The Stacks project

\begin{equation*} \DeclareMathOperator\Coim{Coim} \DeclareMathOperator\Coker{Coker} \DeclareMathOperator\Ext{Ext} \DeclareMathOperator\Hom{Hom} \DeclareMathOperator\Im{Im} \DeclareMathOperator\Ker{Ker} \DeclareMathOperator\Mor{Mor} \DeclareMathOperator\Ob{Ob} \DeclareMathOperator\Sh{Sh} \DeclareMathOperator\SheafExt{\mathcal{E}\mathit{xt}} \DeclareMathOperator\SheafHom{\mathcal{H}\mathit{om}} \DeclareMathOperator\Spec{Spec} \newcommand\colim{\mathop{\mathrm{colim}}\nolimits} \newcommand\lim{\mathop{\mathrm{lim}}\nolimits} \newcommand\Qcoh{\mathit{Qcoh}} \newcommand\Sch{\mathit{Sch}} \newcommand\QCohstack{\mathcal{QC}\!\mathit{oh}} \newcommand\Cohstack{\mathcal{C}\!\mathit{oh}} \newcommand\Spacesstack{\mathcal{S}\!\mathit{paces}} \newcommand\Quotfunctor{\mathrm{Quot}} \newcommand\Hilbfunctor{\mathrm{Hilb}} \newcommand\Curvesstack{\mathcal{C}\!\mathit{urves}} \newcommand\Polarizedstack{\mathcal{P}\!\mathit{olarized}} \newcommand\Complexesstack{\mathcal{C}\!\mathit{omplexes}} \newcommand\Pic{\mathop{\mathrm{Pic}}\nolimits} \newcommand\Picardstack{\mathcal{P}\!\mathit{ic}} \newcommand\Picardfunctor{\mathrm{Pic}} \newcommand\Deformationcategory{\mathcal{D}\!\mathit{ef}} \end{equation*}

Example 10.81.6. Non-split and non-flat universally exact sequences.

  1. In spite of Lemma 10.81.4, it is possible to have a short exact sequence of $R$-modules

    \[ 0 \to M_1 \to M_2 \to M_3 \to 0 \]

    that is universally exact but non-split. For instance, take $R = \mathbf{Z}$, let $M_1 = \bigoplus _{n=1}^{\infty } \mathbf{Z}$, let $M_{2} = \prod _{n = 1}^{\infty } \mathbf{Z}$, and let $M_{3}$ be the cokernel of the inclusion $M_1 \to M_2$. Then $M_1, M_2, M_3$ are all flat since they are torsion-free (More on Algebra, Lemma 15.22.11), so by Lemma 10.81.5,

    \[ 0 \to M_1 \to M_2 \to M_3 \to 0 \]

    is universally exact. However there can be no section $s: M_3 \to M_2$. In fact, if $x$ is the image of $(2, 2^2, 2^3, \ldots ) \in M_2$ in $M_3$, then any module map $s: M_3 \to M_2$ must kill $x$. This is because $x \in 2^ n M_3$ for any $n \geq 1$, hence $s(x)$ is divisible by $2^ n$ for all $n \geq 1$ and so must be $0$.

  2. In spite of Lemma 10.81.5, it is possible to have a short exact sequence of $R$-modules

    \[ 0 \to M_1 \to M_2 \to M_3 \to 0 \]

    that is universally exact but with $M_1, M_2, M_3$ all non-flat. In fact if $M$ is any non-flat module, just take the split exact sequence

    \[ 0 \to M \to M \oplus M \to M \to 0. \]

    For instance over $R = \mathbf{Z}$, take $M$ to be any torsion module.

  3. Taking the direct sum of an exact sequence as in (1) with one as in (2), we get a short exact sequence of $R$-modules

    \[ 0 \to M_1 \to M_2 \to M_3 \to 0 \]

    that is universally exact, non-split, and such that $M_1, M_2, M_3$ are all non-flat.


Comments (1)

Comment #1400 by on

After "since they are torsion-free", insert ", see Lemma 0AUW".

There are also:

  • 2 comment(s) on Section 10.81: Universally injective module maps

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 058N. Beware of the difference between the letter 'O' and the digit '0'.