The Stacks project

12.15 Truncation of complexes

Let $\mathcal{A}$ be an abelian category. Let $A_\bullet $ be a chain complex. There are several ways to truncate the complex $A_\bullet $.

  1. The “stupid” truncation $\sigma _{\leq n}$ is the subcomplex $\sigma _{\leq n} A_\bullet $ defined by the rule $(\sigma _{\leq n} A_\bullet )_ i = 0$ if $i > n$ and $(\sigma _{\leq n} A_\bullet )_ i = A_ i$ if $i \leq n$. In a picture

    \[ \xymatrix{ \sigma _{\leq n}A_\bullet \ar[d] & \ldots \ar[r] & 0 \ar[r] \ar[d] & A_ n \ar[r] \ar[d] & A_{n - 1} \ar[r] \ar[d] & \ldots \\ A_\bullet & \ldots \ar[r] & A_{n + 1} \ar[r] & A_ n \ar[r] & A_{n - 1} \ar[r] & \ldots } \]

    Note the property $\sigma _{\leq n}A_\bullet / \sigma _{\leq n - 1}A_\bullet = A_ n[-n]$.

  2. The “stupid” truncation $\sigma _{\geq n}$ is the quotient complex $\sigma _{\geq n} A_\bullet $ defined by the rule $(\sigma _{\geq n} A_\bullet )_ i = A_ i$ if $i \geq n$ and $(\sigma _{\geq n} A_\bullet )_ i = 0$ if $i < n$. In a picture

    \[ \xymatrix{ A_\bullet \ar[d] & \ldots \ar[r] & A_{n + 1} \ar[r] \ar[d] & A_ n \ar[r] \ar[d] & A_{n - 1} \ar[r] \ar[d] & \ldots \\ \sigma _{\geq n}A_\bullet & \ldots \ar[r] & A_{n + 1} \ar[r] & A_ n \ar[r] & 0 \ar[r] & \ldots } \]

    The map of complexes $\sigma _{\geq n}A_\bullet \to \sigma _{\geq n + 1}A_\bullet $ is surjective with kernel $A_ n[-n]$.

  3. The canonical truncation $\tau _{\geq n}A_\bullet $ is defined by the picture

    \[ \xymatrix{ \tau _{\geq n}A_\bullet \ar[d] & \ldots \ar[r] & A_{n + 1} \ar[r] \ar[d] & \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(d_ n) \ar[r] \ar[d] & 0 \ar[r] \ar[d] & \ldots \\ A_\bullet & \ldots \ar[r] & A_{n + 1} \ar[r] & A_ n \ar[r] & A_{n - 1} \ar[r] & \ldots } \]

    Note that these complexes have the property that

    \[ H_ i(\tau _{\geq n}A_\bullet ) = \left\{ \begin{matrix} H_ i(A_\bullet ) & \text{if} & i \geq n \\ 0 & \text{if} & i < n \end{matrix} \right. \]
  4. The canonical truncation $\tau _{\leq n}A_\bullet $ is defined by the picture

    \[ \xymatrix{ A_\bullet \ar[d] & \ldots \ar[r] & A_{n + 1} \ar[r] \ar[d] & A_ n \ar[r] \ar[d] & A_{n - 1} \ar[r] \ar[d] & \ldots \\ \tau _{\leq n}A_\bullet & \ldots \ar[r] & 0 \ar[r] & \mathop{\mathrm{Coker}}(d_{n + 1}) \ar[r] & A_{n - 1} \ar[r] & \ldots } \]

    Note that these complexes have the property that

    \[ H_ i(\tau _{\leq n}A_\bullet ) = \left\{ \begin{matrix} H_ i(A_\bullet ) & \text{if} & i \leq n \\ 0 & \text{if} & i > n \end{matrix} \right. \]

Let $\mathcal{A}$ be an abelian category. Let $A^\bullet $ be a cochain complex. There are four ways to truncate the complex $A^\bullet $.

  1. The “stupid” truncation $\sigma _{\geq n}$ is the subcomplex $\sigma _{\geq n} A^\bullet $ defined by the rule $(\sigma _{\geq n} A^\bullet )^ i = 0$ if $i < n$ and $(\sigma _{\geq n} A^\bullet )^ i = A_ i$ if $i \geq n$. In a picture

    \[ \xymatrix{ \sigma _{\geq n}A^\bullet \ar[d] & \ldots \ar[r] & 0 \ar[r] \ar[d] & A^ n \ar[r] \ar[d] & A^{n + 1} \ar[r] \ar[d] & \ldots \\ A^\bullet & \ldots \ar[r] & A^{n - 1} \ar[r] & A^ n \ar[r] & A^{n + 1} \ar[r] & \ldots } \]

    Note the property $\sigma _{\geq n}A^\bullet / \sigma _{\geq n + 1}A^\bullet = A^ n[-n]$.

