The Stacks project

Lemma 13.16.3. Let $F : \mathcal{A} \to \mathcal{B}$ be an additive functor between abelian categories and assume $RF : D^{+}(\mathcal{A}) \to D^{+}(\mathcal{B})$ is everywhere defined.

  1. We have $R^ iF = 0$ for $i < 0$,

  2. $R^0F$ is left exact,

  3. the map $F \to R^0F$ is an isomorphism if and only if $F$ is left exact.

Proof. Let $A$ be an object of $\mathcal{A}$. By Lemma 13.16.1 we have $H^ i(RF(A[0]) = 0$ for $i < 0$. This proves (1).

Let $0 \to A \to B \to C \to 0$ be a short exact sequence of $\mathcal{A}$. By Lemma 13.12.1 we obtain a distinguished triangle $(A[0], B[0], C[0], a, b, c)$ in $D^{+}(\mathcal{A})$. From the long exact cohomology sequence (and the vanishing for $i < 0$ proved above) we deduce that $0 \to R^0F(A) \to R^0F(B) \to R^0F(C)$ is exact. Hence $R^0F$ is left exact. Of course this also proves that if $F \to R^0F$ is an isomorphism, then $F$ is left exact.

Assume $F$ is left exact. Recall that $RF(A[0])$ is the value of the essentially constant system $F(K^\bullet )$ for $s : A[0] \to K^\bullet $ quasi-isomorphisms. It follows that $R^0F(A)$ is the value of the essentially constant system $H^0(F(K^\bullet ))$ for $s : A[0] \to K^\bullet $ quasi-isomorphisms, see Categories, Lemma 4.22.8. But if $s : A[0] \to K^\bullet $ is a quasi-isomorphism, then $A[0] \to \tau _{\geq 0}K^\bullet $ is a quasi-isomorphism. Hence in the category $A[0]/\text{Qis}^{+}(\mathcal{A})$ the quasi-isomorphisms $s : A[0] \to K^\bullet $ with $K^ n = 0$ for $n < 0$ are cofinal. It follows from Categories, Lemma 4.22.11 that we may restrict to such $s$. Moreover, for such an $s$ the sequence

\[ 0 \to A \to K^0 \to K^1 \]

is exact. Since $F$ is left exact we see that $0 \to F(A) \to F(K^0) \to F(K^1)$ is exact as well. It follows that $F(A) \to H^0(F(K^\bullet ))$ is an isomorphism and the system is actually constant with value $F(A)$. We conclude $R^0F = F$ as desired. $\square$

Comments (4)

Comment #7814 by Anonymous on

In the second sentence of the second paragraph of the proof, I think it should read "... we obtain a distinguished triangle ... in " instead of "... we obtain a distinguished triangle ... in ".

Comment #8400 by on

I don't know if it is worth to add any of this to the already existing proof, but in case it helps anyone (and maybe even my future self), here are additonal details to conclude that is an isomorphism provided that is left-exact: by what is already written (and maybe 17.5), there is a quasi-isomorphism , with for and a map satisfying Categories, Definition 4.22.1, (1). In particular, the composite is the identity and there are and in , with for , such that, inside , the map equals the composite . We claim that the image under of each of the maps in the last composite is an isomorphism (the first one gives ). Note that by what is already written in the proof, the images under of and are isos. This implies that the image under of must be an epimorphism. But it is also a split monomorphism; hence, it is an iso, and we win.

Comment #9012 by on

Thanks! I fixed it in a slightly different way because it suffered from the same pitfall as the previous lemma. See changes.

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 05TD. Beware of the difference between the letter 'O' and the digit '0'.