Not signed in

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

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeJun 24th 2013
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexI am going to rewrite a part of the [[Baer sum]], the section "On short exact sequences", partly following S. MacLane, _Homology_, 1963 (he does the version for extensions of $R$-modules). I am not fully understanding and would like to discuss the issue, but I think the current notation is a bit hiding. So here is the version of the section before my update, so it can be reversed if somebody not happy: For $0 \to A \to \hat G_{i} \to G \to 0$ for $i = 1,2$ two [[short exact sequences]] of [[abelian groups]], their **Baer sum** is $$ \hat G_1 + \hat G_2 \coloneqq +_* \Delta^* \hat G_1 \times \hat G_2 $$ The first step forms the [[pullback]] of the short exact sequence along rhe diagonal on $G$: $$ \array{ A \oplus A &\to& A \oplus A \\ \downarrow && \downarrow \\ \Delta^* (\hat G_1 \oplus \hat G_2) &\to& \hat G_1 \oplus \hat G_2 \\ \downarrow && \downarrow \\ G &\stackrel{\Delta_G}{\to}& G\oplus G } $$ The second forms the [[pushout]] along the addition map on $A$: $$ \array{ A \oplus A &\stackrel{+}{\to}& A \\ \downarrow && \downarrow \\ \Delta^* (\hat G_1 \oplus \hat G_2) &\to& +_* \Delta^*(\hat G_1 \oplus \hat G_2) \\ \downarrow && \downarrow \\ G &\to& G } $$

   I am going to rewrite a part of the Baer sum, the section “On short exact sequences”, partly following S. MacLane, Homology, 1963 (he does the version for extensions of -modules). I am not fully understanding and would like to discuss the issue, but I think the current notation is a bit hiding. So here is the version of the section before my update, so it can be reversed if somebody not happy:

   For for two short exact sequences of abelian groups, their Baer sum is

   The first step forms the pullback of the short exact sequence along rhe diagonal on :

   The second forms the pushout along the addition map on :

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeJun 24th 2013
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexWhat you copied in #1 looks notationally just fine to me -- is there a problem with it?

   What you copied in #1 looks notationally just fine to me – is there a problem with it?

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeJun 24th 2013
   • (edited Jun 24th 2013)
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexThis is my treatment (the old one is still there). I think it is more clear, though some more diagrams could be useful. In any category with products, for any object $C$ there is a [[diagonal]] morphism $\Delta_C:C\to C\times C$; in a category with coproducts there is a codiagonal morphism $\nabla_C: C\coprod C\to C$ (addition in the case of modules). Every additive category is, in particular, a category with finite [[biproduct]]s, so both morphisms are there. Short exact sequences in the category of $R$-modules, or in arbitrary abelian category $\mathcal{A}$, form an additive category (morphisms are commutative ladders of arrows) in which the biproduct $0 \to A_i \to H_{i} \to G_i \to 0$ for $i = 1,2$ is $0\to A_1\oplus A_2 \to H_1\oplus H_2\to G_1\oplus G_2\to 0$. Now if $0\to M\to N\to P\to 0$ is any extension, call it $E$, and $\gamma:P_1\to P$ a morphism, then there is a morphism $\Gamma' = (id_M,\beta_1,\gamma)$ from an extension $E_1$ of the form $0\to M\to N_1\to P_1\to 0$ to $E$, where the pair $(E_1,\Gamma_1)$ s unique up to isomorphism of extensions, and it is called $E\gamma$. In fact, the diagram $$\array{ N_1&\to &P_1\\ \downarrow\beta_1 && \downarrow\gamma\\ N&\to &P }$$ is a pullback diagram. Every morphism of abelian extensions $(\alpha,\beta,\gamma):E\to E'$ in a unique way decomposes as $$ E\stackrel{(\alpha,\beta_a,id)}\longrightarrow E\gamma \stackrel{(id,\beta_1,\gamma)}\longrightarrow E' $$ for some $\beta_a$, with $\beta_1$ as above. In short, the morphism of extensions factorizes through $E\gamma$. Dually, for any morphism $\alpha:M\to M_2$, there is a morphism $\Gamma_2 = (\alpha,\beta_2,id_P)$ to an extension $E_2$ of the form $0\to M_2\to N_2\to P$; the pair $(E_2,\Gamma_2)$ is unique up to isomorphism of extensions and it is called $\alpha E$. In fact, the diagram $$\array{ M&\to &N\\ \downarrow\alpha && \downarrow\beta_2\\ M_2&\to &N_2 }$$ is a pushout diagram. Every morphism of abelian extensions $(\alpha,\beta,\gamma):E\to E''$ in a unique way decomposes as $$ E\stackrel{(\alpha,\beta_2,id)}\longrightarrow \alpha E \stackrel{(id,\beta_ b,\gamma)}\longrightarrow E'' $$ for some $\beta_b$, with $\beta_2$ as above. In short, the morphism of extensions factorizes through $\alpha E$. There are the following isomorphisms of extensions: $(\alpha E)\gamma\cong \alpha (E\gamma)$, $id_M E \cong E$, $E id_P \cong P$, $(\alpha'\alpha)E\cong\alpha' (\alpha E)$, $(E\gamma)\gamma' \cong E(\gamma\gamma')$. The Baer's sum of two extensions $E_1,E_2$ of the form $0\to M\to N_i\to P\to 0$ (i.e. with the same $M$ and $P$) is given by $E_1+E_2 = \nabla_M (E_1\oplus E_2) \Delta_P$; this gives the structure of the abelian group on $Ext(P,M)$ and $Ext:\mathcal{A}^{op}\times\mathcal{A}\to Ab$ is a biadditive (bi)functor. This is also related to the isomorphisms of extensions $\alpha (E_1+E_2)\cong \alpha E_1+\alpha E_2$, $(\alpha_1+\alpha_2) E \cong \alpha_1 E+ \alpha_2 E$, $(E_1+E_2)\gamma \cong E_1\gamma + E_2\gamma$, $E(\gamma_1+\gamma_2)\cong E\gamma_1 + E\gamma_2$.

   This is my treatment (the old one is still there). I think it is more clear, though some more diagrams could be useful.

   In any category with products, for any object there is a diagonal morphism ; in a category with coproducts there is a codiagonal morphism (addition in the case of modules). Every additive category is, in particular, a category with finite biproducts, so both morphisms are there. Short exact sequences in the category of -modules, or in arbitrary abelian category , form an additive category (morphisms are commutative ladders of arrows) in which the biproduct for is .

   Now if is any extension, call it , and a morphism, then there is a morphism from an extension of the form to , where the pair s unique up to isomorphism of extensions, and it is called . In fact, the diagram

   is a pullback diagram. Every morphism of abelian extensions in a unique way decomposes as

   for some , with as above. In short, the morphism of extensions factorizes through .

   Dually, for any morphism , there is a morphism to an extension of the form ; the pair is unique up to isomorphism of extensions and it is called .

   In fact, the diagram

   is a pushout diagram. Every morphism of abelian extensions in a unique way decomposes as

   for some , with as above. In short, the morphism of extensions factorizes through .

   There are the following isomorphisms of extensions: , , , , .

   The Baer’s sum of two extensions of the form (i.e. with the same and ) is given by ; this gives the structure of the abelian group on and is a biadditive (bi)functor. This is also related to the isomorphisms of extensions , , , .

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeJun 24th 2013
   • (edited Jun 24th 2013)
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItex2 Notation $+_* \Delta^*(\hat G_1 \oplus \hat G_2)$ does not reveal the additive nor abelian duality, nor the fact that the pullback and pushout steps can be interchanged. It s quite obscure to me; if I had not read it before I would not understand the treatment. I think the treatment a la MacLane with diagonal and codiagonal on the same footing, plus usage of operations of pullback and pushout as general operation on extensions (not of the same groups) is giving broad but clean context. On the other hand, the notation $\nabla_M (E_1\oplus E_2) \Delta_P$, is symmetric and a special case of reconstruction of additive structure from the categorical structure in additive categories, a trick also used for stable infinity categories.

   2 Notation does not reveal the additive nor abelian duality, nor the fact that the pullback and pushout steps can be interchanged. It s quite obscure to me; if I had not read it before I would not understand the treatment. I think the treatment a la MacLane with diagonal and codiagonal on the same footing, plus usage of operations of pullback and pushout as general operation on extensions (not of the same groups) is giving broad but clean context.

   On the other hand, the notation , is symmetric and a special case of reconstruction of additive structure from the categorical structure in additive categories, a trick also used for stable infinity categories.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeJun 24th 2013
   • (edited Jun 24th 2013)
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexMy edits may be improperly reflected in the entry, as the $n$Lab stalled when I was sending the biggest change to the entry. I wanted to have the content of entry 3 there.

   My edits may be improperly reflected in the entry, as the Lab stalled when I was sending the biggest change to the entry. I wanted to have the content of entry 3 there.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeJun 24th 2013
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexIn fact, my interest is if we have a proper notion of short exact sequence and we have finite biproducts but not an additive category. Then one can still define the associative addition, however one may lack inverses. I am curious about such cases of Baer sum (giving additive monoids, if I am right).

   In fact, my interest is if we have a proper notion of short exact sequence and we have finite biproducts but not an additive category. Then one can still define the associative addition, however one may lack inverses. I am curious about such cases of Baer sum (giving additive monoids, if I am right).

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeJun 24th 2013
   • (edited Jun 24th 2013)
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexI have slightly updated 3, with much additional information. P.S. I am getting now the point of the original notation, as in 1. It looked to me that both stars are attached to $\Delta$ what was quite an obstacle to understanding.

   I have slightly updated 3, with much additional information. P.S. I am getting now the point of the original notation, as in 1. It looked to me that both stars are attached to what was quite an obstacle to understanding.

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeJun 24th 2013
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexI mean, I agree with you that it's a good idea to have some lemmas first on morphisms of ses (short exact sequences), such as are implicit in your #3, before launching into the text of #1. This is the bread and butter of homological algebra. I am not sure about more minimal hypotheses to push these lemmas through, such as weakening to enrichment in commutative monoids as opposed to abelian groups. I'd think one would have to work throughout with kernel pairs instead of mere kernels. I think adding words like "pullback functor" and "pushforward functor" could help some readers parse the notation $\Delta^*$ and $+_*$ more readily.

   I mean, I agree with you that it’s a good idea to have some lemmas first on morphisms of ses (short exact sequences), such as are implicit in your #3, before launching into the text of #1. This is the bread and butter of homological algebra. I am not sure about more minimal hypotheses to push these lemmas through, such as weakening to enrichment in commutative monoids as opposed to abelian groups. I’d think one would have to work throughout with kernel pairs instead of mere kernels.

   I think adding words like “pullback functor” and “pushforward functor” could help some readers parse the notation and more readily.