Commutative Algebra/Torsion-free, flat, projective and free modules

Free modules

edit

The following definitions are straightforward generalisations from linear algebra. We begin by repeating a definition we already saw in chapter 6.

Definition 6.1 (generators of modules):

Let   be a module over the ring  . A generating set of   is a subset   such that

 .

We also have:

Definition 11.1:

Let   be an  -module. A subset   of   is called linearly independent if and only if, whenever  , we have

 .

Definition 11.2:

A free  -module is a module   over   where there exists a basis, that is, a subset   of   that is a linearly independent generating set.

Theorem 11.3:

Let   be free modules. Then the direct sum

 

is free.

Proof:

Let bases   of the   be given. We claim that

 

is a basis of

 .

Indeed, let an arbitrary element   be given. Then by assumption, each of the   has a decomposition

 

for suitable  . By summing this, we get a decomposition of   in the aforementioned basis. Furthermore, this decomposition must be unique, for otherwise projecting gives a new composition of one of the particular  . 

  The converse is not true in general!

Theorem 11.4:

Let   be free  -modules, with bases   and   respectively. Then

 

is a free module, with basis

 ,

where we wrote for short

 

(note that it is quite customary to use this notation).

Proof:

We first prove that our supposed basis forms a generating system. Clearly, by summation it suffices to show that elements of the form

 ,  

can be written in terms of the  . Thus, write

  and  ,

and obtain by the rules of computing within the tensor product, that

 .

On the other hand, if

 

is a linear combination (i.e. all but finitely many summands are zero), then all the   must be zero. The argument is this: Fix   and define a bilinear function

 ,

where  ,   are the coefficients of  ,   in the decomposition of   and   respectively. According to the universal property of the tensor product, we obtain a linear map

  with  ,

where   is the canonical projection on the quotient space. We have the equations

 ,

and inserting the given linear combination into this map therefore yields the desired result. 

Projective modules

edit

The following is a generalisation of free modules:

Definition 11.5:

Let   be an  -module.   is called projective if and only if for a fixed module   and a fixed surjection   every other module morphism with codomain   (call  ) has a factorisation

 .

Theorem 11.6:

Every free module is projective.

Proof:

Pick a basis   of  , let   be surjective and let   be some morphism. For each   pick   with  . Define

  where  .

This is well-defined since the linear combination describing   is unique. Furthermore, it is linear, since we have

 ,

where the right hand side is the sum of the linear combinations coinciding with   and   respectively, which is why  . By linearity of   and definition of the  , it has the desired property. 

There are a couple equivalent definitions of projective modules.

Theorem 11.7:

A module   is projective if and only if there exists a module   such that   is free.

Proof:

 : Define the module

 

(this obviously is a free module) and the function

 .

  is a surjective morphism, whence we obtain a commutative diagram

 ;

that is,  .

We claim that the map

 

is an isomorphism. Indeed, if  , then   and thus also   (injectivity) and further  , where  , which is why

 

(surjectivity).

 : Assume   is a free module. Assume   is a surjective morphism, and let   be any morphism. We extend   to   via

 .

This is still linear as the composition of the linear map   and the linear inclusion  . Now   is projective since it's free. Hence, we get a commutative diagram

 

where   satisfies  . Projecting   to   gives the desired diagram for  . 

Definition 11.8:

An exact sequence of modules

 

is called split exact iff we can augment it by three isomorphisms such that

 

commutes.

Theorem 11.9:

A module   is projective iff every exact sequence

 

is split exact.

Proof:

 : The morphism   is surjective, and thus every other morphism with codomain   lifts to  . In particular, so does the projection  . Thus, we obtain a commutative diagram

 

where we don't know yet whether   is an isomorphism, but we can use   to define the function

 ,

which is an isomorphism due to injectivity:

Let  , that is  . Then first

 

and therefore second

 .

And surjectivity:

Let  . Set  . Then

 

and hence   for a suitable  , thus

 .

We thus obtain the commutative diagram

 

and have proven what we wanted.

 : We prove that   is free for a suitable  .

We set

 ,  

where   is defined as in the proof of theorem 11.7  . We obtain an exact sequence

 

which by assumption splits as

 

which is why   is isomorphic to the free module   and hence itself free. 

Theorem 11.10:

Let   and   be projective  -modules. Then   is projective.

Proof:

We choose    -modules such that   and   are free. Since the tensor product of free modules is free,   is free. But

 ,

and thus   occurs as the summand of a free module and is thus projective. 

Theorem 11.11:

Let   be  -modules. Then   is projective if and only if each   is projective.

Proof:

Let first each of the   be projective. Then each of the   occurs as the direct summand of a free module, and summing all these free modules proves that   is the direct summand of free modules.

On the other hand, if   is the summand of a free module, then so are all the  s. 

Flat modules

edit

The following is a generalisation of projective modules:

Definition 11.12:

An  -module   is called flat if and only if tensoring by it preserves exactness:

  exact implies   exact.

The morphisms in the right sequence induced by any morphism   are given by the bilinear map

 .

Theorem 11.13:

The module   is a flat  -module.

Proof: This follows from theorems 9.10 and 10.?. 

Theorem 11.14:

Flatness is a local property.

Proof: Exactness is a local property. Furthermore, for any multiplicatively closed  

 

by theorem 9.11. Since every  -module is the localisation of an  -module (for instance itself as an  -module via  ), the theorem follows. 

Theorem 11.15:

A projective module is flat.

Proof:

We first prove that every free module is flat. This will enable us to prove that every projective module is flat.

Indeed, if   is a free module and   a basis of  , we have

 

via

 ,

where all but finitely many of the summands on the left are nonzero. Hence, by distributivity of direct sum over tensor product, if we are given any exact sequence

 ,

to show that the sequence

 

is exact, all we have to do is to prove that

 

is exact, since we may then augment the latter sequence by suitable isomorphisms

Theorem 11.16:

direct sum flat iff all summands are

Theorem 11.17:

If   are flat  -modules, then   is as well.

Proof:

Let

 

be an exact sequence of modules.

Torsion-free modules

edit

The following is a generalisation of flat modules:

Definition 11.18:

Let   be an  -module. The torsion of   is defined to be the set

 .

Lemma 11.19:

The torsion of a module is a submodule of that module.

Proof:

Let  ,  . Obviously   (just multiply the two annihilating elements together), and further   if   (we used commutativity here). 

We may now define torsion-free modules. They are exactly what you think they are.

Definition 11.20:

Let   be a module.   is called torsion-free if and only if

 .

Theorem 11.21:

A flat module is torsion-free.

To get a feeling for the theory, we define  -torsion for a multiplicatively closed subset  .

Definition 11.22:

Let   be a multiplicatively closed subset of a ring  , and let   be an  -module. Then the  -torsion of   is defined to be

 .

Theorem 11.23:

Let   be a multiplicatively closed subset of a ring  , and let   be an  -module. Then the  -torsion of   is precisely the kernel of the canonical map  .