The Stacks project

10.11 Characterizing finite and finitely presented modules

Given a module $N$ over a ring $R$, you can characterize whether or not $N$ is a finite module or a finitely presented module in terms of the functor $\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _ R(N, -)$.

Lemma 10.11.1. Let $R$ be a ring. Let $N$ be an $R$-module. The following are equivalent

  1. $N$ is a finite $R$-module,

  2. for any filtered colimit $M = \mathop{\mathrm{colim}}\nolimits M_ i$ of $R$-modules the map $\mathop{\mathrm{colim}}\nolimits \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _ R(N, M_ i) \to \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _ R(N, M)$ is injective.

Proof. Assume (1) and choose generators $x_1, \ldots , x_ m$ for $N$. If $N \to M_ i$ is a module map and the composition $N \to M_ i \to M$ is zero, then because $M = \mathop{\mathrm{colim}}\nolimits _{i' \geq i} M_{i'}$ for each $j \in \{ 1, \ldots , m\} $ we can find a $i' \geq i$ such that $x_ j$ maps to zero in $M_{i'}$. Since there are finitely many $x_ j$ we can find a single $i'$ which works for all of them. Then the composition $N \to M_ i \to M_{i'}$ is zero and we conclude the map is injective, i.e., part (2) holds.

Assume (2). For a finite subset $E \subset N$ denote $N_ E \subset N$ the $R$-submodule generated by the elements of $E$. Then $0 = \mathop{\mathrm{colim}}\nolimits N/N_ E$ is a filtered colimit. Hence we see that $\text{id} : N \to N$ maps into $N_ E$ for some $E$, i.e., $N$ is finitely generated. $\square$

For purposes of reference, we define what it means to have a relation between elements of a module.

Definition 10.11.2. Let $R$ be a ring. Let $M$ be an $R$-module. Let $n \geq 0$ and $x_ i \in M$ for $i = 1, \ldots , n$. A relation between $x_1, \ldots , x_ n$ in $M$ is a sequence of elements $f_1, \ldots , f_ n \in R$ such that $\sum _{i = 1, \ldots , n} f_ i x_ i = 0$.

Lemma 10.11.3. Let $R$ be a ring and let $M$ be an $R$-module. Then $M$ is the colimit of a directed system $(M_ i, \mu _{ij})$ of $R$-modules with all $M_ i$ finitely presented $R$-modules.

Proof. Consider any finite subset $S \subset M$ and any finite collection of relations $E$ among the elements of $S$. So each $s \in S$ corresponds to $x_ s \in M$ and each $e \in E$ consists of a vector of elements $f_{e, s} \in R$ such that $\sum f_{e, s} x_ s = 0$. Let $M_{S, E}$ be the cokernel of the map

\[ R^{\# E} \longrightarrow R^{\# S}, \quad (g_ e)_{e\in E} \longmapsto (\sum g_ e f_{e, s})_{s\in S}. \]

There are canonical maps $M_{S, E} \to M$. If $S \subset S'$ and if the elements of $E$ correspond, via this map, to relations in $E'$, then there is an obvious map $M_{S, E} \to M_{S', E'}$ commuting with the maps to $M$. Let $I$ be the set of pairs $(S, E)$ with ordering by inclusion as above. It is clear that the colimit of this directed system is $M$. $\square$

Lemma 10.11.4. Let $R$ be a ring. Let $N$ be an $R$-module. The following are equivalent

  1. $N$ is a finitely presented $R$-module,

  2. for any filtered colimit $M = \mathop{\mathrm{colim}}\nolimits M_ i$ of $R$-modules the map $\mathop{\mathrm{colim}}\nolimits \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _ R(N, M_ i) \to \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _ R(N, M)$ is bijective.

Proof. Assume (1) and choose an exact sequence $F_{-1} \to F_0 \to N \to 0$ with $F_ i$ finite free. Then we have an exact sequence

\[ 0 \to \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _ R(N, M) \to \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _ R(F_0, M) \to \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _ R(F_{-1}, M) \]

functorial in the $R$-module $M$. The functors $\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _ R(F_ i, M)$ commute with filtered colimits as $\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _ R(R^{\oplus n}, M) = M^{\oplus n}$. Since filtered colimits are exact (Lemma 10.8.8) we see that (2) holds.

Assume (2). By Lemma 10.11.3 we can write $N = \mathop{\mathrm{colim}}\nolimits N_ i$ as a filtered colimit such that $N_ i$ is of finite presentation for all $i$. Thus $\text{id}_ N$ factors through $N_ i$ for some $i$. This means that $N$ is a direct summand of a finitely presented $R$-module (namely $N_ i$) and hence finitely presented. $\square$

Comments (4)

Comment #6040 by Shurui Liu on

A stupid remark: In the statement of lemma 0G8N and 0G8P, it should be N instead of K.

Comment #7711 by Peter Fleischmann on

Typo: I think in the proof of Lemma 0G8P, part 2, ("Assume (2)..."), M should be replaced by N.

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 0G8M. Beware of the difference between the letter 'O' and the digit '0'.