## Homomorphism Groups of Products and Coproducts (Pt. I)

**Point of Post: **In this post we prove the following two common, and useful isomorphisms: and .

*Motivation*

We shall in the future have many occasions to deal with homomorphism groups (modules). In particular, we shall often deal with one of the Hom functors, and surprisingly often we shall have that in the free variable there is a product or coproduct. Consequently, it would be nice if we had some way of simplifying such Hom’s in terms of nicer groups. That is precisely the content of this post. It shall be good practice for us applying our notions of product and coproduct.

*Homomorphism Groups of Products/Coproducts*

Let be a ring and a set of left -modules. Then, for any left -module we have the following:

**Theorem: ** *where the isomorphism is of -modules if is non-commutative, and of -modules then is commutative.*

**Proof: **In what follows let denote either or . This way we shall see that the proofs of when we are dealing with -modules or -modules are really the same. We define the maps by (where is the natural inclusion)–it is easy to see that each is an -map. We claim that with this set of morphisms, becomes a product of the left -modules . Indeed, suppose that is a set of -linear maps. With these maps in mind, define a map by the rule

Evidently then is an -map, and

But, this was true for arbitrary and so and since this was for arbitrary this tells us that as desired. Moreover, it’s clear that this is unique since it’s action on each is determined, and so uniqueness follows from the definition of coproduct. Thus, we have proven that is a product of from where the theorem follows from the uniqueness, up to isomorphism, of products.

So, this theorem may seem a little strange at first, in two ways. Firstly, why does the coproduct become a product, and secondly can’t we find some way to take products out? The second one is particularly relevant since, as we shall see, there is a way to bring products out of the second entry, and moreover in the natural way, as a product. Well, while it may not be a good intuitive reason why this is true, we can definitely justify why we should not have expected any of the other three permutations

To be particular, it’s clear that any isomorphisms could be true. Why? Well, let in any case and . Then, (recalling that for unital rings ) the first two would tell us that and and the last that , and all of these contradict the fact that for infinite dimensional vector spaces the dual space has dimension strictly greater than the original space. Thus, in essence, to not contradict this fact we need the “operator” in the first entry to get “bigger” when it gets pulled out of the Hom, and clearly the only way this can happen is to go . Of course, this also points the following corollary:

**Corollary: ***Let be a ring and a set of left -modules. Then,*

From the obvious equality we are able to rederive the formula we proved in the dual modules post that for all finite since, of course, coproducts and products agree for finite index sets.

**References:**

[1] Dummit, David Steven., and Richard M. Foote. *Abstract Algebra*. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2004. Print.

[2] Rotman, Joseph J. *Advanced Modern Algebra*. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society, 2010. Print.

[3] Blyth, T. S. *Module Theory.* Clarendon, 1990. Print

[…] Homomorphism Groups of Products and Coproducts (Pt. II) Point of Post: This is a continuation of this post. […]

Pingback by Homomorphism Groups of Products and Coproducts (Pt. II) « Abstract Nonsense | November 14, 2011 |

[…] this and our result about splitting Hom over products we can go a step further and classify the Hom between any two […]

Pingback by Homomorphisms Between Finitely Generated Abelian Groups (Pt. I) « Abstract Nonsense | November 14, 2011 |

[…] Clearly are free -modules, but because of what we know about Hom sets and coproducts we have that and by the previous theorem this is not […]

Pingback by Coproduct of Free Modules are Free, but not Arbitrary Products « Abstract Nonsense | November 28, 2011 |

[…] trivial directed and inverse systems. In other words, we already know what happens in the case of products and coproducts. This suggests that perhaps something of the form and . Of course, we have to define what […]

Pingback by Relationship Between Hom and Limits (Modules)(Pt. I) « Abstract Nonsense | December 26, 2011 |

[…] system then the induced inverse system (in both cases) is trivial from where we recover our two previously proved relations between Hom, product, and coproduct. It’s important to note that in that post we […]

Pingback by Relationship Between Hom and Limits (Modules)(Pt. II) « Abstract Nonsense | December 26, 2011 |

[…] in the previous computation, it really suffices to compute for since the rest follows by the multiplicativeness of Hom and the Chinese remainder theorem. To make this computation we merely note that we have the exact […]

Pingback by The Hom Functor is Left Exact « Abstract Nonsense | January 30, 2012 |