  2. The “stupid” truncation $\sigma _{\leq n}$ is the quotient complex $\sigma _{\leq n} A^\bullet $ defined by the rule $(\sigma _{\leq n} A^\bullet )^ i = 0$ if $i > n$ and $(\sigma _{\leq n} A^\bullet )^ i = A^ i$ if $i \leq n$. In a picture

    \[ \xymatrix{ A^\bullet \ar[d] & \ldots \ar[r] & A^{n - 1} \ar[r] \ar[d] & A^ n \ar[r] \ar[d] & A^{n + 1} \ar[r] \ar[d] & \ldots \\ \sigma _{\leq n}A^\bullet & \ldots \ar[r] & A^{n - 1} \ar[r] & A^ n \ar[r] & 0 \ar[r] & \ldots \\ } \]

    The map of complexes $\sigma _{\leq n}A^\bullet \to \sigma _{\leq n - 1}A^\bullet $ is surjective with kernel $A^ n[-n]$.

  3. The canonical truncation $\tau _{\leq n}A^\bullet $ is defined by the picture

    \[ \xymatrix{ \tau _{\leq n}A^\bullet \ar[d] & \ldots \ar[r] & A^{n - 1} \ar[r] \ar[d] & \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(d^ n) \ar[r] \ar[d] & 0 \ar[r] \ar[d] & \ldots \\ A^\bullet & \ldots \ar[r] & A^{n - 1} \ar[r] & A^ n \ar[r] & A^{n + 1} \ar[r] & \ldots } \]

    Note that these complexes have the property that

    \[ H^ i(\tau _{\leq n}A^\bullet ) = \left\{ \begin{matrix} H^ i(A^\bullet ) & \text{if} & i \leq n \\ 0 & \text{if} & i > n \end{matrix} \right. \]
  4. The canonical truncation $\tau _{\geq n}A^\bullet $ is defined by the picture

    \[ \xymatrix{ A^\bullet \ar[d] & \ldots \ar[r] & A^{n - 1} \ar[r] \ar[d] & A^ n \ar[r] \ar[d] & A^{n + 1} \ar[r] \ar[d] & \ldots \\ \tau _{\geq n}A^\bullet & \ldots \ar[r] & 0 \ar[r] & \mathop{\mathrm{Coker}}(d^{n - 1}) \ar[r] & A^{n + 1} \ar[r] & \ldots } \]

    Note that these complexes have the property that

    \[ H^ i(\tau _{\geq n}A^\bullet ) = \left\{ \begin{matrix} 0 & \text{if} & i < n \\ H^ i(A^\bullet ) & \text{if} & i \geq n \end{matrix} \right. \]

Comments (7)

Comment #6828 by Seongsu Jeon on

I think the homology of canonical truncation (4) should be if , and the cochain version as well.

Comment #6969 by on

Can you try your comment again? In your comment there is no condition on so it doesn't make sense to me. Also, what the text says seems right to me.

Comment #6989 by Seongsu Jeon on

What I meant was . But, I understood the statement is true. Thanks!

Comment #7861 by Sándor on

There should be a variant of the "upper" canonical truncation that starts with im d^n instead of coker d^{n-1}. That one inherits the cohomology of the original complex starting at n+1 (accordingly Hatshorne in R&D denotes this with an index ">n" instead of "\geq n"). The advantage of that definition is that then one has a short exact sequence of the canonical truncations: 0 --> \sigma_{\leq n} A^\cdot --> A^\cdot --> \sigma_{>n} A^\cdot -->0. A similar ses works with the above definitions of the stupid truncation (though one still needs a shift, but that's not a big deal), but it does not work with the current definition of the upper canonical truncation.

Comment #8079 by on

Not going to do this. The thing with the short exact sequence is explained in Remark 13.12.4; as you can see we just use for the thing that fits into the ses.

Other people have mentioned they prefer to use superscripts, so use and when using truncation functors for complexes with upper numbering (so for cochain complexes). If you read this and have an opinion, please leave a comment.

Comment #8194 by Sándor on

OK, this does produce the essentially equivalent distinguished triangle, but with the other convention you get an actual ses. I know, you might say we get it with . True, but a bit ugly and it forces the reader to figure out what is. But it's your decision, so I am not arguing... :) As far as superscripts are concerned, I would prefer subscripts. Also, just for fun: Have you noticed that Hartshorne uses for the canonical truncation and for the "stupid" one in R&D? (I'm OK with it this way).


Post a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked.

In your comment you can use Markdown and LaTeX style mathematics (enclose it like $\pi$). A preview option is available if you wish to see how it works out (just click on the eye in the toolbar).

Unfortunately JavaScript is disabled in your browser, so the comment preview function will not work.

All contributions are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.




In order to prevent bots from posting comments, we would like you to prove that you are human. You can do this by filling in the name of the current tag in the following input field. As a reminder, this is tag 0118. Beware of the difference between the letter 'O' and the digit '0'.