The Stacks project

12.29 Injectives and adjoint functors

Here are some lemmas on adjoint functors and their relationship with injectives. See also Lemma 12.7.4.


Lemma 12.29.1. Let $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ be abelian categories. Let $u : \mathcal{A} \to \mathcal{B}$ and $v : \mathcal{B} \to \mathcal{A}$ be additive functors. Assume

  1. $u$ is right adjoint to $v$, and

  2. $v$ transforms injective maps into injective maps.

Then $u$ transforms injectives into injectives.

Proof. Let $I$ be an injective object of $\mathcal{A}$. Let $\varphi : N \to M$ be an injective map in $\mathcal{B}$ and let $\alpha : N \to uI$ be a morphism. By adjointness we get a morphism $\alpha : vN \to I$ and by assumption $v\varphi : vN \to vM$ is injective. Hence as $I$ is an injective object we get a morphism $\beta : vM \to I$ extending $\alpha $. By adjointness again this corresponds to a morphism $\beta : M \to uI$ as desired. $\square$

Remark 12.29.2. Let $\mathcal{A}$, $\mathcal{B}$, $u : \mathcal{A} \to \mathcal{B}$ and $v : \mathcal{B} \to \mathcal{A}$ be as in Lemma 12.29.1. In the presence of assumption (1) assumption (2) is equivalent to requiring that $v$ is exact. Moreover, condition (2) is necessary. Here is an example. Let $A \to B$ be a ring map. Let $u : \text{Mod}_ B \to \text{Mod}_ A$ be $u(N) = N_ A$ and let $v : \text{Mod}_ A \to \text{Mod}_ B$ be $v(M) = M \otimes _ A B$. Then $u$ is right adjoint to $v$, and $u$ is exact and $v$ is right exact, but $v$ does not transform injective maps into injective maps in general (i.e., $v$ is not left exact). Moreover, it is not the case that $u$ transforms injective $B$-modules into injective $A$-modules. For example, if $A = \mathbf{Z}$ and $B = \mathbf{Z}/p\mathbf{Z}$, then the injective $B$-module $\mathbf{Z}/p\mathbf{Z}$ is not an injective $\mathbf{Z}$-module. In fact, the lemma applies to this example if and only if the ring map $A \to B$ is flat.

Lemma 12.29.3. Let $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ be abelian categories. Let $u : \mathcal{A} \to \mathcal{B}$ and $v : \mathcal{B} \to \mathcal{A}$ be additive functors. Assume

  1. $u$ is right adjoint to $v$,

  2. $v$ transforms injective maps into injective maps,

  3. $\mathcal{A}$ has enough injectives, and

  4. $vB = 0$ implies $B = 0$ for any $B \in \mathop{\mathrm{Ob}}\nolimits (\mathcal{B})$.

Then $\mathcal{B}$ has enough injectives.

Proof. Pick $B \in \mathop{\mathrm{Ob}}\nolimits (\mathcal{B})$. Pick an injection $vB \to I$ for $I$ an injective object of $\mathcal{A}$. According to Lemma 12.29.1 and the assumptions the corresponding map $B \to uI$ is the injection of $B$ into an injective object. $\square$

Remark 12.29.4. Let $\mathcal{A}$, $\mathcal{B}$, $u : \mathcal{A} \to \mathcal{B}$ and $v : \mathcal{B} \to \mathcal{A}$ be as In Lemma 12.29.3. In the presence of conditions (1) and (2) condition (4) is equivalent to $v$ being faithful. Moreover, condition (4) is needed. An example is to consider the case where the functors $u$ and $v$ are both the zero functor.

Lemma 12.29.5. Let $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ be abelian categories. Let $u : \mathcal{A} \to \mathcal{B}$ and $v : \mathcal{B} \to \mathcal{A}$ be additive functors. Assume

  1. $u$ is right adjoint to $v$,

  2. $v$ transforms injective maps into injective maps,

  3. $\mathcal{A}$ has enough injectives,

  4. $vB = 0$ implies $B = 0$ for any $B \in \mathop{\mathrm{Ob}}\nolimits (\mathcal{B})$, and

  5. $\mathcal{A}$ has functorial injective hulls.

