In this section we explain a version of Brown representability for triangulated categories which have a suitable set of generators; for other versions, please see [Franke], [Neeman], and [Krause].
Proof.
This proof is very similar to the proof of Lemma 13.38.1. We may replace \mathcal{E} by \bigcup _{i \in \mathbf{Z}} \mathcal{E}[i] and assume that \mathcal{E} is preserved by shifts. Consider pairs (E, a) where E \in \mathcal{E} and a \in H(E) and set
X_1 = \bigoplus \nolimits _{(E, a)} E
Since H(X_1) = \prod _{(E, a)} H(E) we see that (a)_{(E, a)} defines an element a_1 \in H(X_1). Set H_1 = \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _\mathcal {D}(- , X_1). By Yoneda's lemma (Categories, Lemma 4.3.5) the element a_1 defines a natural transformation H_1 \to H.
We are going to inductively construct X_ n and transformations a_ n : H_ n \to H where H_ n = \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _\mathcal {D}(-, X_ n). Namely, we apply the procedure above to the functor \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(H_ n \to H) to get an object
K_{n + 1} = \bigoplus \nolimits _{(E, k),\ k \in \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(H_ n(E) \to H(E))} E
and a transformation \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _\mathcal {D}(-, K_{n + 1}) \to \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(H_ n \to H). By Yoneda's lemma the composition \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _\mathcal {D}(-, K_{n + 1}) \to H_ n gives a morphism K_{n + 1} \to X_ n. We choose a distinguished triangle
K_{n + 1} \to X_ n \to X_{n + 1} \to K_{n + 1}[1]
in \mathcal{D}. The element a_ n \in H(X_ n) maps to zero in H(K_{n + 1}) by construction. Since H is cohomological we can lift it to an element a_{n + 1} \in H(X_{n + 1}).
Set X = \text{hocolim} X_ n. Applying H to the defining distinguished triangle
\bigoplus X_ n \to \bigoplus X_ n \to X \to \bigoplus X_ n[1]
we obtain an exact sequence
\prod H(X_ n) \leftarrow \prod H(X_ n) \leftarrow H(X)
Thus there exists an element a \in H(X) mapping to (a_ n) in \prod H(X_ n). Hence a natural transformation \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _\mathcal {D}(- , X) \to H such that
\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _\mathcal {D}(-, X_1) \to \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _\mathcal {D}(-, X_2) \to \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _\mathcal {D}(-, X_3) \to \ldots \to \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _\mathcal {D}(-, X) \to H
commutes. We claim that \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _\mathcal {D}(-, X) \to H(-) is an isomorphism.
Let E \in \mathcal{E}. Let us show that
\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _\mathcal {D}(E, \bigoplus X_ n) \to \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _\mathcal {D}(E, \bigoplus X_ n)
is injective. Namely, let \alpha : E \to \bigoplus X_ n. Then by assumption (2) we obtain a factorization \alpha = (\bigoplus \beta _ n) \circ \gamma . Since E_ n \to X_ n \to X_{n + 1} is zero by construction, we see that the composition \bigoplus E_ n \to \bigoplus X_ n \to \bigoplus X_ n is equal to \bigoplus \beta _ n. Hence also the composition E \to \bigoplus X_ n \to \bigoplus X_ n is equal to \alpha . This proves the stated injectivity and hence also
\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _\mathcal {D}(E, \bigoplus X_ n[1]) \to \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _\mathcal {D}(E, \bigoplus X_ n[1])
is injective. It follows that we have an exact sequence
\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _\mathcal {D}(E, \bigoplus X_ n) \to \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _\mathcal {D}(E, \bigoplus X_ n) \to \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _\mathcal {D}(E, X) \to 0
for all E \in \mathcal{E}.
Let E \in \mathcal{E} and let f : E \to X be a morphism. By the previous paragraph, we may choose \alpha : E \to \bigoplus X_ n lifting f. Then by assumption (2) we obtain a factorization \alpha = (\bigoplus \beta _ n) \circ \gamma . For each n there is a morphism \delta _ n : E_ n \to X_1 such that \delta _ n and \beta _ n map to the same element of H(E_ n). Then the compositions
E_ n \to X_ n \to X_{n + 1} \quad \text{and}\quad E_ n \to X_1 \to X_{n + 1}
are equal by construction of X_ n \to X_{n + 1}. It follows that
\bigoplus E_ n \to \bigoplus X_ n \to X \quad \text{and}\quad \bigoplus E_ n \to \bigoplus X_1 \to X
are the same too. Observing that \bigoplus X_1 \to X factors as \bigoplus X_1 \to X_1 \to X, we conclude that
\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _\mathcal {D}(E, X_1) \to \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _\mathcal {D}(E, X)
is surjective. Since by construction the map \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _\mathcal {D}(E, X_1) \to H(E) is surjective and by construction the kernel of this map is annihilated by \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _\mathcal {D}(E, X_1) \to \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _\mathcal {D}(E, X) we conclude that \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _\mathcal {D}(E, X) \to H(E) is a bijection for all E \in \mathcal{E}.
To finish the proof, consider the subcategory
\mathcal{D}' = \{ Y \in \mathop{\mathrm{Ob}}\nolimits (\mathcal{D}) \mid \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _\mathcal {D}(Y[n], X) \to H(Y[n]) \text{ is an isomorphism for all }n\}
As \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _\mathcal {D}(-, X) \to H is a transformation between cohomological functors, the subcategory \mathcal{D}' is a strictly full, saturated, triangulated subcategory of \mathcal{D} (details omitted; see proof of Lemma 13.6.3). Moreover, as both H and \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _\mathcal {D}(-, X) transform direct sums into products, we see that direct sums of objects of \mathcal{D}' are in \mathcal{D}'. Thus derived colimits of objects of \mathcal{D}' are in \mathcal{D}'. Since \mathcal{E} is preserved by shifts, we conclude that \mathcal{E} \subset \mathop{\mathrm{Ob}}\nolimits (\mathcal{D}') by the result of the previous paragraph. To finish the proof we have to show that \mathcal{D}' = \mathcal{D}.
Let Y be an object of \mathcal{D} and set H(-) = \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _\mathcal {D}(-, Y). Then H is a cohomological functor which transforms direct sums into products. By the construction in the first part of the proof we obtain a morphism \mathop{\mathrm{colim}}\nolimits X_ n = X \to Y such that \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _\mathcal {D}(E, X) \to \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _\mathcal {D}(E, Y) is bijective for all E \in \mathcal{E}. Then assumption (1) tells us that X \to Y is an isomorphism! On the other hand, by construction X_1, X_2, \ldots are in \mathcal{D}' and so is X. Thus Y \in \mathcal{D}' and the proof is complete.
\square
Comments (0)