Processing math: 100%

The Stacks project

15.65 Pseudo-coherent modules, I

Suppose that R is a ring. Recall that an R-module M is of finite type if there exists a surjection R^{\oplus a} \to M and of finite presentation if there exists a presentation R^{\oplus a_1} \to R^{\oplus a_0} \to M \to 0. Similarly, we can consider those R-modules for which there exists a length n resolution

15.65.0.1
\begin{equation} \label{more-algebra-equation-pseudo-coherent} R^{\oplus a_ n} \to R^{\oplus a_{n - 1}} \to \ldots \to R^{\oplus a_0} \to M \to 0 \end{equation}

by finite free R-modules. A module is called pseudo-coherent if we can find such a resolution for every n. Here is the formal definition.

Definition 15.65.1. Let R be a ring. Denote D(R) its derived category. Let m \in \mathbf{Z}.

  1. An object K^\bullet of D(R) is m-pseudo-coherent if there exists a bounded complex E^\bullet of finite free R-modules and a morphism \alpha : E^\bullet \to K^\bullet such that H^ i(\alpha ) is an isomorphism for i > m and H^ m(\alpha ) is surjective.

  2. An object K^\bullet of D(R) is pseudo-coherent if it is quasi-isomorphic to a bounded above complex of finite free R-modules.

  3. An R-module M is called m-pseudo-coherent if M[0] is an m-pseudo-coherent object of D(R).

  4. An R-module M is called pseudo-coherent1 if M[0] is a pseudo-coherent object of D(R).

As usual we apply this terminology also to complexes of R-modules. Since any morphism E^\bullet \to K^\bullet in D(R) is represented by an actual map of complexes, see Derived Categories, Lemma 13.19.8, there is no ambiguity. It turns out that K^\bullet is pseudo-coherent if and only if K^\bullet is m-pseudo-coherent for all m \in \mathbf{Z}, see Lemma 15.65.5. Also, if the ring is Noetherian the condition can be understood as a finite generation condition on the cohomology, see Lemma 15.65.17. Let us first relate this to the informal discussion above.

Lemma 15.65.2. Let R be a ring and m \in \mathbf{Z}. Let (K^\bullet , L^\bullet , M^\bullet , f, g, h) be a distinguished triangle in D(R).

  1. If K^\bullet is (m + 1)-pseudo-coherent and L^\bullet is m-pseudo-coherent then M^\bullet is m-pseudo-coherent.

  2. If K^\bullet , M^\bullet are m-pseudo-coherent, then L^\bullet is m-pseudo-coherent.

  3. If L^\bullet is (m + 1)-pseudo-coherent and M^\bullet is m-pseudo-coherent, then K^\bullet is (m + 1)-pseudo-coherent.

Proof. Proof of (1). Choose \alpha : P^\bullet \to K^\bullet with P^\bullet a bounded complex of finite free modules such that H^ i(\alpha ) is an isomorphism for i > m + 1 and surjective for i = m + 1. We may replace P^\bullet by \sigma _{\geq m + 1}P^\bullet and hence we may assume that P^ i = 0 for i < m + 1. Choose \beta : E^\bullet \to L^\bullet with E^\bullet a bounded complex of finite free modules such that H^ i(\beta ) is an isomorphism for i > m and surjective for i = m. By Derived Categories, Lemma 13.19.11 we can find a map \gamma : P^\bullet \to E^\bullet such that the diagram

\xymatrix{ K^\bullet \ar[r] & L^\bullet \\ P^\bullet \ar[u] \ar[r]^\gamma & E^\bullet \ar[u]_\beta }

is commutative in D(R). The cone C(\gamma )^\bullet is a bounded complex of finite free R-modules, and the commutativity of the diagram implies that there exists a morphism of distinguished triangles

(P^\bullet , E^\bullet , C(\gamma )^\bullet ) \longrightarrow (K^\bullet , L^\bullet , M^\bullet ).

It follows from the induced map on long exact cohomology sequences and Homology, Lemmas 12.5.19 and 12.5.20 that C(\gamma )^\bullet \to M^\bullet induces an isomorphism on cohomology in degrees > m and a surjection in degree m. Hence M^\bullet is m-pseudo-coherent.

Assertions (2) and (3) follow from (1) by rotating the distinguished triangle. \square

Lemma 15.65.3. Let R be a ring. Let K^\bullet be a complex of R-modules. Let m \in \mathbf{Z}.

  1. If K^\bullet is m-pseudo-coherent and H^ i(K^\bullet ) = 0 for i > m, then H^ m(K^\bullet ) is a finite type R-module.

  2. If K^\bullet is m-pseudo-coherent and H^ i(K^\bullet ) = 0 for i > m + 1, then H^{m + 1}(K^\bullet ) is a finitely presented R-module.

Proof. Proof of (1). Choose a bounded complex E^\bullet of finite projective R-modules and a map \alpha : E^\bullet \to K^\bullet which induces an isomorphism on cohomology in degrees > m and a surjection in degree m. It is clear that it suffices to prove the result for E^\bullet . Let n be the largest integer such that E^ n \not= 0. If n = m, then the result is clear. If n > m, then E^{n - 1} \to E^ n is surjective as H^ n(E^\bullet ) = 0. As E^ n is finite projective we see that E^{n - 1} = E' \oplus E^ n. Hence it suffices to prove the result for the complex (E')^\bullet which is the same as E^\bullet except has E' in degree n - 1 and 0 in degree n. We win by induction on n.

Proof of (2). Choose a bounded complex E^\bullet of finite projective R-modules and a map \alpha : E^\bullet \to K^\bullet which induces an isomorphism on cohomology in degrees > m and a surjection in degree m. As in the proof of (1) we can reduce to the case that E^ i = 0 for i > m + 1. Then we see that H^{m + 1}(K^\bullet ) \cong H^{m + 1}(E^\bullet ) = \mathop{\mathrm{Coker}}(E^ m \to E^{m + 1}) which is of finite presentation. \square

Lemma 15.65.4. Let R be a ring. Let M be an R-module. Then

  1. M is 0-pseudo-coherent if and only if M is a finite R-module,

  2. M is (-1)-pseudo-coherent if and only if M is a finitely presented R-module,

  3. M is (-d)-pseudo-coherent if and only if there exists a resolution

    R^{\oplus a_ d} \to R^{\oplus a_{d - 1}} \to \ldots \to R^{\oplus a_0} \to M \to 0

    of length d, and

  4. M is pseudo-coherent if and only if there exists an infinite resolution

    \ldots \to R^{\oplus a_1} \to R^{\oplus a_0} \to M \to 0

    by finite free R-modules.

Proof. If M is of finite type (resp. of finite presentation), then M is 0-pseudo-coherent (resp. (-1)-pseudo-coherent) as follows from the discussion preceding Definition 15.65.1. Conversely, if M is 0-pseudo-coherent, then M = H^0(M[0]) is of finite type by Lemma 15.65.3. If M is (-1)-pseudo-coherent, then it is 0-pseudo-coherent hence of finite type. Choose a surjection R^{\oplus a} \to M and denote K = \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(R^{\oplus a} \to M). By Lemma 15.65.2 we see that K is 0-pseudo-coherent, hence of finite type, whence M is of finite presentation.

To prove the third and fourth statement use induction and an argument similar to the above (details omitted). \square

Lemma 15.65.5. Let R be a ring. Let K^\bullet be a complex of R-modules. The following are equivalent

  1. K^\bullet is pseudo-coherent,

  2. K^\bullet is m-pseudo-coherent for every m \in \mathbf{Z}, and

  3. K^\bullet is quasi-isomorphic to a bounded above complex of finite projective R-modules.

If (1), (2), and (3) hold and H^ i(K^\bullet ) = 0 for i > b, then we can find a quasi-isomorphism F^\bullet \to K^\bullet with F^ i finite free R-modules and F^ i = 0 for i > b.

Proof. We see that (1) \Rightarrow (3) as a finite free module is a finite projective R-module. Conversely, suppose P^\bullet is a bounded above complex of finite projective R-modules. Say P^ i = 0 for i > n_0. We choose a direct sum decompositions F^{n_0} = P^{n_0} \oplus C^{n_0} with F^{n_0} a finite free R-module, and inductively

F^{n - 1} = P^{n - 1} \oplus C^ n \oplus C^{n - 1}

for n \leq n_0 with F^{n_0} a finite free R-module. As a complex F^\bullet has maps F^{n - 1} \to F^ n which agree with P^{n - 1} \to P^ n, induce the identity C^ n \to C^ n, and are zero on C^{n - 1}. The map F^\bullet \to P^\bullet is a quasi-isomorphism (even a homotopy equivalence) and hence (3) implies (1).

Assume (1). Let E^\bullet be a bounded above complex of finite free R-modules and let E^\bullet \to K^\bullet be a quasi-isomorphism. Then the induced maps \sigma _{\geq m}E^\bullet \to K^\bullet from the stupid truncation of E^\bullet to K^\bullet show that K^\bullet is m-pseudo-coherent. Hence (1) implies (2).

Assume (2). Since K^\bullet is 0-pseudo-coherent we see in particular that K^\bullet is bounded above. Let b be an integer such that H^ i(K^\bullet ) = 0 for i > b. By descending induction on n \in \mathbf{Z} we are going to construct finite free R-modules F^ i for i \geq n, differentials d^ i : F^ i \to F^{i + 1} for i \geq n, maps \alpha : F^ i \to K^ i compatible with differentials, such that (1) H^ i(\alpha ) is an isomorphism for i > n and surjective for i = n, and (2) F^ i = 0 for i > b. Picture

\xymatrix{ & F^ n \ar[r] \ar[d]^\alpha & F^{n + 1} \ar[d]^\alpha \ar[r] & \ldots \\ K^{n - 1} \ar[r] & K^ n \ar[r] & K^{n + 1} \ar[r] & \ldots }

The base case is n = b + 1 where we can take F^ i = 0 for all i. Induction step. Let C^\bullet be the cone on \alpha (Derived Categories, Definition 13.9.1). The long exact sequence of cohomology

0 \to H^{n - 1}(K^\bullet ) \to H^{n - 1}(C^\bullet ) \to H^ n(F^\bullet ) \to H^ n(K^\bullet ) \to H^ n(C^\bullet ) \to \ldots

shows that H^ i(C^\bullet ) = 0 for i \geq n. By Lemma 15.65.2 we see that C^\bullet is (n - 1)-pseudo-coherent. By Lemma 15.65.3 we see that H^{n - 1}(C^\bullet ) is a finite R-module. In particular, we see that the kernel of H^ n(F^\bullet ) \to H^ n(K^\bullet ) is a finite R-module. Choose a finite free R-module F^{n - 1} and a map F^{n - 1} \to \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(F^ n \to F^{n - 1}) such that F^{n - 1} surjects onto the kernel of H^ n(F^\bullet ) \to H^ n(K^\bullet ). We extend our of complexes to

\xymatrix{ & F^{n - 1} \ar[d]^{\alpha ^{n - 1}} \ar[r] & F^ n \ar[r] \ar[d]^\alpha & F^{n + 1} \ar[d]^\alpha \ar[r] & \ldots \\ \ldots \ar[r] & K^{n - 1} \ar[r] & K^ n \ar[r] & K^{n + 1} \ar[r] & \ldots }

Note that \alpha ^{n - 1} exists because the image of F^{n - 1} \to F^ n \to K^ n is in the image of K^{n - 1} \to K^ n by construction. Dnote again C^\bullet the cone of this extended map of complexes. At this point we see that we get an exact sequence

H^{n - 1}(F^\bullet ) \to H^{n - 1}(K^\bullet ) \to H^{n - 1}(C^\bullet ) \to H^ n(F^\bullet ) \cong H^ n(K^\bullet ) \to H^ n(C^\bullet ) \to \ldots

