Lemma 10.77.2. Let $R$ be a ring. Let $P$ be an $R$-module. The following are equivalent
$P$ is projective,
$P$ is a direct summand of a free $R$-module, and
$\mathop{\mathrm{Ext}}\nolimits ^1_ R(P, M) = 0$ for every $R$-module $M$.
Lemma 10.77.2. Let $R$ be a ring. Let $P$ be an $R$-module. The following are equivalent
$P$ is projective,
$P$ is a direct summand of a free $R$-module, and
$\mathop{\mathrm{Ext}}\nolimits ^1_ R(P, M) = 0$ for every $R$-module $M$.
Proof. Assume $P$ is projective. Choose a surjection $\pi : F \to P$ where $F$ is a free $R$-module. As $P$ is projective there exists a $i \in \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _ R(P, F)$ such that $\pi \circ i = \text{id}_ P$. In other words $F \cong \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(\pi ) \oplus i(P)$ and we see that $P$ is a direct summand of $F$.
Conversely, assume that $P \oplus Q = F$ is a free $R$-module. Note that the free module $F = \bigoplus _{i \in I} R$ is projective as $\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _ R(F, M) = \prod _{i \in I} M$ and the functor $M \mapsto \prod _{i \in I} M$ is exact. Then $\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _ R(F, -) = \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _ R(P, -) \times \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _ R(Q, -)$ as functors, hence both $P$ and $Q$ are projective.
Assume $P \oplus Q = F$ is a free $R$-module. Then we have a free resolution $F_\bullet $ of the form
where the maps $a, b$ alternate and are equal to the projector onto $P$ and $Q$. Hence the complex $\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _ R(F_\bullet , M)$ is split exact in degrees $\geq 1$, whence we see the vanishing in (3).
Assume $\mathop{\mathrm{Ext}}\nolimits ^1_ R(P, M) = 0$ for every $R$-module $M$. Pick a free resolution $F_\bullet \to P$. Set $M = \mathop{\mathrm{Im}}(F_1 \to F_0) = \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(F_0 \to P)$. Consider the element $\xi \in \mathop{\mathrm{Ext}}\nolimits ^1_ R(P, M)$ given by the class of the quotient map $\pi : F_1 \to M$. Since $\xi $ is zero there exists a map $s : F_0 \to M$ such that $\pi = s \circ (F_1 \to F_0)$. Clearly, this means that
and we win. $\square$
Comments (2)
Comment #5038 by Robin Truax on
Comment #5266 by Johan on
There are also: