The Stacks project

Lemma 13.14.13. Assumptions and notation as in Situation 13.14.1. Let $X, Y$ be objects of $\mathcal{D}$. If $X \oplus Y$ computes $RF$, then $X$ and $Y$ compute $RF$. Similarly for $LF$.

Proof. If $X \oplus Y$ computes $RF$, then $RF(X \oplus Y) = F(X) \oplus F(Y)$. In the proof of Lemma 13.14.7 we have seen that the functor $X/S \times Y/S \to (X \oplus Y)/S$, $(s, s') \mapsto s \oplus s'$ is cofinal. Thus by Categories, Lemma 4.22.11 and by characterization (4) of Categories, Lemma 4.22.9 we know that for any object $W$ in $\mathcal{D}'$ the map

\[ \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _{\mathcal{D}'}(F(X \oplus Y), W) \longrightarrow \mathop{\mathrm{colim}}\nolimits _{s : X \to X', s' : Y \to Y'} \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _{\mathcal{D}'}(F(X' \oplus Y'), W) \]

is bijective. Since this arrow is clearly compatible with direct sum decompositions on both sides, we conclude that the map

\[ \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _{\mathcal{D}'}(F(X), W) \longrightarrow \mathop{\mathrm{colim}}\nolimits _{s : X \to X'} \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _{\mathcal{D}'}(F(X'), W) \]

is bijective (minor detail omitted). Thus by Categories, Lemma 4.22.9 we conclude $RF$ is defined at $X$ with value $F(X)$. Similarly for $Y$. $\square$


Comments (2)

Comment #8422 by on

Typo: instead of “ has a section” it should be “has a retraction.” Also, I am having trouble understanding the proof: the first problem I have is with “hence for some object of such that is zero (Lemma 13.4.12).” I do understand why having a retraction implies that it must be isomorphic to an inclusion (this is a property of monomorphisms in pre-triangulated categories), but where does the latter condition on the vanishment of comes from? On the other hand, taking for granted this vanishment condition, I think I understand everything what comes after until “ annihilates ” (this last thing I understand too). But why is it that after “it follows that is essentially constant on with value ”?

Comment #9046 by on

OK, I changed the proof to use the better characterization of essentially constant systems. An alternative would be to add the Karoubian completion of a (pre)additive category and then deduce this lemma from Lemma 13.14.7. Changes are here.

There are also:

  • 4 comment(s) on Section 13.14: Derived functors in general

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Your email address will not be published.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 05T0. Beware of the difference between the letter 'O' and the digit '0'.