Highlights: Nakayama lemma, snake lemma, tensor product, flatness
Define . It has an -module structure. The construction is “functorial”, namely. If is a homomorphism, then it deduces a homomorphism
Similarly, given , it induces a homomorphism .
Example. Compute . Since is divisible by , there is . It deduces that .
Easy Facts.
- For ideal , define is a submodule. When , write .
Definition
For submodules , define an ideal. Denote annihilator of as . Note as an -module can also be regarded as an -module. Say is a faithful -module if .
Proposition
is a finitely generated -module iff there exists an surjective iff is a quotient module of .
Nakayama Lemma
Proposition
Suppose is a finitely generated -module, and is an ideal. Let be an endomorphism such that . Then satisfies an equation of form
on for some , namely, for all .
Example. Let and . Define by . Then by Cayley-Hamilton, .
\begin{proof}
Choose a set of generators of . Then for some . Let be the characteristic polynomial of , then by Cayley-Hamilton.
\end{proof}
Corollary
Let be a finitely generated -module, and let be an ideal of with . Then there exists such that .
\begin{proof}
Let . By ^41223f, satisfies
on with . Let , then .
\end{proof}
Nakayama lemma
Let be a finitely generated -module, and let be an ideal with . If , then .
\begin{proof}
By ^d05ae0 there exists with such that . By ^h2e8bp, and so .
\end{proof}
Remark. The most useful situation is when is a local ring with . ^c2a5d0 tells if is finitely generated and , then .
Corollary
Let be a finitely generated -module with submodule . Let be an ideal. Then yields that .
\begin{proof}
Apply ^c2a5d0 to . Since , there is and then . Therefore, .
\end{proof}
Proposition
Let be a local ring. Let . Let be a finitely generated -module, then is a vector space over . Let . Suppose is a basis of , then generate .
\begin{proof}
Let . Then the composite is surjective. It deduces that . By ^ffbd3c, and so generate .
\end{proof}
Remark. This is quite similar to ^k9gxk1—in fact, the Jacobson radical can be seen as an analogue of the Frattini subgroup, but in the setting of rings instead of groups.
Exact Sequence
Link to original
- If is exact, then we say it is short exact.
Remark. Any exact sequence can be split into short exact sequences. Namely, given
then we get and , where .
Hom Functor
Proposition
Let be a sequence of -module homomorphism. Then it is exact iff for any -module , the induced sequence
is exact, where and .
(dual statement) Let be a sequence. It is exact iff for any -module , the induced sequence
is exact.
\begin{proof}
i) "→" Assume is exact. It is enough to show is injective and . If , then is zero. But is surjective, then . Note that as , and it deduces that . Conversely, for any , we aim to find such that . For , let and set . We can verify that is well-defined and is a homomorphism of -modules. Hence .
"←" It suffices to show is surjective and . If is not surjective, then let and apply to , that is,
is exact. The surjective map is a non-zero map, but is a zero map, which is a contradiction. Hence is surjective.
Take and . Then is exact yields that and so . Finally, we check . Now we take and
is exact. Define canonical map . Notice that , then . Then there exists such that . It deduces that and . Now we finish the proof.
ii) "→" Assume that is exact. It is enough to show is injective and . If , then . Since is injective, we have and so is injective. Note that as , so . For any , we aim to find such that . For any , define . Since and is injective, is well-defined and . Hence .
"←" Assume that is exact. It suffices to show is injective and . If is not injective, then . Let and apply it to . The inclusion map is included in and , which contradicts with injective. Take and satisfies , that is, . Conversely, take and
is exact. Since is an element of and , there is and so there exists such that . Then for any , we have and . Now we finish the proof.
\end{proof}
Remark.
- "" in is necessary. For example, consider is exact but right exact. Then .
- "" on LHS of is useless, as it cannot add "" to . Consider . Apply , then is only left exact.
Snake Lemma
snake lemma
Consider a commutative diagram where both rows are short exact.