In other words, we see that the cokernel of H^{n - 1}(F^\bullet ) \to H^{n - 1}(K^\bullet ) is a finite R-module, say generated by the classes of \xi _1, \ldots , \xi _ r \in \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(K^{n - 1} \to K^ n). Then we replace F^{n - 1} by F^{n - 1} \oplus R^{\oplus r} where the basis elements in the free summand map to zero in F^ n and the to \xi _ i in K^{n - 1}. This finishes the proof of the induction step. \square

Lemma 15.65.6. Let R be a ring. Let (K^\bullet , L^\bullet , M^\bullet , f, g, h) be a distinguished triangle in D(R). If two out of three of K^\bullet , L^\bullet , M^\bullet are pseudo-coherent then the third is also pseudo-coherent.

Lemma 15.65.7. Let R be a ring. Let K^\bullet be a complex of R-modules. Let m \in \mathbf{Z}.

  1. If H^ i(K^\bullet ) = 0 for all i \geq m, then K^\bullet is m-pseudo-coherent.

  2. If H^ i(K^\bullet ) = 0 for i > m and H^ m(K^\bullet ) is a finite R-module, then K^\bullet is m-pseudo-coherent.

  3. If H^ i(K^\bullet ) = 0 for i > m + 1, the module H^{m + 1}(K^\bullet ) is of finite presentation, and H^ m(K^\bullet ) is of finite type, then K^\bullet is m-pseudo-coherent.

Proof. It suffices to prove (3). Set M = H^{m + 1}(K^\bullet ). Note that \tau _{\geq m + 1}K^\bullet is quasi-isomorphic to M[- m - 1]. By Lemma 15.65.4 we see that M[- m - 1] is m-pseudo-coherent. Since we have the distinguished triangle

(\tau _{\leq m}K^\bullet , K^\bullet , \tau _{\geq m + 1}K^\bullet )

(Derived Categories, Remark 13.12.4) by Lemma 15.65.2 it suffices to prove that \tau _{\leq m}K^\bullet is pseudo-coherent. By assumption H^ m(\tau _{\leq m}K^\bullet ) is a finite type R-module. Hence we can find a finite free R-module E and a map E \to \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(d_ K^ m) such that the composition E \to \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(d_ K^ m) \to H^ m(\tau _{\leq m}K^\bullet ) is surjective. Then E[-m] \to \tau _{\leq m}K^\bullet witnesses the fact that \tau _{\leq m}K^\bullet is m-pseudo-coherent. \square

Lemma 15.65.8. Let R be a ring. Let m \in \mathbf{Z}. If K^\bullet \oplus L^\bullet is m-pseudo-coherent (resp. pseudo-coherent) so are K^\bullet and L^\bullet .

Proof. In this proof we drop the superscript {}^\bullet . Assume that K \oplus L is m-pseudo-coherent. It is clear that K, L \in D^{-}(R). Note that there is a distinguished triangle

(K \oplus L, K \oplus L, L \oplus L[1]) = (K, K, 0) \oplus (L, L, L \oplus L[1])

see Derived Categories, Lemma 13.4.10. By Lemma 15.65.2 we see that L \oplus L[1] is m-pseudo-coherent. Hence also L[1] \oplus L[2] is m-pseudo-coherent. By induction L[n] \oplus L[n + 1] is m-pseudo-coherent. By Lemma 15.65.7 we see that L[n] is m-pseudo-coherent for large n. Hence working backwards, using the distinguished triangles

(L[n], L[n] \oplus L[n - 1], L[n - 1])

we conclude that L[n], L[n - 1], \ldots , L are m-pseudo-coherent as desired. The pseudo-coherent case follows from this and Lemma 15.65.5. \square

Lemma 15.65.9. Let R be a ring. Let m \in \mathbf{Z}. Let K^\bullet be a bounded above complex of R-modules such that K^ i is (m - i)-pseudo-coherent for all i. Then K^\bullet is m-pseudo-coherent. In particular, if K^\bullet is a bounded above complex of pseudo-coherent R-modules, then K^\bullet is pseudo-coherent.

Proof. We may replace K^\bullet by \sigma _{\geq m - 1}K^\bullet (for example) and hence assume that K^\bullet is bounded. Then the complex K^\bullet is m-pseudo-coherent as each K^ i[-i] is m-pseudo-coherent by induction on the length of the complex: use Lemma 15.65.2 and the stupid truncations. For the final statement, it suffices to prove that K^\bullet is m-pseudo-coherent for all m \in \mathbf{Z}, see Lemma 15.65.5. This follows from the first part. \square

Lemma 15.65.10. Let R be a ring. Let m \in \mathbf{Z}. Let K^\bullet \in D^{-}(R) such that H^ i(K^\bullet ) is (m - i)-pseudo-coherent (resp. pseudo-coherent) for all i. Then K^\bullet is m-pseudo-coherent (resp. pseudo-coherent).

Proof. Assume K^\bullet is an object of D^{-}(R) such that each H^ i(K^\bullet ) is (m - i)-pseudo-coherent. Let n be the largest integer such that H^ n(K^\bullet ) is nonzero. We will prove the lemma by induction on n. If n < m, then K^\bullet is m-pseudo-coherent by Lemma 15.65.7. If n \geq m, then we have the distinguished triangle

(\tau _{\leq n - 1}K^\bullet , K^\bullet , H^ n(K^\bullet )[-n])

(Derived Categories, Remark 13.12.4) Since H^ n(K^\bullet )[-n] is m-pseudo-coherent by assumption, we can use Lemma 15.65.2 to see that it suffices to prove that \tau _{\leq n - 1}K^\bullet is m-pseudo-coherent. By induction on n we win. (The pseudo-coherent case follows from this and Lemma 15.65.5.) \square

Lemma 15.65.11. Let A \to B be a ring map. Assume that B is pseudo-coherent as an A-module. Let K^\bullet be a complex of B-modules. The following are equivalent

  1. K^\bullet is m-pseudo-coherent as a complex of B-modules, and

  2. K^\bullet is m-pseudo-coherent as a complex of A-modules.

The same equivalence holds for pseudo-coherence.

Proof. Assume (1). Choose a bounded complex of finite free B-modules E^\bullet and a map \alpha : E^\bullet \to K^\bullet which is an isomorphism on cohomology in degrees > m and a surjection in degree m. Consider the distinguished triangle (E^\bullet , K^\bullet , C(\alpha )^\bullet ). By Lemma 15.65.7 C(\alpha )^\bullet is m-pseudo-coherent as a complex of A-modules. Hence it suffices to prove that E^\bullet is pseudo-coherent as a complex of A-modules, which follows from Lemma 15.65.9. The pseudo-coherent case of (1) \Rightarrow (2) follows from this and Lemma 15.65.5.

Assume (2). Let n be the largest integer such that H^ n(K^\bullet ) \not= 0. We will prove that K^\bullet is m-pseudo-coherent as a complex of B-modules by induction on n - m. The case n < m follows from Lemma 15.65.7. Choose a bounded complex of finite free A-modules E^\bullet and a map \alpha : E^\bullet \to K^\bullet which is an isomorphism on cohomology in degrees > m and a surjection in degree m. Consider the induced map of complexes

\alpha \otimes 1 : E^\bullet \otimes _ A B \to K^\bullet .

Note that C(\alpha \otimes 1)^\bullet is acyclic in degrees \geq n as H^ n(E) \to H^ n(E^\bullet \otimes _ A B) \to H^ n(K^\bullet ) is surjective by construction and since H^ i(E^\bullet \otimes _ A B) = 0 for i > n by the spectral sequence of Example 15.62.4. On the other hand, C(\alpha \otimes 1)^\bullet is m-pseudo-coherent as a complex of A-modules because both K^\bullet and E^\bullet \otimes _ A B (see Lemma 15.65.9) are so, see Lemma 15.65.2. Hence by induction we see that C(\alpha \otimes 1)^\bullet is m-pseudo-coherent as a complex of B-modules. Finally another application of Lemma 15.65.2 shows that K^\bullet is m-pseudo-coherent as a complex of B-modules (as clearly E^\bullet \otimes _ A B is pseudo-coherent as a complex of B-modules). The pseudo-coherent case of (2) \Rightarrow (1) follows from this and Lemma 15.65.5. \square