Then $\mathcal{B}$ has functorial injective hulls.

Proof. Let $A \mapsto (A \to J(A))$ be a functorial injective hull on $\mathcal{A}$. Then $B \mapsto (B \to uJ(vB))$ is a functorial injective hull on $\mathcal{B}$. Compare with the proof of Lemma 12.29.3. $\square$

Lemma 12.29.6. Let $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ be abelian categories. Let $u : \mathcal{A} \to \mathcal{B}$ be a functor. If there exists a subset $\mathcal{P} \subset \mathop{\mathrm{Ob}}\nolimits (\mathcal{B})$ such that

  1. every object of $\mathcal{B}$ is a quotient of an element of $\mathcal{P}$, and

  2. for every $P \in \mathcal{P}$ there exists an object $Q$ of $\mathcal{A}$ such that $\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _\mathcal {A}(Q, A) = \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _\mathcal {B}(P, u(A))$ functorially in $A$,

then there exists a left adjoint $v$ of $u$.

Proof. By the Yoneda lemma (Categories, Lemma 4.3.5) the object $Q$ of $\mathcal{A}$ corresponding to $P$ is defined up to unique isomorphism by the formula $\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _\mathcal {A}(Q, A) = \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _\mathcal {B}(P, u(A))$. Let us write $Q = v(P)$. Denote $i_ P : P \to u(v(P))$ the map corresponding to $\text{id}_{v(P)}$ in $\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _\mathcal {A}(v(P), v(P))$. Functoriality in (2) implies that the bijection is given by

\[ \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _\mathcal {A}(v(P), A) \to \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _\mathcal {B}(P, u(A)),\quad \varphi \mapsto u(\varphi ) \circ i_ P \]

For any pair of elements $P_1, P_2 \in \mathcal{P}$ there is a canonical map

\[ \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _\mathcal {B}(P_2, P_1) \to \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _\mathcal {A}(v(P_2), v(P_1)),\quad \varphi \mapsto v(\varphi ) \]

which is characterized by the rule $u(v(\varphi )) \circ i_{P_2} = i_{P_1} \circ \varphi $ in $\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _\mathcal {B}(P_2, u(v(P_1)))$. Note that $\varphi \mapsto v(\varphi )$ is compatible with composition; this can be seen directly from the characterization. Hence $P \mapsto v(P)$ is a functor from the full subcategory of $\mathcal{B}$ whose objects are the elements of $\mathcal{P}$.

Given an arbitrary object $B$ of $\mathcal{B}$ choose an exact sequence

\[ P_2 \to P_1 \to B \to 0 \]

which is possible by assumption (1). Define $v(B)$ to be the object of $\mathcal{A}$ fitting into the exact sequence

\[ v(P_2) \to v(P_1) \to v(B) \to 0 \]


\begin{align*} \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _\mathcal {A}(v(B), A) & = \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _\mathcal {A}(v(P_1), A) \to \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _\mathcal {A}(v(P_2), A)) \\ & = \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _\mathcal {B}(P_1, u(A)) \to \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _\mathcal {B}(P_2, u(A))) \\ & = \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _\mathcal {B}(B, u(A)) \end{align*}

Hence we see that we may take $\mathcal{P} = \mathop{\mathrm{Ob}}\nolimits (\mathcal{B})$, i.e., we see that $v$ is everywhere defined. $\square$

Comments (1)

Comment #8711 by Bruno Kahn on

I think a slightly more general variant of Remark 03B8 is the following: given (1) in Lemma 015Z, the converse to its conclusion is true at least if has enough injectives. Indeed, let be a monomorphism in , and let . Choose a monomorphism with injective (it exists by assumption). Then extends to , whence by adjunction a morphism . If is injective, this morphism extends to , hence by adjunction a morphism extending . But then "extends'' , which forces since was a monomorphism.

Maybe one can weaken this hypothesis on ?

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 015Y. Beware of the difference between the letter 'O' and the digit '0'.