MathLabs
TheoremProved

Comparison theorem for projective resolutions

Statement

Let MM be an RR-module with two projective resolutions ⋯→P1→P0→M→0\cdots \to P_1 \to P_0 \to M \to 0 and ⋯→Q1→Q0→M→0\cdots \to Q_1 \to Q_0 \to M \to 0. Then there exist chain maps f∙:P∙→Q∙f_\bullet: P_\bullet \to Q_\bullet and g∙:Q∙→P∙g_\bullet: Q_\bullet \to P_\bullet lifting the identity of MM, and any two such lifts are chain homotopic; in particular P∙P_\bullet and Q∙Q_\bullet are chain homotopy equivalent, so Ext⁡Rn(A,B)\operatorname{Ext}^n_R(A,B) and Tor⁡nR(A,B)\operatorname{Tor}^R_n(A,B) computed from either resolution agree.

Why is it true?

Ext and Tor are defined by picking a projective resolution and applying a functor. This theorem is what makes that definition legitimate: it guarantees the answer never depends on which resolution you happened to pick, so Ext⁡Rn(A,B)\operatorname{Ext}^n_R(A,B) and Tor⁡nR(A,B)\operatorname{Tor}^R_n(A,B) are honest invariants of the pair of modules, not artifacts of a choice.

Proof sketch

Step 1 (lifting the identity, degree by degree). Build fn:Pn→Qnf_n: P_n \to Q_n inductively. For n=0n=0: since P0P_0 is projective and Q0→MQ_0 \to M is surjective, the map P0→MP_0 \to M lifts through Q0→MQ_0 \to M to give f0:P0→Q0f_0: P_0 \to Q_0. Inductively, assuming fn−1f_{n-1} is built with dfn−1=fn−2dd f_{n-1} = f_{n-2} d (or the augmentation map for n=1n=1), the composite Pn→dPn−1→fn−1Qn−1P_n \xrightarrow{d} P_{n-1} \xrightarrow{f_{n-1}} Q_{n-1} lands in ker⁡(Qn−1→Qn−2)=im⁡(Qn→Qn−1)\ker(Q_{n-1}\to Q_{n-2})=\operatorname{im}(Q_n \to Q_{n-1}) by exactness of the QQ-resolution and commutativity so far, and since PnP_n is projective this map lifts through the surjection Qn→im⁡(Qn→Qn−1)Q_n \to \operatorname{im}(Q_n\to Q_{n-1}) to give fn:Pn→Qnf_n: P_n \to Q_n with dfn=fn−1dd f_n = f_{n-1} d.

Step 2 (symmetric construction of g∙g_\bullet). The identical argument with the roles of P∙P_\bullet and Q∙Q_\bullet swapped produces g∙:Q∙→P∙g_\bullet: Q_\bullet \to P_\bullet lifting idM\mathrm{id}_M.

Step 3 (homotopy uniqueness). Suppose f∙,f∙′:P∙→Q∙f_\bullet, f'_\bullet: P_\bullet \to Q_\bullet are two chain maps both lifting idM\mathrm{id}_M; set h∙=f∙−f∙′h_\bullet = f_\bullet - f'_\bullet, a chain map lifting 00. Construct a chain homotopy sn:Pn→Qn+1s_n: P_n \to Q_{n+1} with hn=dsn+sn−1dh_n = d s_n + s_{n-1} d inductively: for n=0n=0, h0:P0→Q0h_0: P_0 \to Q_0 composed with Q0→MQ_0\to M is 00 (since hh lifts 00), so h0h_0 factors through ker⁡(Q0→M)=im⁡(Q1→Q0)\ker(Q_0\to M)=\operatorname{im}(Q_1\to Q_0); projectivity of P0P_0 lifts this factorization to s0:P0→Q1s_0: P_0 \to Q_1 with ds0=h0d s_0 = h_0. Inductively, once sn−1s_{n-1} is built, hn−sn−1d:Pn→Qnh_n - s_{n-1} d: P_n \to Q_n composed with d:Qn→Qn−1d: Q_n \to Q_{n-1} vanishes by the inductive relation, so (by exactness of Q∙Q_\bullet) it factors through im⁡(Qn+1→Qn)\operatorname{im}(Q_{n+1}\to Q_n), and projectivity of PnP_n lifts this to sns_n with dsn=hn−sn−1dd s_n = h_n - s_{n-1}d, i.e. hn=dsn+sn−1dh_n = d s_n + s_{n-1}d as required.

Step 4 (conclusion). Step 3 shows any two lifts of idM\mathrm{id}_M are chain homotopic, in particular g∙f∙g_\bullet f_\bullet and idP∙\mathrm{id}_{P_\bullet} are both lifts of idM∘idM=idM\mathrm{id}_M \circ \mathrm{id}_M = \mathrm{id}_M (via P∙→Q∙→P∙P_\bullet \to Q_\bullet \to P_\bullet), hence f∙≃g∙f_\bullet \simeq g_\bullet means g∙f∙≃idP∙g_\bullet f_\bullet \simeq \mathrm{id}_{P_\bullet}, and symmetrically f∙g∙≃idQ∙f_\bullet g_\bullet \simeq \mathrm{id}_{Q_\bullet}. This is exactly the definition of a chain homotopy equivalence, and since Hom⁡R(−,B)\operatorname{Hom}_R(-,B) and −⊗RB-\otimes_R B send chain homotopic maps to chain homotopic maps, the resulting homology groups Ext⁡Rn(A,B)\operatorname{Ext}^n_R(A,B), Tor⁡nR(A,B)\operatorname{Tor}^R_n(A,B) computed from P∙P_\bullet or Q∙Q_\bullet are isomorphic.

Topics that use this theorem

Step-by-step proofs

No step-by-step proof yet for this theorem.

References

  1. Charles A. Weibel (1994). An Introduction to Homological Algebra
  2. Henri Cartan, Samuel Eilenberg (1956). Homological Algebra
  3. Alexander Grothendieck (1957). Sur quelques points d'algèbre homologique (the Tôhoku paper) · DOI:10.2748/tmj/1178244839
  4. Bhargav Bhatt, Akhil Mathew, Thomas Nikolaus (2019). Topological Cyclic Homology · arXiv:1802.03261