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].
The terminology is justified by the following lemma.
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
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:
Each M_{\alpha } is a direct summand of M;
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:
N_ j is contained in the submodule of M generated by the entries x_{mn};
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.
Comments (5)
Comment #1503 by kollar on
Comment #1507 by Johan on
Comment #6676 by 陈睿 on
Comment #8653 by Branislav Sobot on
Comment #9402 by Stacks project on