The Stacks project

64.6 Derived categories

To set up notation, let $\mathcal{A}$ be an abelian category. Let $\text{Comp}(\mathcal{A})$ be the abelian category of complexes in $\mathcal{A}$. Let $K(\mathcal{A})$ be the category of complexes up to homotopy, with objects equal to complexes in $\mathcal{A}$ and morphisms equal to homotopy classes of morphisms of complexes. This is not an abelian category. Loosely speaking, $D(A)$ is defined to be the category obtained by inverting all quasi-isomorphisms in $\text{Comp}(\mathcal{A})$ or, equivalently, in $K(\mathcal{A})$. Moreover, we can define $\text{Comp}^+(\mathcal{A}), K^+(\mathcal{A}), D^+(\mathcal{A})$ analogously using only bounded below complexes. Similarly, we can define $\text{Comp}^-(\mathcal{A}), K^-(\mathcal{A}), D^-(\mathcal{A})$ using bounded above complexes, and we can define $\text{Comp}^ b(\mathcal{A}), K^ b(\mathcal{A}), D^ b(\mathcal{A})$ using bounded complexes.

Remark 64.6.1. Notes on derived categories.

  1. There are some set-theoretical problems when $\mathcal{A}$ is somewhat arbitrary, which we will happily disregard.

  2. The categories $K(A)$ and $D(A)$ are endowed with the structure of a triangulated category.

  3. The categories $\text{Comp}(\mathcal{A})$ and $K(\mathcal{A})$ can also be defined when $\mathcal{A}$ is an additive category.

The homology functor $H^ i : \text{Comp}(\mathcal{A}) \to \mathcal{A}$ taking a complex $K^\bullet \mapsto H^ i(K^\bullet )$ extends to functors $H^ i : K(\mathcal{A}) \to \mathcal{A}$ and $H^ i : D(\mathcal{A}) \to \mathcal{A}$.

Lemma 64.6.2. An object $E$ of $D(\mathcal{A})$ is contained in $D^+(\mathcal{A})$ if and only if $H^ i(E) =0 $ for all $i \ll 0$. Similar statements hold for $D^-$ and $D^ b$.

Proof. Hint: use truncation functors. See Derived Categories, Lemma 13.11.5. $\square$

Lemma 64.6.3. Morphisms between objects in the derived category.

  1. Let $I^\bullet \in \text{Comp}^+(\mathcal{A})$ with $I^ n$ injective for all $n \in \mathbf{Z}$. Then

    \[ \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _{D(\mathcal{A})}(K^\bullet , I^\bullet ) = \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _{K(\mathcal{A})}(K^\bullet , I^\bullet ). \]
  2. Let $P^\bullet \in \text{Comp}^-(\mathcal{A})$ with $P^ n$ is projective for all $n \in \mathbf{Z}$. Then

    \[ \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _{D(\mathcal{A})}(P^\bullet , K^\bullet ) = \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _{K(\mathcal{A})}(P^\bullet , K^\bullet ). \]
  3. If $\mathcal{A}$ has enough injectives and $\mathcal{I} \subset \mathcal{A}$ is the additive subcategory of injectives, then $ D^+(\mathcal{A})\cong K^+(\mathcal{I}) $ (as triangulated categories).

  4. If $\mathcal{A}$ has enough projectives and $\mathcal{P} \subset \mathcal{A}$ is the additive subcategory of projectives, then $ D^-(\mathcal{A}) \cong K^-(\mathcal{P}). $

Proof. Omitted. $\square$

Definition 64.6.4. Let $F: \mathcal{A} \to \mathcal{B}$ be a left exact functor and assume that $\mathcal{A}$ has enough injectives. We define the total right derived functor of $F$ as the functor $RF: D^+(\mathcal{A}) \to D^+(\mathcal{B})$ fitting into the diagram

\[ \xymatrix{ D^+(\mathcal{A}) \ar[r]^{RF} & D^+(\mathcal{B}) \\ K^+(\mathcal I) \ar[u] \ar[r]^ F & K^+(\mathcal{B}). \ar[u] } \]

This is possible since the left vertical arrow is invertible by the previous lemma. Similarly, let $G: \mathcal{A} \to \mathcal{B}$ be a right exact functor and assume that $\mathcal{A}$ has enough projectives. We define the total left derived functor of $G$ as the functor $LG: D^-(\mathcal{A}) \to D^-(\mathcal{B})$ fitting into the diagram

\[ \xymatrix{ D^-(\mathcal{A}) \ar[r]^{LG} & D^-(\mathcal{B}) \\ K^-(\mathcal{P}) \ar[u] \ar[r]^ G & K^-(\mathcal{B}). \ar[u] } \]

This is possible since the left vertical arrow is invertible by the previous lemma.

Remark 64.6.5. In these cases, it is true that $R^ iF(K^\bullet ) = H^ i(RF(K^\bullet ))$, where the left hand side is defined to be $i$th homology of the complex $F(K^\bullet )$.

Comments (6)

Comment #14 by Emmanuel Kowalski on

The short "Notes on derived categories" (remarks-derived-categories) is duplicated in the next Tag 03T4.

Comment #21 by Johan on

That is because we have tags for sections and lemmas, remarks, etc. And lemmas and remarks, etc are items inside sections. So there is some duplication in the material.

Comment #2167 by Alex on

typo: In the definition of "objects equal to homotopy classes..." should say "morphisms equal to..."

Comment #8489 by Justin on

Small typo: In Lemma 03T5, I believe "Similar statements hold for and " should say "Similar statements hold for and ."

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 03T3. Beware of the difference between the letter 'O' and the digit '0'.