Lemma 15.65.12. Let A \to B be a ring map. Let K^\bullet be an m-pseudo-coherent (resp. pseudo-coherent) complex of A-modules. Then K^\bullet \otimes _ A^{\mathbf{L}} B is an m-pseudo-coherent (resp. pseudo-coherent) complex of B-modules.

Proof. First we note that the statement of the lemma makes sense as K^\bullet is bounded above and hence K^\bullet \otimes _ A^{\mathbf{L}} B is defined by Equation (15.57.0.2). Having said this, choose a bounded complex E^\bullet of finite free A-modules and \alpha : E^\bullet \to K^\bullet with H^ i(\alpha ) an isomorphism for i > m and surjective for i = m. Then the cone C(\alpha )^\bullet is acyclic in degrees \geq m. Since -\otimes _ A^{\mathbf{L}} B is an exact functor we get a distinguished triangle

(E^\bullet \otimes _ A^{\mathbf{L}} B, K^\bullet \otimes _ A^{\mathbf{L}} B, C(\alpha )^\bullet \otimes _ A^{\mathbf{L}} B)

of complexes of B-modules. By the dual to Derived Categories, Lemma 13.16.1 we see that H^ i(C(\alpha )^\bullet \otimes _ A^{\mathbf{L}} B) = 0 for i \geq m. Since E^\bullet is a complex of projective R-modules we see that E^\bullet \otimes _ A^{\mathbf{L}} B = E^\bullet \otimes _ A B and hence

E^\bullet \otimes _ A B \longrightarrow K^\bullet \otimes _ A^{\mathbf{L}} B

is a morphism of complexes of B-modules that witnesses the fact that K^\bullet \otimes _ A^{\mathbf{L}} B is m-pseudo-coherent. The case of pseudo-coherent complexes follows from the case of m-pseudo-coherent complexes via Lemma 15.65.5. \square

Lemma 15.65.13. Let A \to B be a flat ring map. Let M be an m-pseudo-coherent (resp. pseudo-coherent) A-module. Then M \otimes _ A B is an m-pseudo-coherent (resp. pseudo-coherent) B-module.

Proof. Immediate consequence of Lemma 15.65.12 and the fact that M \otimes _ A^{\mathbf{L}} B = M \otimes _ A B because B is flat over A. \square

The following lemma also follows from the stronger Lemma 15.65.15.

Lemma 15.65.14. Let R be a ring. Let f_1, \ldots , f_ r \in R be elements which generate the unit ideal. Let m \in \mathbf{Z}. Let K^\bullet be a complex of R-modules. If for each i the complex K^\bullet \otimes _ R R_{f_ i} is m-pseudo-coherent (resp. pseudo-coherent), then K^\bullet is m-pseudo-coherent (resp. pseudo-coherent).

Proof. We will use without further mention that - \otimes _ R R_{f_ i} is an exact functor and that therefore

H^ i(K^\bullet )_{f_ i} = H^ i(K^\bullet ) \otimes _ R R_{f_ i} = H^ i(K^\bullet \otimes _ R R_{f_ i}).

