The Stacks project

Lemma 12.14.10. Let $\mathcal{A}$ be an additive category. Let

\[ 0 \to A^\bullet \to B^\bullet \to C^\bullet \to 0 \]

be a complex (!) of complexes. Suppose that we are given splittings $B^ n = A^ n \oplus C^ n$ compatible with the maps in the displayed sequence. Let $s^ n : C^ n \to B^ n$ and $\pi ^ n : B^ n \to A^ n$ be the corresponding maps. Then the family of morphisms

\[ \pi ^{n + 1} \circ d_ B^ n \circ s^ n : C^ n \to A^{n + 1} \]

define a morphism of complexes $\delta : C^\bullet \to A[1]^\bullet $.

Proof. Denote $i : A^\bullet \to B^\bullet $ and $q : B^\bullet \to C^\bullet $ the maps of complexes in the short exact sequence. Then $i^{n + 1} \circ \pi ^{n + 1} \circ d_ B^ n \circ s^ n = d_ B^ n \circ s^ n - s^{n + 1} \circ d_ C^ n$. Hence $i^{n + 2} \circ d_ A^{n + 1} \circ \pi ^{n + 1} \circ d_ B^ n \circ s^ n = d_ B^{n + 1} \circ (d_ B^ n \circ s^ n - s^{n + 1} \circ d_ C^ n) = - d_ B^{n + 1} \circ s^{n + 1} \circ d_ C^ n$ as desired. $\square$

Comments (5)

Comment #5076 by Remy on

Although you write "complex of complexes", the further assumption implies it is in fact a short exact sequence of complexes, right? The current wording is confusing.

Comment #5081 by Laurent Moret-Bailly on

Maybe this is a bad day, but checking the first formula in the proof was not completely immediate to me. There could be a hint such as "use ".

Similarly, the formula to be proved would be , but this is done (tacitly) after composition with (which is OK since is left invertible).

Comment #5289 by on

@#5076: yes because later we say we have the direct sum decompositions

@#5081: yes you have to work to get it. In fact I think personally the best way is to think of the differential on as given by matrices and then look what it means that . Of course this is a completely standard thing that everybody should do once for themselves. Another things is that this chapter is in the prerequisites.

Comment #7427 by Elías Guisado on

I agree with @#5081: not after I did read Laurent's comments I could understand well the proof.

Comment #7428 by Elías Guisado on

not *before

There are also:

  • 2 comment(s) on Section 12.14: Homotopy and the shift functor

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Your email address will not be published.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 011J. Beware of the difference between the letter 'O' and the digit '0'.