Lemma 10.109.3. Let R be a ring. Suppose that M is an R-module of projective dimension d. Suppose that F_ e \to F_{e-1} \to \ldots \to F_0 \to M \to 0 is exact with F_ i projective and e \geq d - 1. Then the kernel of F_ e \to F_{e-1} is projective (or the kernel of F_0 \to M is projective in case e = 0).
Proof. We prove this by induction on d. If d = 0, then M is projective. In this case there is a splitting F_0 = \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(F_0 \to M) \oplus M, and hence \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(F_0 \to M) is projective. This finishes the proof if e = 0, and if e > 0, then replacing M by \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(F_0 \to M) we decrease e.
Next assume d > 0. Let 0 \to P_ d \to P_{d-1} \to \ldots \to P_0 \to M \to 0 be a minimal length finite resolution with P_ i projective. According to Schanuel's Lemma 10.109.1 we have P_0 \oplus \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(F_0 \to M) \cong F_0 \oplus \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(P_0 \to M). This proves the case d = 1, e = 0, because then the right hand side is F_0 \oplus P_1 which is projective. Hence now we may assume e > 0. The module F_0 \oplus \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(P_0 \to M) has the finite projective resolution
of length d - 1. By induction applied to the exact sequence
of length e - 1 we conclude \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(F_ e \to F_{e - 1}) is projective (if e \geq 2) or that \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(F_1 \oplus P_0 \to F_0 \oplus P_0) is projective. This implies the lemma. \square
Comments (0)
There are also: