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*}

10.87 Mittag-Leffler modules

A Mittag-Leffler module is (very roughly) a module which can be written as a directed limit whose dual is a Mittag-Leffler system. To be able to give a precise definition we need to do a bit of work.

Definition 10.87.1. Let $(M_ i, f_{ij})$ be a directed system of $R$-modules. We say that $(M_ i, f_{ij})$ is a Mittag-Leffler directed system of modules if each $M_ i$ is an $R$-module of finite presentation and if for every $R$-module $N$, the inverse system

\[ (\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _ R(M_ i, N), \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _ R(f_{ij}, N)) \]

is Mittag-Leffler.

We are going to characterize those $R$-modules that are colimits of Mittag-Leffler directed systems of modules.

Definition 10.87.2. Let $f: M \to N$ and $g: M \to M'$ be maps of $R$-modules. Then we say $g$ dominates $f$ if for any $R$-module $Q$, we have $\mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(f \otimes _ R \text{id}_ Q) \subset \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(g \otimes _ R \text{id}_ Q)$.

It is enough to check this condition for finitely presented modules.

Lemma 10.87.3. Let $f: M \to N$ and $g: M \to M'$ be maps of $R$-modules. Then $g$ dominates $f$ if and only if for any finitely presented $R$-module $Q$, we have $\mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(f \otimes _ R \text{id}_ Q) \subset \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(g \otimes _ R \text{id}_ Q)$.

Proof. Suppose $\mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(f \otimes _ R \text{id}_ Q) \subset \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(g \otimes _ R \text{id}_ Q)$ for all finitely presented modules $Q$. If $Q$ is an arbitrary module, write $Q = \mathop{\mathrm{colim}}\nolimits _{i \in I} Q_ i$ as a colimit of a directed system of finitely presented modules $Q_ i$. Then $\mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(f \otimes _ R \text{id}_{Q_ i}) \subset \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(g \otimes _ R \text{id}_{Q_ i})$ for all $i$. Since taking directed colimits is exact and commutes with tensor product, it follows that $\mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(f \otimes _ R \text{id}_ Q) \subset \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(g \otimes _ R \text{id}_ Q)$. $\square$

Lemma 10.87.4. Let $f : M \to N$ and $g : M \to M'$ be maps of $R$-modules. Consider the pushout of $f$ and $g$,

\[ \xymatrix{ M \ar[r]_ f \ar[d]_ g & N \ar[d]^{g'} \\ M' \ar[r]^{f'} & N' } \]

Then $g$ dominates $f$ if and only if $f'$ is universally injective.

Proof. Recall that $N'$ is $M' \oplus N$ modulo the submodule consisting of elements $(g(x), -f(x))$ for $x \in M$. From the construction of $N'$ we have a short exact sequence

\[ 0 \to \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(f) \cap \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(g) \to \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(f) \to \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(f') \to 0. \]

Since tensoring commutes with taking pushouts, we have such a short exact sequence

\[ 0 \to \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(f \otimes \text{id}_ Q ) \cap \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(g \otimes \text{id}_ Q) \to \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(f \otimes \text{id}_ Q) \to \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(f' \otimes \text{id}_ Q) \to 0 \]

for every $R$-module $Q$. So $f'$ is universally injective if and only if $\mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(f \otimes \text{id}_ Q ) \subset \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(g \otimes \text{id}_ Q)$ for every $Q$, if and only if $g$ dominates $f$. $\square$

The above definition of domination is sometimes related to the usual notion of domination of maps as the following lemma shows.

Lemma 10.87.5. Let $f: M \to N$ and $g: M \to M'$ be maps of $R$-modules. Suppose $\mathop{\mathrm{Coker}}(f)$ is of finite presentation. Then $g$ dominates $f$ if and only if $g$ factors through $f$, i.e. there exists a module map $h: N \to M'$ such that $g = h \circ f$.

Proof. Consider the pushout of $f$ and $g$ as in the statement of Lemma 10.87.4. From the construction of the pushout it follows that $\mathop{\mathrm{Coker}}(f') = \mathop{\mathrm{Coker}}(f)$, so $\mathop{\mathrm{Coker}}(f')$ is of finite presentation. Then by Lemma 10.81.4, $f'$ is universally injective if and only if

\[ 0 \to M' \xrightarrow {f'} N' \to \mathop{\mathrm{Coker}}(f') \to 0 \]

splits. This is the case if and only if there is a map $h' : N' \to M'$ such that $h' \circ f' = \text{id}_{M'}$. From the universal property of the pushout, the existence of such an $h'$ is equivalent to $g$ factoring through $f$. $\square$

Proposition 10.87.6. Let $M$ be an $R$-module. Let $(M_ i, f_{ij})$ be a directed system of finitely presented $R$-modules, indexed by $I$, such that $M = \mathop{\mathrm{colim}}\nolimits M_ i$. Let $f_ i: M_ i \to M$ be the canonical map. The following are equivalent:

  1. For every finitely presented $R$-module $P$ and module map $f: P \to M$, there exists a finitely presented $R$-module $Q$ and a module map $g: P \to Q$ such that $g$ and $f$ dominate each other, i.e., $\mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(f \otimes _ R \text{id}_ N) = \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(g \otimes _ R \text{id}_ N)$ for every $R$-module $N$.

  2. For each $i \in I$, there exists $j \geq i$ such that $f_{ij}: M_ i \to M_ j$ dominates $f_ i: M_ i \to M$.

  3. For each $i \in I$, there exists $j \geq i$ such that $f_{ij}: M_ i \to M_ j$ factors through $f_{ik}: M_ i \to M_ k$ for all $k \geq i$.

  4. For every $R$-module $N$, the inverse system $(\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _ R(M_ i, N), \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _ R(f_{ij}, N))$ is Mittag-Leffler.

  5. For $N = \prod _{s \in I} M_ s$, the inverse system $(\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _ R(M_ i, N), \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _ R(f_{ij}, N))$ is Mittag-Leffler.

Proof. First we prove the equivalence of (1) and (2). Suppose (1) holds and let $i \in I$. Corresponding to the map $f_ i: M_ i \to M$, we can choose $g: M_ i \to Q$ as in (1). Since $M_ i$ and $Q$ are of finite presentation, so is $\mathop{\mathrm{Coker}}(g)$. Then by Lemma 10.87.5, $f_ i : M_ i \to M$ factors through $g: M_ i \to Q$, say $f_ i = h \circ g$ for some $h: Q \to M$. Then since $Q$ is finitely presented, $h$ factors through $M_ j \to M$ for some $j \geq i$, say $h = f_ j \circ h'$ for some $h': Q \to M_ j$. In total we have a commutative diagram

\[ \xymatrix{ & M & \\ M_ i \ar[dr]_ g \ar[ur]^{f_ i} \ar[rr]^{f_{ij}} & & M_ j \ar[ul]_{f_ j} \\ & Q \ar[ur]_{h'} & } \]

Thus $f_{ij}$ dominates $g$. But $g$ dominates $f_ i$, so $f_{ij}$ dominates $f_ i$.

Conversely, suppose (2) holds. Let $P$ be of finite presentation and $f: P \to M$ a module map. Then $f$ factors through $f_ i: M_ i \to M$ for some $i \in I$, say $f = f_ i \circ g'$ for some $g': P \to M_ i$. Choose by (2) a $j \geq i$ such that $f_{ij}$ dominates $f_ i$. We have a commutative diagram

\[ \xymatrix{ P \ar[d]_{g'} \ar[r]^{f} & M \\ M_ i \ar[ur]^{f_ i} \ar[r]_{f_{ij}} & M_ j \ar[u]_{f_ j} } \]

From the diagram and the fact that $f_{ij}$ dominates $f_ i$, we find that $f$ and $f_{ij} \circ g'$ dominate each other. Hence taking $g = f_{ij} \circ g' : P \to M_ j$ works.

Next we prove (2) is equivalent to (3). Let $i \in I$. It is always true that $f_ i$ dominates $f_{ik}$ for $k \geq i$, since $f_ i$ factors through $f_{ik}$. If (2) holds, choose $j \geq i$ such that $f_{ij}$ dominates $f_ i$. Then since domination is a transitive relation, $f_{ij}$ dominates $f_{ik}$ for $k \geq i$. All $M_ i$ are of finite presentation, so $\mathop{\mathrm{Coker}}(f_{ik})$ is of finite presentation for $k \geq i$. By Lemma 10.87.5, $f_{ij}$ factors through $f_{ik}$ for all $k \geq i$. Thus (2) implies (3). On the other hand, if (3) holds then for any $R$-module $N$, $f_{ij} \otimes _ R \text{id}_ N$ factors through $f_{ik} \otimes _ R \text{id}_ N$ for $k \geq i$. So $\mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(f_{ik} \otimes _ R \text{id}_ N) \subset \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(f_{ij} \otimes _ R \text{id}_ N)$ for $k \geq i$. But $\mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(f_ i \otimes _ R \text{id}_ N: M_ i \otimes _ R N \to M \otimes _ R N)$ is the union of $\mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(f_{ik} \otimes _ R \text{id}_ N)$ for $k \geq i$. Thus $\mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(f_ i \otimes _ R \text{id}_ N) \subset \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(f_{ij} \otimes _ R \text{id}_ N)$ for any $R$-module $N$, which by definition means $f_{ij}$ dominates $f_ i$.

It is trivial that (3) implies (4) implies (5). We show (5) implies (3). Let $N = \prod _{s \in I} M_ s$. If (5) holds, then given $i \in I$ choose $j \geq i$ such that

\[ \mathop{\mathrm{Im}}( \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits (M_ j, N) \to \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits (M_ i, N)) = \mathop{\mathrm{Im}}( \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits (M_ k, N) \to \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits (M_ i, N)) \]

for all $k \geq j$. Passing the product over $s \in I$ outside of the $\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits $'s and looking at the maps on each component of the product, this says

\[ \mathop{\mathrm{Im}}( \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits (M_ j, M_ s) \to \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits (M_ i, M_ s)) = \mathop{\mathrm{Im}}( \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits (M_ k, M_ s) \to \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits (M_ i, M_ s)) \]

for all $k \geq j$ and $s \in I$. Taking $s = j$ we have

\[ \mathop{\mathrm{Im}}( \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits (M_ j, M_ j) \to \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits (M_ i, M_ j)) = \mathop{\mathrm{Im}}( \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits (M_ k, M_ j) \to \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits (M_ i, M_ j)) \]

for all $k \geq j$. Since $f_{ij}$ is the image of $\text{id} \in \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits (M_ j, M_ j)$ under $\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits (M_ j, M_ j) \to \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits (M_ i, M_ j)$, this shows that for any $k \geq j$ there is $h \in \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits (M_ k, M_ j)$ such that $f_{ij} = h \circ f_{ik}$. If $j \geq k$ then we can take $h = f_{kj}$. Hence (3) holds. $\square$

Definition 10.87.7. Let $M$ be an $R$-module. We say that $M$ is Mittag-Leffler if the equivalent conditions of Proposition 10.87.6 hold.

In particular a finitely presented module is Mittag-Leffler.

Remark 10.87.8. Let $M$ be a flat $R$-module. By Lazard's theorem (Theorem 10.80.4) we can write $M = \mathop{\mathrm{colim}}\nolimits M_ i$ as the colimit of a directed system $(M_ i, f_{ij})$ where the $M_ i$ are free finite $R$-modules. For $M$ to be Mittag-Leffler, it is enough for the inverse system of duals $(\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _ R(M_ i, R), \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _ R(f_{ij}, R))$ to be Mittag-Leffler. This follows from criterion (4) of Proposition 10.87.6 and the fact that for a free finite $R$-module $F$, there is a functorial isomorphism $\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _ R(F, R) \otimes _ R N \cong \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _ R(F, N)$ for any $R$-module $N$.

Lemma 10.87.9. If $R$ is a ring and $M$, $N$ are Mittag-Leffler modules over $R$, then $M \otimes _ R N$ is a Mittag-Leffler module.

Proof. Write $M = \mathop{\mathrm{colim}}\nolimits _{i \in I} M_ i$ and $N = \mathop{\mathrm{colim}}\nolimits _{j \in J} N_ j$ as directed colimits of finitely presented $R$-modules. Denote $f_{ii'} : M_ i \to M_{i'}$ and $g_{jj'} : N_ j \to N_{j'}$ the transition maps. Then $M_ i \otimes _ R N_ j$ is a finitely presented $R$-module (see Lemma 10.11.14), and $M \otimes _ R N = \mathop{\mathrm{colim}}\nolimits _{(i, j) \in I \times J} M_ i \otimes _ R M_ j$. Pick $(i, j) \in I \times J$. By the definition of a Mittag-Leffler module we have Proposition 10.87.6 (3) for both systems. In other words there exist $i' \geq i$ and $j' \geq j$ such that for every choice of $i'' \geq i$ and $j'' \geq j$ there exist maps $a : M_{i''} \to M_{i'}$ and $b : M_{j''} \to M_{j'}$ such that $f_{ii'} = a \circ f_{ii''}$ and $g_{jj'} = b \circ g_{jj''}$. Then it is clear that $a \otimes b : M_{i''} \otimes _ R N_{j''} \to M_{i'} \otimes _ R N_{j'}$ serves the same purpose for the system $(M_ i \otimes _ R N_ j, f_{ii'} \otimes g_{jj'})$. Thus by the characterization Proposition 10.87.6 (3) we conclude that $M \otimes _ R N$ is Mittag-Leffler. $\square$

Lemma 10.87.10. Let $R$ be a ring and $M$ an $R$-module. Then $M$ is Mittag-Leffler if and only if for every finite free $R$-module $F$ and module map $f: F \to M$, there exists a finitely presented $R$-module $Q$ and a module map $g : F \to Q$ such that $g$ and $f$ dominate each other, i.e., $\mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(f \otimes _ R \text{id}_ N) = \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(g \otimes _ R \text{id}_ N)$ for every $R$-module $N$.

Proof. Since the condition is clear weaker than condition (1) of Proposition 10.87.6 we see that a Mittag-Leffler module satisfies the condition. Conversely, suppose that $M$ satisfies the condition and that $f : P \to M$ is an $R$-module map from a finitely presented $R$-module $P$ into $M$. Choose a surjection $F \to P$ where $F$ is a finite free $R$-module. By assumption we can find a map $F \to Q$ where $Q$ is a finitely presented $R$-module such that $F \to Q$ and $F \to M$ dominate each other. In particular, the kernel of $F \to Q$ contains the kernel of $F \to P$, hence we obtain an $R$-module map $g : P \to Q$ such that $F \to Q$ is equal to the composition $F \to P \to Q$. Let $N$ be any $R$-module and consider the commutative diagram

\[ \xymatrix{ F \otimes _ R N \ar[d] \ar[r] & Q \otimes _ R N \\ P \otimes _ R N \ar[ru] \ar[r] & M \otimes _ R N } \]

By assumption the kernels of $F \otimes _ R N \to Q \otimes _ R N$ and $F \otimes _ R N \to M \otimes _ R N$ are equal. Hence, as $F \otimes _ R N \to P \otimes _ R N$ is surjective, also the kernels of $P \otimes _ R N \to Q \otimes _ R N$ and $P \otimes _ R N \to M \otimes _ R N$ are equal. $\square$

Lemma 10.87.11. Let $R \to S$ be a finite and finitely presented ring map. Let $M$ be an $S$-module. If $M$ is a Mittag-Leffler module over $S$ then $M$ is a Mittag-Leffler module over $R$.

