Processing math: 100%

The Stacks project

10.84 Transfinite dévissage of modules

In this section we introduce a dévissage technique for decomposing a module into a direct sum. The main result is that a projective module is a direct sum of countably generated modules (Theorem 10.84.5 below). We follow [Kaplansky].

Definition 10.84.1. Let M be an R-module. A direct sum dévissage of M is a family of submodules (M_{\alpha })_{\alpha \in S}, indexed by an ordinal S and increasing (with respect to inclusion), such that:

  1. M_0 = 0;

  2. M = \bigcup _{\alpha } M_{\alpha };

  3. if \alpha \in S is a limit ordinal, then M_{\alpha } = \bigcup _{\beta < \alpha } M_{\beta };

  4. if \alpha + 1 \in S, then M_{\alpha } is a direct summand of M_{\alpha + 1}.

If moreover

  1. M_{\alpha + 1}/M_{\alpha } is countably generated for \alpha + 1 \in S,

then (M_{\alpha })_{\alpha \in S} is called a Kaplansky dévissage of M.

The terminology is justified by the following lemma.

Lemma 10.84.2. Let M be an R-module. If (M_{\alpha })_{\alpha \in S} is a direct sum dévissage of M, then M \cong \bigoplus _{\alpha + 1 \in S} M_{\alpha + 1}/M_{\alpha }.

Proof. By property (3) of a direct sum dévissage, there is an inclusion M_{\alpha + 1}/M_{\alpha } \to M for each \alpha \in S. Consider the map

f : \bigoplus \nolimits _{\alpha + 1\in S} M_{\alpha + 1}/M_{\alpha } \to M

given by the sum of these inclusions. Further consider the restrictions

f_{\beta } : \bigoplus \nolimits _{\alpha + 1 \leq \beta } M_{\alpha + 1}/M_{\alpha } \longrightarrow M

for \beta \in S. Transfinite induction on S shows that the image of f_{\beta } is M_{\beta }. For \beta =0 this is true by (0). If \beta +1 is a successor ordinal and it is true for \beta , then it is true for \beta + 1 by (3). And if \beta is a limit ordinal and it is true for \alpha < \beta , then it is true for \beta by (2). Hence f is surjective by (1).

Transfinite induction on S also shows that the restrictions f_{\beta } are injective. For \beta = 0 it is true. If \beta +1 is a successor ordinal and f_{\beta } is injective, then let x be in the kernel and write x = (x_{\alpha + 1})_{\alpha + 1 \leq \beta + 1} in terms of its components x_{\alpha + 1} \in M_{\alpha + 1}/M_{\alpha }. By property (3) and the fact that the image of f_{\beta } is M_{\beta } both (x_{\alpha + 1})_{\alpha + 1 \leq \beta } and x_{\beta + 1} map to 0. Hence x_{\beta +1} = 0 and, by the assumption that the restriction f_{\beta } is injective also x_{\alpha + 1} = 0 for every \alpha + 1 \leq \beta . So x = 0 and f_{\beta +1} is injective. If \beta is a limit ordinal consider an element x of the kernel. Then x is already contained in the domain of f_{\alpha } for some \alpha < \beta . Thus x = 0 which finishes the induction. We conclude that f is injective since f_{\beta } is for each \beta \in S. \square

Lemma 10.84.3. Let M be an R-module. Then M is a direct sum of countably generated R-modules if and only if it admits a Kaplansky dévissage.

Proof. The lemma takes care of the “if” direction. Conversely, suppose M = \bigoplus _{i \in I} N_ i where each N_ i is a countably generated R-module. Well-order I so that we can think of it as an ordinal. Then setting M_ i = \bigoplus _{j < i} N_ j gives a Kaplansky dévissage (M_ i)_{i \in I} of M. \square

Theorem 10.84.4. Suppose M is a direct sum of countably generated R-modules. If P is a direct summand of M, then P is also a direct sum of countably generated R-modules.

Proof. Write M = P \oplus Q. We are going to construct a Kaplansky dévissage (M_{\alpha })_{\alpha \in S} of M which, in addition to the defining properties (0)-(4), satisfies:

  1. Each M_{\alpha } is a direct summand of M;

  2. M_{\alpha } = P_{\alpha } \oplus Q_{\alpha }, where P_{\alpha } =P \cap M_{\alpha } and Q_\alpha = Q \cap M_{\alpha }.

(Note: if properties (0)-(2) hold, then in fact property (3) is equivalent to property (5).)