Assume K^\bullet \otimes _ R R_{f_ i} is m-pseudo-coherent for i = 1, \ldots , r. Let n \in \mathbf{Z} be the largest integer such that H^ n(K^\bullet \otimes _ R R_{f_ i}) is nonzero for some i. This implies in particular that H^ i(K^\bullet ) = 0 for i > n (and that H^ n(K^\bullet ) \not= 0) see Algebra, Lemma 10.23.2. We will prove the lemma by induction on n - m. If n < m, then the lemma is true by Lemma 15.65.7. If n \geq m, then H^ n(K^\bullet )_{f_ i} is a finite R_{f_ i}-module for each i, see Lemma 15.65.3. Hence H^ n(K^\bullet ) is a finite R-module, see Algebra, Lemma 10.23.2. Choose a finite free R-module E and a surjection E \to H^ n(K^\bullet ). As E is projective we can lift this to a map of complexes \alpha : E[-n] \to K^\bullet . Then the cone C(\alpha )^\bullet has vanishing cohomology in degrees \geq n. On the other hand, the complexes C(\alpha )^\bullet \otimes _ R R_{f_ i} are m-pseudo-coherent for each i, see Lemma 15.65.2. Hence by induction we see that C(\alpha )^\bullet is m-pseudo-coherent as a complex of R-modules. Applying Lemma 15.65.2 once more we conclude. \square

Lemma 15.65.15. Let R be a ring. Let m \in \mathbf{Z}. Let K^\bullet be a complex of R-modules. Let R \to R' be a faithfully flat ring map. If the complex K^\bullet \otimes _ R R' is m-pseudo-coherent (resp. pseudo-coherent), then K^\bullet is m-pseudo-coherent (resp. pseudo-coherent).

Proof. We will use without further mention that - \otimes _ R R' is an exact functor and that therefore

H^ i(K^\bullet ) \otimes _ R R' = H^ i(K^\bullet \otimes _ R R').

Assume K^\bullet \otimes _ R R' is m-pseudo-coherent. Let n \in \mathbf{Z} be the largest integer such that H^ n(K^\bullet ) is nonzero; then n is also the largest integer such that H^ n(K^\bullet \otimes _ R R') is nonzero. We will prove the lemma by induction on n - m. If n < m, then the lemma is true by Lemma 15.65.7. If n \geq m, then H^ n(K^\bullet ) \otimes _ R R' is a finite R'-module, see Lemma 15.65.3. Hence H^ n(K^\bullet ) is a finite R-module, see Algebra, Lemma 10.83.2. Choose a finite free R-module E and a surjection E \to H^ n(K^\bullet ). As E is projective we can lift this to a map of complexes \alpha : E[-n] \to K^\bullet . Then the cone C(\alpha )^\bullet has vanishing cohomology in degrees \geq n. On the other hand, the complex C(\alpha )^\bullet \otimes _ R R' is m-pseudo-coherent, see Lemma 15.65.2. Hence by induction we see that C(\alpha )^\bullet is m-pseudo-coherent as a complex of R-modules. Applying Lemma 15.65.2 once more we conclude. \square

Lemma 15.65.16. Let R be a ring. Let K, L be objects of D(R).

  1. If K is n-pseudo-coherent and H^ i(K) = 0 for i > a and L is m-pseudo-coherent and H^ j(L) = 0 for j > b, then K \otimes _ R^\mathbf {L} L is t-pseudo-coherent with t = \max (m + a, n + b).

  2. If K and L are pseudo-coherent, then K \otimes _ R^\mathbf {L} L is pseudo-coherent.

Proof. Proof of (1). We may assume there exist bounded complexes K^\bullet and L^\bullet of finite free R-modules and maps \alpha : K^\bullet \to K and \beta : L^\bullet \to L with H^ i(\alpha ) and isomorphism for i > n and surjective for i = n and with H^ i(\beta ) and isomorphism for i > m and surjective for i = m. Then the map

\alpha \otimes ^\mathbf {L} \beta : \text{Tot}(K^\bullet \otimes _ R L^\bullet ) \to K \otimes _ R^\mathbf {L} L

induces isomorphisms on cohomology in degree i for i > t and a surjection for i = t. This follows from the spectral sequence of tors (details omitted). Part (2) follows from part (1) and Lemma 15.65.5. \square

Lemma 15.65.17. Let R be a Noetherian ring. Then

  1. A complex of R-modules K^\bullet is m-pseudo-coherent if and only if K^\bullet \in D^{-}(R) and H^ i(K^\bullet ) is a finite R-module for i \geq m.

  2. A complex of R-modules K^\bullet is pseudo-coherent if and only if K^\bullet \in D^{-}(R) and H^ i(K^\bullet ) is a finite R-module for all i.