Then we have an exact sequence
\begin{proof}
Notice that are restriction of . We can check that and induce maps and . So it suffices to construct . For any , take and so . Then define such that and is what we desire. It is easy to check this map is well-defined.
It remains to check the sequence is exact. For convenience, define
For any , there exists such that . By the definition of , we know and so . It deduces that . Conversely, for any , there exists such that . By the definition of , there is and . Thus . Now we have proved .
For any , there is and so for any given preimage . Then there is such that . By the definition of , we know . In addition, since , . It yields that . Conversely, for any , there exists such that and such that and for any given . By the definition of , there is and so , . Now we have proved .
\end{proof}
Remark. It is a general case of short five lemma.
Tensor Product
Motivations.
- linear algebra: bilinear map
- algebraic geometry: fibre product of geometry spaces
- flatness: useful for localization
Linear algebra. Let be a field. Notice that bilinear map and linear map are different.
- Consider bilinear map . It is different from -linear map , because and .
- Define , which is linear but not bilinear.
- A -linear map is determined by and ; a -bilinear map is determined by .
- A -bilinear map looks like a -linear map , as we will see .
Algebraic geometry. Note a fact that . Hence, . By ^6rh0cw, the set of maximal ideal of is . In fact, .
Flatness. Consider -bilinear map , which is determined by . Note that , then . In summary, the above bilinear map is same as a -linear map . Later we will see .
Definition
Let be a ring, and let be -modules. A map is -bilinear if .
Proposition
Let and be -modules. Then there exists a pair where is an -module and is an -bilinear map, with the universal property: Given any -module , and any -bilinear map , there exists unique -linear map such that , that is, factors through .
Moreover if and are two such pairs with above property, then there exists unique isomorphism such that .
\begin{proof}
Uniqueness. Suppose and are two distinct pairs with the property above. Apply with and with , then there exist and such that .

Existence. Let be the free -module , namely, a free -module with basis . So an element in has unique expression . Let be the submodule of generated by the following elements:
- ,
- ,
- ,
- .
Let . For , denote as image in . Thus, is generated by . Now define
which is a -bilinear map. We now verify the universal property. Let be a bilinear map. It suffices to construct such that . We define , and we can easily see . So induces a map . Remark that
and so . Hence, for each bilinear map , we can find such that and so is what we desire.
\end{proof}
Definition
Call the module above as the tensor product of and , also denote as . Sometimes, just if the context is clear. Also the map is simply . In particular, the -module is generated by . Indeed, if generates and generates , then generates .
Remark. Not all elements of is of the form . In other word, is in general not surjective. For example, let and , then cannot equal to some with and .
Proposition
Let be -modules. Then there exists unique isomorphisms:
- such that ;
- ;
- ;
- such that .
\begin{proof}
i) Consider and . By ^aa5afc, there exists unique such that the diagram commutes.

Now, in a parallel way, use the universal property of , then we get such that the diagram commutes.

It is easy to check and are inverse to each other.
iv) Consider

where , then there exists unique such that the diagram commutes. Now define . To check and are inverse to each other, it suffices to check .
Recall the proof of ^aa5afc, let be the free -module and be the -submodule generated by , , and . Let , and let . So we must have
which yields and so .
\end{proof}
Proposition
Let be -module. Then there exists where is a multilinear map such that for any -module and multilinear map , there exists unique such that the diagram commutes.
![]()
\begin{proof}
Similar to ^aa5afc.
\end{proof}
Strange Things about Tensor Product
Consider and , then is submodule. However, it could happen is not injective. Use the following diagram to define the map.

Example. Let , , and let . So we have
Claim that in LHS. In fact, we have the following commutative diagram.

Here we use the isomorphism . Recall that by ^9968ad. So the bottom row being zero map implies the top row is zero map.
Remark. A (practical) guide to tensor product:
- is of form
- get familiar with common operation on
- always keep in mind the expression is NOT unique
- the universal property are not really used in practice like ^9968ad (you should remember and be able to apply ^9968ad)
- common pitfall: and it is not equal to
Bimodule
Definition
Let be rings. We say is an -bimodule, if it is both an -left module and a -right module, and for any , and . Remark that might not exist.
Remark. It has been defined in ^559amp, but I write it again.
Text-Ex. 2.15.
Let be rings. Let be an -module, be a -module and let be a -bimodule. Then is a -module and is an -module, and we have an isomorphism of -bimodule
(M\otimes_A B)\otimes_B P\simeq M\otimes_A (N\otimes_B P). $$ ^489zft
\begin{proof}
It is easy to check is a -module and is an -module. The proof of isomorphism of -bimodule is similar to ^9968ad, ii).
Fix , define . It is -bilinear and it induces an -linear map .
Define , and it is -bilinear. Son it induces a -linear map . To prove it is isomorphism, it suffices to construct its inverse, which can be done similarly.
\end{proof}
Corollary
Suppose in , with . Then there exists some finitely generated submodule and such that in . Remark that is not injective, see Strange Things about Tensor Product as example.
\begin{proof}
Since in with , there is . Then
\phi(f):M\to \mathrm{Hom}_A(N,P),x\mapsto f_x
is $A$-linear. Conversely, given $g$ in RHS. DefineM\times N\to P,(m,n)\mapsto g(m)(n),
which is $A$-bilinear and it induces $\psi(g):M\otimes N\to P$. Finally, check $\psi$ and $\phi$ are inverse each other. `\end{proof}` **Example.** Recall $\mathbb{Z}/m\otimes _\mathbb{Z} \mathbb{Z}/n\simeq \mathbb{Z}/(m,n)$ (See [[MATH/抽象代数III/Nodes/HW2#^rbitq6|here]] or [[Pasted image 20250319204119.png|here]]). We claim that $\mathrm{Hom}_\mathbb{Z}(\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z},\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z})\simeq \mathbb{Z}/(m,n)\mathbb{Z}$. Note that any $f$ in LHS is completely determined by $f(\overline 1)$. Since $f(\overline m)=0$, $f(\overline1)$ is killed by $m$. That is, for any lift $x\in \mathbb{Z}$ of $f(\overline 1)$, we have $n\mid mx$ and so $n/(m,n)\mid x$. Therefore, $\mathrm{Hom}_\mathbb{Z}(\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z},\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z})\simeq n/(m,n)\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}\simeq \mathbb{Z}/(m,n)\mathbb{Z}$. **Example.** Put $\mathbb{Z}/12\mathbb{Z}$, $\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$ and $\mathbb{Z}/6\mathbb{Z}$ to [[#^60fa98|^60fa98]], then we have\mathrm{Hom}(\mathbb{Z}/12\mathbb{Z}\otimes \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z},\mathbb{Z}/6\mathbb{Z})\simeq \mathrm{Hom}(\mathbb{Z}/12\mathbb{Z},\mathrm{Hom}(\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z},\mathbb{Z}/6\mathbb{Z}))
where LHS $\simeq\mathrm{Hom}(\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z},\mathbb{Z}/6\mathbb{Z})\simeq \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$ and RHS $\simeq \mathrm{Hom}(\mathbb{Z}/12\mathbb{Z},\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})\simeq \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$. > [!proposition] > > Let $M'\to M\to M''\to 0(*)$ be a right exact sequence of $A$-modules. Let $N$ be any $A$-module. Then the sequence > > $$ > M'\otimes_A N\stackrel{\widetilde f}{\to} M\otimes_A N\stackrel{\widetilde g}{\to} M''\otimes_A N\to 0\tag{**} > $$ > > is still right exact. `\begin{proof}` Note that it is easy to see $\widetilde g$ is surjective. It remains to check $\ker \widetilde g\simeq \mathrm{im} \widetilde f$. By [[#^jj28ws|^jj28ws]], it suffices to show for any $A$-module $P$,0\to\mathrm{Hom}(M’\otimes N,P)\to \mathrm{Hom}(M\otimes N,P)\to \mathrm{Hom}(M”\otimes N,P)
is left exact. By [[#^60fa98|^60fa98]], it is equivalent to show0\to \mathrm{Hom}(M’,\mathrm{Hom}(N,P))\to \mathrm{Hom}(M,N\otimes P)\to \mathrm{Hom}(M”,N\otimes P)
is left exact. By [[#^jj28ws|^jj28ws]], we have done. `\end{proof}` **Remark.** - $\text{right}\to 0$ is necessary. For example, $0\to \mathbb{Z} \stackrel{\times 2}{\to} \mathbb{Z}$ is exact, but after tensor $\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$ we get $0\to \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}\to 0$, which is not exact. - a left $0\to$ does not product similar result. For example, $0\to \mathbb{Z}\stackrel{\times 2}{\to}\mathbb{Z}\to \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}\to 0$ is exact, but after tensor $\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$ we get $0\to \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}\stackrel{\times 2}{\to}\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}\to Z/2\mathbb{Z}\to 0$ is right exact but not left exact. ^g6xwy9 > [!definition] > > We say an $A$-module is a *flat $A$-module*, if for any exact sequence > > $$ > \cdots\to M_{i-1}\to M_i\to M_{i+1}\to \cdots,\tag{*} > $$ > > the tensor product sequence $(*)\otimes N$ is still exact. ^8m15t3 **Examples.** - $\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$ is not flat by [[#^g6xwy9|it]]. - The $A$-module $A$ is a flat $A$-module. - $A^{\oplus n}$ is flat $A$-module. > [!proposition] > > Let $N$ be a $A$-module. TFAE: > - $N$ is flat. > - For any short exact sequence $0\to M'\to M\to M''\to 0(*)$, $(*)\otimes_A N$ is still short exact. > - For any injective map $f:M'\hookrightarrow M$, $f\otimes 1$ is also injective. > - For any injective map $f:M'\hookrightarrow M$ with $M',M$ finitely generated, $f\otimes 1$ is still injective. ^e6ct2u `\begin{proof}` i)<->ii) is trivial as [[#^4xqpdj|each long exact sequence can be split into short exact sequence]]. iii)->iv) is easy. i)=ii)->iii) by considering $0\to M'\to M$ exact. iii)->ii) When iii) holds, $\otimes$ preserves right exactness. Furthermore, $\otimes_AN$ preserves left exactness by [[#^8m15t3|^8m15t3]] and so for short exact sequence. It remains to show iv)->iii). Suppose $u=\sum_{i=1}^n x_i'\otimes y_i\in \ker(M'\otimes N\to M\otimes N)$, that is, $f(u)=\sum_{i=1}^n f(x_i')\otimes y_i=0$. We aim to show $u=0$. Let $M_0'=\left\langle x_1',\cdots,x_n'\right\rangle_A\subseteq M'$. Let $u_0=\sum_{i=1}^n x_i'\otimes y_i$ be an element in $M_0'\otimes N$. Remark that we do not know if $u_0$ is also zero, as $M_0\otimes N$ may not a submodule of $M'\otimes N$ by [[#strange-things-about-tensor-product|Strange Things about Tensor Product]]. [[#^6zw2e4|^6zw2e4]] says