Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics comma complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorAndrew Stacey
    • CommentTimeNov 7th 2011

    I’ve made a few changes at flat module since I wanted to know what one was and the nLab page simply confused me further. It seemed to be saying that a module over a ring/algebra AA is flat if tensoring with AA is a flat functor. That seemed absurd so I changed it. The observation “everything happens for a reason” was a little curt so once I’d worked out what it meant I expanded it a bit and put in the analogy to bases. It wasn’t clear from the way that it was phrased whether this condition was due to Wraith and Blass or the fact that it can be put in a more general context. Lastly, the last sentence was originally in the same paragraph as the penultimate sentence where it didn’t seem to fit (or was at best ambiguous) and it also claimed that the module could be non-unital which seemed a little odd.

    If an expert could kindly check that I’ve done no lasting damage to the page, I’d be grateful.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 7th 2011

    I have tried to add some structure.

    That seemed absurd

    Do you really mean “absurd”? For one it explains the term “flat functor”. But of course it should be expanded on.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeNov 7th 2011
    • (edited Nov 7th 2011)

    I corrected it: tensoring with MM goes from AA-modules to kk-modules, not to AA-modules, as MM is not an AA-bimodule (it is a kk-MM-bimodule though). I agree with Urs that there is nothing absurd about it. Historically, maybe the case of modules was first to be characterized by the property of the tensoring (sends SES to SES) which we a posteriori call flat functor. But the definition is still that property, which is basic and categorical, so in a sense it is traditional, though the name flat is more generally and more primarily associated to the functor then to the way the functor is defined (via module).

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeNov 7th 2011
    • (edited Nov 7th 2011)

    At flat module, to Andrew’s words

    The module MM being flat is equivalent to being able always to do this.

    I added

    After some unwinding, it means that a module is flat if and only if it is a filtered colimit of free modules.

    which is a bridge to the more general meanings of flat functor (filtered colimit of representables).

    Edit: By the way, what is this cryptic reference to Wraith and Blass?

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorTom Leinster
    • CommentTimeNov 7th 2011

    I thought Andrew’s use of “absurd” in comment 1 was simply because with should be over. Tensoring an AA-module with AA doesn’t do very much :-)

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorAndrew Stacey
    • CommentTimeNov 7th 2011

    Tom’s right about my use of “absurd”. My apologies for not being clearer.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeNov 7th 2011

    Re #5: oh well, then it was more or less just a typo, wasn’t it? Tensoring with the module MM, not AA!

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorAndrew Stacey
    • CommentTimeNov 7th 2011

    Yes, but a confusing typo! Particularly since MM wasn’t mentioned by name in the first paragraph. Since I’m not an expert in modules, flat or otherwise, I wanted to highlight the change so that the rest of you could check that it now made sense.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeNov 7th 2011

    Surely with MM, that is why it does not end in AA-mod but in kk-mod. Regarding that it was written AA before, the codomain ended in a wrong category.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorAndrew Stacey
    • CommentTimeNov 8th 2011

    I did the unwinding and spelled out how one gets from the element characterisation to the filtered colimit of free modules.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 17th 2012
    • (edited Oct 17th 2012)

    I have added various material to flat module. There is now characterization in terms of Tor-functors, a pointer to the source for Lazard’s criterion, discussion of the relation to projective and (locally) free modules and a discussion of the example of flat abelian groups .

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 17th 2012
    • (edited Oct 17th 2012)

    I have created a section Equivalent characterizations with some indications for why indeed – as claimed right at the beginning of the entry going back to #1 above – a module NN is flat precisely if every linear combination of 0 in NN comes from linear combinations of 0 in RR.

    This follows pretty directly from yet another equivalent characterization, namely that it is sufficient to check left exactness of () RN(-)\otimes_R N on ideal inclusions. And this implication I have now written out.

    However, that left exactness of () RN(-)\otimes_R N can be checked already on just ideal inclusions is a bit more work…

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 18th 2012
    • (edited Oct 18th 2012)

    I have edited the flow of the Definition section a bit more. Notably I made the immediate equivalent reformulations a list and pointed to the discussion of the not-so-immediate equivalent reformulations further below. Also I moved the remark that much of the definition works also over non-commutative and non-unital rings to further below.

