The Stacks project

Lemma 10.134.4 (Jacobi-Zariski sequence). Let $A \to B \to C$ be ring maps. Choose a presentation $\alpha : A[x_ s, s \in S] \to B$ with kernel $I$. Choose a presentation $\beta : B[y_ t, t \in T] \to C$ with kernel $J$. Let $\gamma : A[x_ s, y_ t] \to C$ be the induced presentation of $C$ with kernel $K$. Then we get a canonical commutative diagram

\[ \xymatrix{ 0 \ar[r] & \Omega _{A[x_ s]/A} \otimes C \ar[r] & \Omega _{A[x_ s, y_ t]/A} \otimes C \ar[r] & \Omega _{B[y_ t]/B} \otimes C \ar[r] & 0 \\ & I/I^2 \otimes C \ar[r] \ar[u] & K/K^2 \ar[r] \ar[u] & J/J^2 \ar[r] \ar[u] & 0 } \]

with exact rows. We get the following exact sequence of homology groups

\[ H_1(\mathop{N\! L}\nolimits _{B/A} \otimes _ B C) \to H_1(L_{C/A}) \to H_1(L_{C/B}) \to C \otimes _ B \Omega _{B/A} \to \Omega _{C/A} \to \Omega _{C/B} \to 0 \]

of $C$-modules extending the sequence of Lemma 10.131.7. If $\text{Tor}_1^ B(\Omega _{B/A}, C) = 0$, then $H_1(\mathop{N\! L}\nolimits _{B/A} \otimes _ B C) = H_1(L_{B/A}) \otimes _ B C$.

Proof. The precise definition of the maps is omitted. The exactness of the top row follows as the $\text{d}x_ s$, $\text{d}y_ t$ form a basis for the middle module. The map $\gamma $ factors

\[ A[x_ s, y_ t] \to B[y_ t] \to C \]

with surjective first arrow and second arrow equal to $\beta $. Thus we see that $K \to J$ is surjective. Moreover, the kernel of the first displayed arrow is $IA[x_ s, y_ t]$. Hence $I/I^2 \otimes C$ surjects onto the kernel of $K/K^2 \to J/J^2$. Finally, we can use Lemma 10.134.2 to identify the terms as homology groups of the naive cotangent complexes. The final assertion follows as the degree $0$ term of the complex $\mathop{N\! L}\nolimits _{B/A}$ is a free $B$-module. $\square$

Comments (5)

Comment #694 by Keenan Kidwell on

In the third line up from the bottom, the map should go in the opposite direction.

Comment #1718 by Yogesh More on

I couldn't immediately see why being the kernel of the first map implies that surjects onto the kernel of , and in case anyone else is wondering, here is one explanation why: is the therefore the kernel of , and hence tensoring the exact sequence by gives an exact sequence . Since , we have , and similarly so our exact sequence is .

Comment #8327 by Et on

For the final assertion, would we not also want ? Let P be a presentation of B over A, with kernel I. The condition ensures we have an injection , so that to compute It's enough to show the sequence is exact. The obstruction here is . The tor sequence associateded to the exact sequence shows that we have a surjection and hence is the necessary condition to get what we need.

Comment #8332 by on

@#8327. Yes, very good for finding this mistake! Thanks! I will fix this the next time I go through all the comments. I checked all the places in the stacks project where this gets used and in the places where we use the vanishing of the tor it comes from projectivity of .

Comment #8474 by Et on

Suggestion: since this proposition uses multiple rings, maybe add a subscript for the tensor products indicating over what they are taken

There are also:

  • 11 comment(s) on Section 10.134: The naive cotangent complex

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 00S2. Beware of the difference between the letter 'O' and the digit '0'.