that for $\sum_{i=1}^nf(x_i')\otimes y_i=0\in M\otimes N$, there exists finitely generated submodule $M_0\subseteq M$ containing $f(M_0')$ and finitely generated submodule $N_0\subseteq N$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^n f(x_i')\otimes y_i=0$ in $M_0\otimes N_0$. So in particular, from injective map $f:M'\hookrightarrow M$, we have injective map $f:M_0'\hookrightarrow M_0$. Since $M_0'$ and $M_0$ are finitely generated, by iv) we have $M_0'\otimes N\to M_0\otimes N$ is injective. Note that $\sum_{i=1}^n f(x_i)\otimes y_i=0$ in $M_0\otimes N$, then we have $u_0=\sum_{i=1}^n x_i'\otimes y_i$ is $0$ in $M_0'\otimes N$. It deduces that $\sum_{i=1}^n x_i'\otimes y_i=0$ in $M'\otimes N$. `\end{proof}` > [!theorem] Text-Ex. 2.20. > > Let $f:A\to B$ be a ring homomorphism and let $N$ be a flat $A$-module. Then $N_B=N\otimes _AB$ is a flat $B$-module. Remark that $N_B$ in general is not flat $A$-module. `\begin{proof}` Let $M'\hookrightarrow M$ be an injective map of $B$-modules. It remains to show $M'\otimes_BN_B\to M\otimes _BN_B$ is still injective. ButM’\otimes_B N_B=M’\otimes_B(B\otimes_AN)=(M’\otimes_B B)\otimes _AN=M’\otimes_A N
and then the map $M'\otimes_A N\to M\otimes_A N$ is injective by $N$ being a flat $A$-module. `\end{proof}` **Remark.** Let $f:\mathbb{Z}\to \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$ and $N=\mathbb{Z}$. But $N_B=\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$ is not flat over $\mathbb{Z}$. # Algebra and Tensor Product of Algebra > [!definition] > > Given a ring homomorphism $f:A\to B$, we say $B$ is an $A$-algebra. Note that $B$ has an $A$-module structure which is compatible with ring struction on $B$, that is, $(f(a)b)c=f(a)(bc)$. **Examples.** - Any ring is a $\mathbb{Z}$-algebra. - Field extension $E/K$ is a $K$-algebra with $K\hookrightarrow E$. > [!definition] > > Given $f:A\to B$ and $g:A\to C$, a ring homomorphism $h:B\to C$ is called a homomorphism of $A$-algebra if it is also a $A$-module homomorphism (i). Equivalently, $h$ is an $A$-algebra homomorphism iff the following diagram commute (ii). > > ![[Pasted image 20250324201824.png|160]] `\begin{proof}` i)->ii). ii) means $h(f(a))=g(a)$. Note that if i) holds, thenh(f(a))=h(a\cdot 1_B)=a\cdot h(1_B)=a\cdot 1_C=g(a).
ii)->i) It suffices to show $h(ab)=ah(b)$. Byh(ab)=h(f(a)b)=h(f(a))h(b)=g(a)h(b)=ah(b)
we finish the proof. `\end{proof}` **Example.** Recall given field extensions $E/K$ and $F/K$, $E$ and $F$ are $K$-algebras and $f:E\to F$ is a field homomorphism. $f$ is also a homomorphism of $K$-vector spaces iff $f$ is a homomorphism between $k$-algebra iff $f:E\to F$ is a homomorphism such that $f(k)=k$ for any $k\in K$ iff the diagram commutes. ![[Pasted image 20250324202837.png|170]] > [!definition] > > - Say $f:A\to B$ is a finite morphism of rings, if $B$ is a finitely generated $A$-module. In this case, say $B$ is a finite $A$-algebra. > - Say $f:A\to B$ is of finite type, if there exists $x_1,\cdots,x_n\in B$ such that any $b\in B$ can be written as a polynomial in $x_1,\cdots,x_n$ with coefficient in $f(A)$. It is equivalent to there exists surjective map $A[t_1,\cdots,t_n]\twoheadrightarrow B, t_i\to x_i$. In this case, say $B$ is a finitely generated $A$-algebra. > > So finite $A$-algebra is a finitely generated $A$-algebra. ^5pmtvz **Examples.** - $\mathbb{Q}\to \mathbb{Q}(i)$ is a finite $\mathbb{Q}$-algebra - $\mathbb{Q}\to \mathbb{Q}[x,y]$ is of finite type - $\mathbb{Q}\to \mathbb{Q}[x,y]/(x^2+y^2)$ is of finite type - $\mathbb{Q}\to \mathbb{Q}[x,y]/(x^2,y^2)$ is a finite $\mathbb{Q}$-algebra > [!definition] > > For a ring $A$, we say it is finitely generated if it is finitely generated as $\mathbb{Z}$-algebra. **Example.** $A=\mathbb{Z}[x,y]/(x^2+y^2)$ **a Construction on Page 31.** Let $f:A\to B$ and $g:A\to C$ be two ring homomorphisms. Let $D=B\otimes _AC$. Claim that we can define ring structure on $D$ and make it an $A$-algebra. `\begin{proof}` Consider $B\times C\times B\times C\to D,(b,c,b',c')\mapsto bb'\otimes cc'$. By [[#^ml3hwi|^ml3hwi]] above, it induces an $A$-linear map ![[Pasted image 20250324204449.png|270]] By [[#^aa5afc|^aa5afc]], this is the same as an $A$-bilinear map $\mu:D\times D\to D$ with $\mu(b\otimes c,b'\otimes c')=bb'\otimes cc'$. One can check this $\mu$ (used as multiplication) is compatible with $+$ on $D$, giving $D$ a ring structure. Define $A\to D$ by $a\mapsto f(a)\otimes 1$. Note that $f(a)\otimes 1=a\cdot 1_V\otimes 1_C=1_B\otimes a\cdot 1_C=1\otimes g(a)$. It is easy to see it is a homomorphism of rings. **Remark.** - [[Pasted image 20250324205212.png|page 31]] of [[Atiyah - 1969 - Introduction to commutative algebra.pdf|Atiyah]] is not correct, as $\mathbb{Z}\to \mathbb{Z}\otimes \mathbb{Z}$ is not a ring homomorphism. - In fact there is a commutative diagram of ring homomorphism ![[Pasted image 20250324222015.png|160]] **Example (strange $\otimes$).** Define $D=\mathbb{Q}(i)\otimes_\mathbb{Q} \mathbb{Q}(i)$ is not a domain, because(1\otimes i+i\otimes 1)(1\otimes i-i\otimes 1)=1\otimes(-1)-(-1)\otimes 1=0.
To see the above two elements are nonzero, notice that $D=(\mathbb{Q}1\oplus\mathbb{Q} i)\otimes (\mathbb{Q}1\oplus \mathbb{Q}i)$ is a vector space over $\mathbb{Q}$ and $$\begin{aligned} D&=(\mathbb{Q}1\oplus\mathbb{Q} i)\otimes (\mathbb{Q}1\oplus \mathbb{Q}i)\\&=\mathbb{Q}1\otimes \mathbb{Q}1\oplus \mathbb{Q} i\otimes \mathbb{Q}1\oplus\mathbb{Q}1\otimes \mathbb{Q}i\oplus\mathbb{Q}i\otimes \mathbb{Q}i\\ &\simeq \mathbb{Q}\oplus \mathbb{Q}\oplus \mathbb{Q}\oplus \mathbb{Q} \end{aligned}where . Hence is a -dimensional -v.s. with a basis . So the above two elements are nonzero.
Examples.
- . Each element on LHS has a unique expression as are linear vector spaces, then is well-defined.
- . The problem is, is NOT a basis of . “For example”, consider and .
Proposition
Let be an ideal, and let be an -module. Then .
\begin{proof}
Consider short exact sequence . Tensor with and we get a right exact sequence
Recall the notation . It is easy to see (remark that in general is not injective). So we get a short exact sequence . So .
\end{proof}
Remark. This is an example where is not injective. Let , and let . Then and .
a useful fact
Let be an ideal. Let be two -modules, then one have an -module isomorphism
Remark. For general and two -modules and , .
\begin{proof}
Consider

Define , then is -bilinear and there exists such that . Similarly, define , then is -bilinear and there exists such that . So and so .
\end{proof}