  3. An R-module is pseudo-coherent if and only if it is finite.

Proof. In Algebra, Lemma 10.71.1 we have seen that any finite R-module is pseudo-coherent. On the other hand, a pseudo-coherent module is finite, see Lemma 15.65.4. Hence (3) holds. Suppose that K^\bullet is an m-pseudo-coherent complex. Then there exists a bounded complex of finite free R-modules E^\bullet such that H^ i(K^\bullet ) is isomorphic to H^ i(E^\bullet ) for i > m and such that H^ m(K^\bullet ) is a quotient of H^ m(E^\bullet ). Thus it is clear that each H^ i(K^\bullet ), i \geq m is a finite module. The converse implication in (1) follows from Lemma 15.65.10 and part (3). Part (2) follows from (1) and Lemma 15.65.5. \square

Lemma 15.65.18. Let R be a coherent ring (Algebra, Definition 10.90.1). Let K \in D^-(R). The following are equivalent

  1. K is m-pseudo-coherent,

  2. H^ m(K) is a finite R-module and H^ i(K) is coherent for i > m, and

  3. H^ m(K) is a finite R-module and H^ i(K) is finitely presented for i > m.

Thus K is pseudo-coherent if and only if H^ i(K) is a coherent module for all i.

Proof. Recall that an R-module M is coherent if and only if it is of finite presentation (Algebra, Lemma 10.90.4). This explains the equivalence of (2) and (3). If so and if we choose an exact sequence 0 \to N \to R^{\oplus m} \to M \to 0, then N is coherent by Algebra, Lemma 10.90.3. Thus in this case, repeating this procedure with N we find a resolution

\ldots \to R^{\oplus n} \to R^{\oplus m} \to M \to 0

by finite free R-modules. In other words, M is pseudo-coherent. The equivalence of (1) and (2) follows from this and Lemmas 15.65.10 and 15.65.4. The final assertion follows from the equivalence of (1) and (2) combined with Lemma 15.65.5. \square

[1] This clashes with what is meant by a pseudo-coherent module in [Bourbaki-CA].

Comments (12)

Comment #4661 by Hailong Dao on

Can you give a bit more details on the last sentence "Similarly,..." of Remark 087Q? I tried to take to be a syzygy of to prove the case , but then get stuck as we only know that surjects onto .

Comment #4662 by on

If is -pseudo-coherent then we have a resolution with finite free for (I may be off by here). Then we get a map of complexes as depicted in Remark 15.66.3, like so . Since is finite free in those degrees it is an isomorphism in those degrees. Since is flat we see that we get what was stated in the remark. OK?

Comment #4663 by Hailong Dao on

I think I see it now. The map of complexes is always injective, thus we can use Lemma 0111. Thanks.

Comment #7017 by Flavius on

It is not clear to me from Section 15.63 if you assume implicitly that the ring is commutative or not. In particular, do the definitions in 15.63.1 hold true for a general (noncommutative) ring or do you require that it is commutative? Thank you in advance for the clarification.

Comment #7018 by Flavius on

Suddenly, the numeration on the Stacks Project changed. Now Section 15.63 reads 064N. And Definition 15.63.1 changed to 064Q. The above questions stays the same. I apologise for the inconvenience.

Comment #7019 by on

@#7017. For our conventions on rings, see Section 2.4.

Comment #7919 by Peng Du on

One line below (15.64.0.1), "A module is called pseudo-coherent of we can find such a resolution..." "of" should be "if".

Comment #9541 by Joseph Lipman on

Re 0642(2) (and 80 or so other places): For complexes A and B, does "A quasi-isomorphic to B" mean (1) there exists a quasi-isomorphism A --> B or does it mean (2) there exists a quasi-isomorphism B --> A or does it mean (3) something else ?

Comment #9545 by Joseph Lipman on

Re comment #9542: "quasi-isomorphic to" <--> "isomorphic in the derived category". Is this stated anywhere? (If not, should be.)


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.