Proof.
The first statement is immediate from the definition.
Let \varphi : N \to M satisfy the assumptions of (2). First, \mathop{\mathrm{Im}}(\varphi ) is finite, hence coherent by (1). In particular \mathop{\mathrm{Im}}(\varphi ) is finitely presented, so applying Lemma 10.5.3 to the exact sequence 0 \to \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(\varphi ) \to N \to \mathop{\mathrm{Im}}(\varphi ) \to 0 we see that \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(\varphi ) is finite. To prove that \mathop{\mathrm{Coker}}(\varphi ) is coherent, let E \subset \mathop{\mathrm{Coker}}(\varphi ) be a finite submodule, and let E' be its inverse image in M. From the exact sequence 0 \to \mathop{\mathrm{Im}}(\varphi ) \to E' \to E \to 0 and since \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(\varphi ) is finite we conclude by Lemma 10.5.3 that E' \subset M is finite, hence finitely presented because M is coherent. The same exact sequence then shows that E is finitely presented, whence our claim.
Part (3) follows immediately from (1) and (2).
Let 0 \to M_1 \xrightarrow {i} M_2 \xrightarrow {p} M_3 \to 0 be a short exact sequence of R-modules as in (4). It remains to prove that if M_1 and M_3 are coherent so is M_2. By Lemma 10.5.3 we see that M_2 is finite. Let N_2 \subset M_2 be a finite submodule. Put N_3 = p(N_2) \subset M_3 and N_1 = i^{-1}(N_2) \subset M_1. We have an exact sequence 0 \to N_1 \to N_2 \to N_3 \to 0. Clearly N_3 is finite (as a quotient of N_2), hence finitely presented (as a finite submodule of M_3). It follows by Lemma 10.5.3 (5) that N_1 is finite, hence finitely presented (as a finite submodule of M_1). We conclude by Lemma 10.5.3 (2) that M_2 is finitely presented.
\square
Comments (3)
Comment #8089 by Steven Sam on
Comment #8206 by Stacks Project on
Comment #9935 by ZL on
There are also: