that question in the linked post but my answer is not satisfactory. – Flavius Aetius Nov 19 '22 at 12:30
6

For instance, it would seem intuitive that $\mathbb Q \otimes_\mathbb Z \prod_\mathbb N \mathbb Z \cong \prod_\mathbb N \mathbb Q$. But is it?

It is not. The natural map from the LHS to the RHS fails to be surjective; its image is the subgroup of $\prod \mathbb{Q}$ consisting of those sequences whose terms have a common denominator, and hence does not include, for example, $\prod \frac{1}{n}$.

In general, for modules over a commutative ring $k$, the tensor product $M \otimes_k (-)$ preserves infinite products if $M$ is finitely presented projective. I had thought at some point about whether it suffices for $M$ just to be finitely presented, but I don't remember what the conclusion was off the top of my head.

Qiaochu Yuan
  • 419,620
  • 6
    To be pedantic, those groups actually are isomorphic (though not by the natural map), since both are $\mathbb{Q}$-vector spaces of dimension $\mathfrak{c}$. Of course, the right question is whether the natural map is an isomorphism. – Eric Wofsey Dec 27 '18 at 05:11
  • Thank you for this answer, Qiaochu Yuan. Please allow me to ask some naive questions. As you point out, the canonical map is not an isomorphism. Nevertheless, as @EricWofsey points out, the two modules have some isomorphism. In what sense is the question after the natural map "the right question"? Also I am not familiar with the notation "dimension $\mathfrak c$"; I assume it means countably infinite. – rollover Dec 28 '18 at 06:20
  • @foaly: "tensor product distributes over infinite direct products" is a question about the natural map being an isomorphism. Asking for there to be some arbitrary isomorphism is basically never the question you actually care about in practice. – Qiaochu Yuan Dec 28 '18 at 09:25
  • @QiaochuYuan it does not seem obvious to me why one would not be interested in the existence of some isomorphism. Can you elaborate? – rollover Dec 28 '18 at 09:29