To see how this implies the theorem, it is enough to show that (P_{\alpha })_{\alpha \in S} forms a Kaplansky dévissage of P. Properties (0), (1), and (2) are clear. By (5) and (6) for (M_{\alpha }), each P_{\alpha } is a direct summand of M. Since P_{\alpha } \subset P_{\alpha + 1}, this implies P_{\alpha } is a direct summand of P_{\alpha + 1}; hence (3) holds for (P_{\alpha }). For (4), note that

M_{\alpha + 1}/M_{\alpha } \cong P_{\alpha + 1}/P_{\alpha } \oplus Q_{\alpha + 1}/Q_{\alpha },

so P_{\alpha + 1}/P_{\alpha } is countably generated because this is true of M_{\alpha + 1}/M_{\alpha }.

It remains to construct the M_{\alpha }. Write M = \bigoplus _{i \in I} N_ i where each N_ i is a countably generated R-module. Choose a well-ordering of I. By transfinite recursion we are going to define an increasing family of submodules M_{\alpha } of M, one for each ordinal \alpha , such that M_{\alpha } is a direct sum of some subset of the N_ i.

For \alpha = 0 let M_{0} = 0. If \alpha is a limit ordinal and M_{\beta } has been defined for all \beta < \alpha , then define M_{\alpha } = \bigcup _{\beta < \alpha } M_{\beta }. Since each M_{\beta } for \beta < \alpha is a direct sum of a subset of the N_ i, the same will be true of M_{\alpha }. If \alpha + 1 is a successor ordinal and M_{\alpha } has been defined, then define M_{\alpha + 1} as follows. If M_{\alpha } = M, then let M_{\alpha + 1} = M. If not, choose the smallest j \in I such that N_ j is not contained in M_{\alpha }. We will construct an infinite matrix (x_{mn}), m, n = 1, 2, 3, \ldots such that:

  1. N_ j is contained in the submodule of M generated by the entries x_{mn};

  2. if we write any entry x_{k\ell } in terms of its P- and Q-components, x_{k\ell } = y_{k\ell } + z_{k\ell }, then the matrix (x_{mn}) contains a set of generators for each N_ i for which y_{k\ell } or z_{k\ell } has nonzero component.

Then we define M_{\alpha + 1} to be the submodule of M generated by M_{\alpha } and all x_{mn}; by property (2) of the matrix (x_{mn}), M_{\alpha + 1} will be a direct sum of some subset of the N_ i. To construct the matrix (x_{mn}), let x_{11}, x_{12}, x_{13}, \ldots be a countable set of generators for N_ j. Then if x_{11} = y_{11} + z_{11} is the decomposition into P- and Q-components, let x_{21}, x_{22}, x_{23}, \ldots be a countable set of generators for the sum of the N_ i for which y_{11} or z_{11} have nonzero component. Repeat this process on x_{12} to get elements x_{31}, x_{32}, \ldots , the third row of our matrix. Repeat on x_{21} to get the fourth row, on x_{13} to get the fifth, and so on, going down along successive anti-diagonals as indicated below:

\left( \vcenter { \xymatrix@R=2mm@C=2mm{ x_{11} & x_{12} \ar[dl] & x_{13} \ar[dl] & x_{14} \ar[dl] & \ldots \\ x_{21} & x_{22} \ar[dl] & x_{23} \ar[dl] & \ldots \\ x_{31} & x_{32} \ar[dl] & \ldots \\ x_{41} & \ldots \\ \ldots } } \right).

Transfinite induction on I (using the fact that we constructed M_{\alpha + 1} to contain N_ j for the smallest j such that N_ j is not contained in M_{\alpha }) shows that for each i \in I, N_ i is contained in some M_{\alpha }. Thus, there is some large enough ordinal S satisfying: for each i \in I there is \alpha \in S such that N_ i is contained in M_{\alpha }. This means (M_{\alpha })_{\alpha \in S} satisfies property (1) of a Kaplansky dévissage of M. The family (M_{\alpha })_{\alpha \in S} moreover satisfies the other defining properties, and also (5) and (6) above: properties (0), (2), (4), and (6) are clear by construction; property (5) is true because each M_{\alpha } is by construction a direct sum of some N_ i; and (3) is implied by (5) and the fact that M_{\alpha } \subset M_{\alpha + 1}. \square

As a corollary we get the result for projective modules stated at the beginning of the section.

Theorem 10.84.5.slogan If P is a projective R-module, then P is a direct sum of countably generated projective R-modules.

Proof. A module is projective if and only if it is a direct summand of a free module, so this follows from Theorem 10.84.4. \square


Comments (5)

Comment #1503 by kollar on

Johan, the citation [K] on line 3 comes up as my Rational curves book. I think it should be some paper of Kaplansky instead.

J\'anos You can type your comment here, use the preview option to see what it will look like.

Comment #6676 by 陈睿 on

There is a typo in the proof of Lemma 058X: the condition (6) should be 'Q_{alpha}= Q \cap M_{alpha}'.

Comment #8653 by Branislav Sobot on

Should it be Q_{\alpha}=Q\cap P_{\alpha} in condition (6)?


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.