    Those who care please check if they can live with the way it is now.

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 25th 2013

    added the definition of faithfully flat module

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorspitters
    • CommentTimeMar 28th 2018

    What is the reference to Blass and Wraith ?

  1. Add an example

    Damien Lejay

    diff, v31, current

  2. Add context as to why flat modules are “flat”.

    Damien Lejay

    diff, v32, current

    • CommentRowNumber18.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 16th 2023

    Great. I have given this remark a Remark-environment (now here)

    diff, v33, current

    • CommentRowNumber19.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 16th 2023

    have touched (here) wording of the lead-in paragraphs

    and expanded the typesetting of the first formula

    and added more hyperlinks to technical terms, such as PID and Tor

    diff, v33, current

  3. Create a new section on finitely generated flat modules

    Damien Lejay

    diff, v34, current

  4. Add the theorem flat = torsion-free over a PID

    Damien Lejay

    diff, v34, current

  5. Add a counter-example

    Damien Lejay

    diff, v36, current

  6. Add the proof of the proposition on finitely generated flat modules over an integral domain.

    Damien Lejay

    diff, v38, current

  7. Add the classification theorem of all rings on which finitely generated flat modules are projective.

    Damien Lejay

    diff, v39, current

  8. Add a reduction lemma to cyclic modules.

    Damien Lejay

    diff, v40, current

  9. Add a reduction lemma to cyclic modules.

    Damien Lejay

    diff, v40, current

  10. Add more information on the example RX

    Damien Lejay

    diff, v41, current

  11. Fuse the cyclic reduction with the equivalent charactirisation already present and make it a subsection.

    Damien Lejay

    diff, v41, current

  12. Restructure

    Damien Lejay

    diff, v42, current

  13. Update the examples and add Q to the list.

    Damien Lejay

    diff, v42, current

  14. Fix \varinjlim

    Damien Lejay

    diff, v43, current

  15. Add the example of the field of fractions.

    Damien Lejay

    diff, v43, current

  16. Add a new section on general flat modules. Start populating it with the characterisation of absolutely flat rings.

    Damien Lejay

    diff, v44, current

  17. Add a new section on general flat modules. Start populating it with the characterisation of absolutely flat rings.

    Damien Lejay

    diff, v44, current

  18. Add the example of a flat cyclic module

    Damien Lejay

    diff, v45, current

  19. End the proof of the characterisation of absolutely flat rings.

    Damien Lejay

    diff, v45, current

    • CommentRowNumber37.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJul 19th 2023

    Re #21: also proven in PID.

  20. Add Prüfer domains as the rings on which flat = torsion-free

    Damien Lejay

    diff, v46, current

  21. Add Prüfer domains as the rings on which flat = torsion-free

    Damien Lejay

    diff, v46, current

  22. Add Prüfer domains as the rings on which flat = torsion-free

    Damien Lejay

    diff, v46, current

    • CommentRowNumber41.
    • CommentAuthorRodMcGuire
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2023

    linked GAGA

    diff, v47, current

  23. Fix: the torsion-free → flat property holds on semi-hereditary rings and not only on Prüfer domains

    Damien Lejay

    diff, v48, current

  24. Add that R[S^-1] is flat over R.

    Damien Lejay

    diff, v49, current

  25. Add flatness as a local property.

    Damien Lejay

    diff, v50, current

  26. Remove the theorem for PID, since they are only a special case of semi-hereditary ring.

    Damien Lejay

    diff, v50, current

  27. Add subsections

    Damien Lejay

    diff, v50, current

  28. Add characterisation of absolutely flat rings in terms of their local rings.

    Damien Lejay

    diff, v51, current

  29. Add a proposition on the product of flat modules.

    Damien Lejay

    diff, v52, current

  30. Add the proof of the characterisation theorem of semi-hereditary rings

    Damien Lejay

    diff, v54, current

  31. Add a section on countably presented flat modules.

    Damien Lejay

    diff, v55, current

    • CommentRowNumber51.
    • CommentAuthordmjc
    • CommentTime3 days ago
    I was trying to understand flat modules, but noticed something that seemed wrong on this page, involving the characterisation via identities I hope I fixed it correctly - or someone can tell me I am an idiot !