Proof. Assume $M$ is a Mittag-Leffler module over $S$. Write $M = \mathop{\mathrm{colim}}\nolimits M_ i$ as a directed colimit of finitely presented $S$-modules $M_ i$. As $M$ is Mittag-Leffler over $S$ there exists for each $i$ an index $j \geq i$ such that for all $k \geq j$ there is a factorization $f_{ij} = h \circ f_{ik}$ (where $h$ depends on $i$, the choice of $j$ and $k$). Note that by Lemma 10.35.23 the modules $M_ i$ are also finitely presented as $R$-modules. Moreover, all the maps $f_{ij}, f_{ik}, h$ are maps of $R$-modules. Thus we see that the system $(M_ i, f_{ij})$ satisfies the same condition when viewed as a system of $R$-modules. Thus $M$ is Mittag-Leffler as an $R$-module. $\square$

Lemma 10.87.12. Let $R$ be a ring. Let $S = R/I$ for some finitely generated ideal $I$. Let $M$ be an $S$-module. Then $M$ is a Mittag-Leffler module over $R$ if and only if $M$ is a Mittag-Leffler module over $S$.

Proof. One implication follows from Lemma 10.87.11. To prove the other, assume $M$ is Mittag-Leffler as an $R$-module. Write $M = \mathop{\mathrm{colim}}\nolimits M_ i$ as a directed colimit of finitely presented $S$-modules. As $I$ is finitely generated, the ring $S$ is finite and finitely presented as an $R$-algebra, hence the modules $M_ i$ are finitely presented as $R$-modules, see Lemma 10.35.23. Next, let $N$ be any $S$-module. Note that for each $i$ we have $\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _ R(M_ i, N) = \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _ S(M_ i, N)$ as $R \to S$ is surjective. Hence the condition that the inverse system $(\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _ R(M_ i, N))_ i$ satisfies Mittag-Leffler, implies that the system $(\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _ S(M_ i, N))_ i$ satisfies Mittag-Leffler. Thus $M$ is Mittag-Leffler over $S$ by definition. $\square$

Remark 10.87.13. Let $R \to S$ be a finite and finitely presented ring map. Let $M$ be an $S$-module which is Mittag-Leffler as an $R$-module. Then it is in general not the case that $M$ is Mittag-Leffler as an $S$-module. For example suppose that $S$ is the ring of dual numbers over $R$, i.e., $S = R \oplus R\epsilon $ with $\epsilon ^2 = 0$. Then an $S$-module consists of an $R$-module $M$ endowed with a square zero $R$-linear endomorphism $\epsilon : M \to M$. Now suppose that $M_0$ is an $R$-module which is not Mittag-Leffler. Choose a presentation $F_1 \xrightarrow {u} F_0 \to M_0 \to 0$ with $F_1$ and $F_0$ free $R$-modules. Set $M = F_1 \oplus F_0$ with

\[ \epsilon = \left( \begin{matrix} 0 & 0 \\ u & 0 \end{matrix} \right) : M \longrightarrow M. \]

Then $M/\epsilon M \cong F_1 \oplus M_0$ is not Mittag-Leffler over $R = S/\epsilon S$, hence not Mittag-Leffler over $S$ (see Lemma 10.87.12). On the other hand, $M/\epsilon M = M \otimes _ S S/\epsilon S$ which would be Mittag-Leffler over $S$ if $M$ was, see Lemma 10.87.9.


Comments (0)


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 0599. Beware of the difference between the letter 'O' and the digit '0'.