Abstract Nonsense

Crushing one theorem at a time

Inverse Limits of Modules (Pt. II)


Point of Post: This is a continuation of this post.

\text{ }

General Construction

\text{ }

As went with the case of direct limits, it is probably prudent to show that any inverse system of modules actually admits an inverse limit. The setup will be similar to the case of direct limits, where we shall “glue” all the modules in the system together, and then mod out by the relation that “identifies” objects in the desired way. More rigorously:

\text{ }

Theorem: Let \left(\mathcal{A},\leqslant\right) be a preoredred set and \left(\{M_\alpha\}_{\alpha\in\mathcal{A}},\{f_{\alpha,\beta}M_\beta\to M_\alpha\}_{\alpha,\beta\in\mathcal{A},\; \alpha\leqslant\beta}\right) an inverse system of modules. Then, if P denotes the submodule the product of all the modules M_\alpha containing all the elements (x_\alpha) such that x_\alpha=f_{\alpha,\beta}(x_\beta) for all \beta\geqslant\alpha, then P along with the natural projections \pi_\alpha:P\to M_\alpha is an inverse limit of our system.

Proof: We need to show first off that f_{\alpha,\beta}\circ\pi_\beta=\pi_\alpha for every \alpha\leqslant\beta. But, this is precisely how we defined P! Thus, it remains to show that given any set of maps g_\alpha:N\to M_\alpha such that f_{\alpha,\beta}\circ g_\beta=g_\alpha whenever \alpha\leqslant\beta, that there exists a unique map j:N\to P such that \pi_\alpha\circ j=g_\alpha.  The idea of how to do this is clear, namely by definition of the product we get a unique map j which maps N into the product of the modules, and so it suffices to show that \text{im }j\subseteq P. To see this we merely note that \pi_\alpha(j(n))=g_\alpha(n)=f_{\alpha,\beta}(g_\beta(n))=f_{\alpha,\beta}(\pi_\beta(j(n)) and so j(n)\in P–since n\in N was arbitrary the claim follows. Thus, j is a well-defined morphism N\to P, which clearly satisfies \pi_\alpha\circ j=g_\alpha. Moreover, it’s clear that this was the only way we could have defined such a j since if k was another such map then \iota\circ j=\iota\circ k (where \iota is the inclusion of P into the full product)  have same values when precomposed with the \pi_\alpha‘s and so are equal by the definition of the product, but since \iota is injective we may left cancel to find that j=k. \blacksquare

\text{ }

Now, we have seen that all inverse limits of a given inverse system are isomorphic, and so the above construction shall serve as a sort of “model” for the inverse limit. In particular, while there is no “the” inverse limit, we shall make this phrasing make sense by saying that whenever we discuss “the” inverse limit of an inverse system we shall mean the above construction, which we shall denote \varprojlim M_\alpha.

\text{ }

\text{ }

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.

[4] Lang, Serge. Algebra. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub., 1965. Print.

[5] Grillet, Pierre A. Abstract Algebra. New York: Springer, 2007. Print.

Advertisements

December 9, 2011 - Posted by | Algebra, Module Theory, Ring Theory | , , , , ,

4 Comments »

  1. […] find an inverse limit for a given inverse system. The construction is very similar to that of the inverse limit of modules so we shall try to keep things short, just describing the general object. As we have noted before, […]

    Pingback by Inverse Limit of Rings (Pt. III) « Abstract Nonsense | December 26, 2011 | Reply

  2. […] as in the previous case, we assume we are given a general inverse limit and not necessarily the standard one, this makes things less messy). We then begin by noticing that each map induces a map given […]

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

  3. […] From this we conclude that we may apply the functor to get an -map . Note though that by previous discussion  and are nothing more than the coproducts  and respectively. What we now claim is that is the […]

    Pingback by Category of Directed/Inverse Systems and the Direct/Inverse Limit Functor (Pt. II) « Abstract Nonsense | December 28, 2011 | Reply

  4. […] in identifying all tensor products of by with , the same way in which we identify direct and inverse limits with their particular, concrete […]

    Pingback by The Construction of the Tensor Product of Modules (Pt. II) « Abstract Nonsense | January 3, 2012 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: