Isn't the category of abelian groups obviously Grothendieck?
In Peter Freyd's Abelian Categories, it is mentioned in passing that the category of abelian groups (more generally, $R$-modules for a ring $R$) satisfy the axiom AB5:
For each linearly ordered family ${S_i}_I$ in the lattice of subobjects of an object $S$, and $T$ is any subobject of $S$, then we have $$T cap bigcup S_i = bigcup (T cap S_i).$$
Isn't this completely obvious?
Let $r in RHS$. Then $r in LHS$. Conversely if $r in LHS$ then $r in RHS$.
(The only non-triviality is that the union of a family of submodules is a module in the first place, and this holds because the family is linearly ordered.)
I am confused because here https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Grothendieck+category#Kiersz they link to a 9 page paper that proves that the category of $R$-modules satisfies what they say is an equivalent condition to AB5 ('small filtered colimits are exact').
category-theory homological-algebra abelian-categories
asked Dec 15 at 4:31
SSF
357110
add a comment |
In Peter Freyd's Abelian Categories, it is mentioned in passing that the category of abelian groups (more generally, $R$-modules for a ring $R$) satisfy the axiom AB5:
For each linearly ordered family ${S_i}_I$ in the lattice of subobjects of an object $S$, and $T$ is any subobject of $S$, then we have $$T cap bigcup S_i = bigcup (T cap S_i).$$
Isn't this completely obvious?
Let $r in RHS$. Then $r in LHS$. Conversely if $r in LHS$ then $r in RHS$.
(The only non-triviality is that the union of a family of submodules is a module in the first place, and this holds because the family is linearly ordered.)
I am confused because here https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Grothendieck+category#Kiersz they link to a 9 page paper that proves that the category of $R$-modules satisfies what they say is an equivalent condition to AB5 ('small filtered colimits are exact').
category-theory homological-algebra abelian-categories
asked Dec 15 at 4:31
SSF
357110
1
This is obvious for the case at hand because $cap $ and $bigcup$ for goups or $R$-,odules happen to be simply the set-theoretic intersection and union of he underlying set (and same underlying set means same module as long as we speak about submodules of a fixed module)
– Hagen von Eitzen
Dec 15 at 4:38
Thank you! May i ask then why in that link I gave (ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Grothendieck+category#Kiersz), under the section of examples they say "for $R$ a commutative ring, its category of modules $R$-Mod is a Grothendieck category. (see e.g Kiersz 06, prop. 4 for the proof that filtered colimits here are exact.)"? I mean to ask, is it really the case that their version of AB5 is that much harder to prove than the one I gave?
– SSF
Dec 15 at 4:41
add a comment |
In Peter Freyd's Abelian Categories, it is mentioned in passing that the category of abelian groups (more generally, $R$-modules for a ring $R$) satisfy the axiom AB5:
For each linearly ordered family ${S_i}_I$ in the lattice of subobjects of an object $S$, and $T$ is any subobject of $S$, then we have $$T cap bigcup S_i = bigcup (T cap S_i).$$
Isn't this completely obvious?
Let $r in RHS$. Then $r in LHS$. Conversely if $r in LHS$ then $r in RHS$.
(The only non-triviality is that the union of a family of submodules is a module in the first place, and this holds because the family is linearly ordered.)
I am confused because here https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Grothendieck+category#Kiersz they link to a 9 page paper that proves that the category of $R$-modules satisfies what they say is an equivalent condition to AB5 ('small filtered colimits are exact').
category-theory homological-algebra abelian-categories
asked Dec 15 at 4:31
SSF
357110
In Peter Freyd's Abelian Categories, it is mentioned in passing that the category of abelian groups (more generally, $R$-modules for a ring $R$) satisfy the axiom AB5:
For each linearly ordered family ${S_i}_I$ in the lattice of subobjects of an object $S$, and $T$ is any subobject of $S$, then we have $$T cap bigcup S_i = bigcup (T cap S_i).$$
Isn't this completely obvious?
Let $r in RHS$. Then $r in LHS$. Conversely if $r in LHS$ then $r in RHS$.
(The only non-triviality is that the union of a family of submodules is a module in the first place, and this holds because the family is linearly ordered.)
I am confused because here https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Grothendieck+category#Kiersz they link to a 9 page paper that proves that the category of $R$-modules satisfies what they say is an equivalent condition to AB5 ('small filtered colimits are exact').
category-theory homological-algebra abelian-categories
category-theory homological-algebra abelian-categories
asked Dec 15 at 4:31
SSF
357110
asked Dec 15 at 4:31
SSF
357110
asked Dec 15 at 4:31
SSF
357110
asked Dec 15 at 4:31
SSF
357110
asked Dec 15 at 4:31
SSF
357110
357110
1
This is obvious for the case at hand because $cap $ and $bigcup$ for goups or $R$-,odules happen to be simply the set-theoretic intersection and union of he underlying set (and same underlying set means same module as long as we speak about submodules of a fixed module)
– Hagen von Eitzen
Dec 15 at 4:38
Thank you! May i ask then why in that link I gave (ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Grothendieck+category#Kiersz), under the section of examples they say "for $R$ a commutative ring, its category of modules $R$-Mod is a Grothendieck category. (see e.g Kiersz 06, prop. 4 for the proof that filtered colimits here are exact.)"? I mean to ask, is it really the case that their version of AB5 is that much harder to prove than the one I gave?
– SSF
Dec 15 at 4:41
add a comment |
1
This is obvious for the case at hand because $cap $ and $bigcup$ for goups or $R$-,odules happen to be simply the set-theoretic intersection and union of he underlying set (and same underlying set means same module as long as we speak about submodules of a fixed module)
– Hagen von Eitzen
Dec 15 at 4:38
Thank you! May i ask then why in that link I gave (ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Grothendieck+category#Kiersz), under the section of examples they say "for $R$ a commutative ring, its category of modules $R$-Mod is a Grothendieck category. (see e.g Kiersz 06, prop. 4 for the proof that filtered colimits here are exact.)"? I mean to ask, is it really the case that their version of AB5 is that much harder to prove than the one I gave?
– SSF
Dec 15 at 4:41
1
1
This is obvious for the case at hand because $cap $ and $bigcup$ for goups or $R$-,odules happen to be simply the set-theoretic intersection and union of he underlying set (and same underlying set means same module as long as we speak about submodules of a fixed module)
– Hagen von Eitzen
Dec 15 at 4:38
This is obvious for the case at hand because $cap $ and $bigcup$ for goups or $R$-,odules happen to be simply the set-theoretic intersection and union of he underlying set (and same underlying set means same module as long as we speak about submodules of a fixed module)
– Hagen von Eitzen
Dec 15 at 4:38
Thank you! May i ask then why in that link I gave (ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Grothendieck+category#Kiersz), under the section of examples they say "for $R$ a commutative ring, its category of modules $R$-Mod is a Grothendieck category. (see e.g Kiersz 06, prop. 4 for the proof that filtered colimits here are exact.)"? I mean to ask, is it really the case that their version of AB5 is that much harder to prove than the one I gave?
– SSF
Dec 15 at 4:41
Thank you! May i ask then why in that link I gave (ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Grothendieck+category#Kiersz), under the section of examples they say "for $R$ a commutative ring, its category of modules $R$-Mod is a Grothendieck category. (see e.g Kiersz 06, prop. 4 for the proof that filtered colimits here are exact.)"? I mean to ask, is it really the case that their version of AB5 is that much harder to prove than the one I gave?
– SSF
Dec 15 at 4:41
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Yes, you are correct. The formulation of AB5 used on the nlab page you linked is substantially different from Freyd's (though it turns out to be equivalent) and so it takes a bit more work to prove it for modules over a ring. Note that the 9-page paper you refer to also starts by introducing all the concepts needed to formulate the statement from scratch. The actual proof of the final result (Proposition 4) is quite short and the important tools it uses from the previous 8 pages are just basic background on how to concretely identify all of the relevant category-theoretic notions in the case of modules over a ring (which is comparable to how you tacitly used the fact that the lattice of subobjects of a module can be identified with its usual lattice of submodules).
answered Dec 15 at 6:50
Eric Wofsey
178k12203331
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3040173%2fisnt-the-category-of-abelian-groups-obviously-grothendieck%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Yes, you are correct. The formulation of AB5 used on the nlab page you linked is substantially different from Freyd's (though it turns out to be equivalent) and so it takes a bit more work to prove it for modules over a ring. Note that the 9-page paper you refer to also starts by introducing all the concepts needed to formulate the statement from scratch. The actual proof of the final result (Proposition 4) is quite short and the important tools it uses from the previous 8 pages are just basic background on how to concretely identify all of the relevant category-theoretic notions in the case of modules over a ring (which is comparable to how you tacitly used the fact that the lattice of subobjects of a module can be identified with its usual lattice of submodules).
answered Dec 15 at 6:50
Eric Wofsey
178k12203331
add a comment |
Yes, you are correct. The formulation of AB5 used on the nlab page you linked is substantially different from Freyd's (though it turns out to be equivalent) and so it takes a bit more work to prove it for modules over a ring. Note that the 9-page paper you refer to also starts by introducing all the concepts needed to formulate the statement from scratch. The actual proof of the final result (Proposition 4) is quite short and the important tools it uses from the previous 8 pages are just basic background on how to concretely identify all of the relevant category-theoretic notions in the case of modules over a ring (which is comparable to how you tacitly used the fact that the lattice of subobjects of a module can be identified with its usual lattice of submodules).
answered Dec 15 at 6:50
Eric Wofsey
178k12203331
add a comment |
Yes, you are correct. The formulation of AB5 used on the nlab page you linked is substantially different from Freyd's (though it turns out to be equivalent) and so it takes a bit more work to prove it for modules over a ring. Note that the 9-page paper you refer to also starts by introducing all the concepts needed to formulate the statement from scratch. The actual proof of the final result (Proposition 4) is quite short and the important tools it uses from the previous 8 pages are just basic background on how to concretely identify all of the relevant category-theoretic notions in the case of modules over a ring (which is comparable to how you tacitly used the fact that the lattice of subobjects of a module can be identified with its usual lattice of submodules).
answered Dec 15 at 6:50
Eric Wofsey
178k12203331
Yes, you are correct. The formulation of AB5 used on the nlab page you linked is substantially different from Freyd's (though it turns out to be equivalent) and so it takes a bit more work to prove it for modules over a ring. Note that the 9-page paper you refer to also starts by introducing all the concepts needed to formulate the statement from scratch. The actual proof of the final result (Proposition 4) is quite short and the important tools it uses from the previous 8 pages are just basic background on how to concretely identify all of the relevant category-theoretic notions in the case of modules over a ring (which is comparable to how you tacitly used the fact that the lattice of subobjects of a module can be identified with its usual lattice of submodules).
answered Dec 15 at 6:50
Eric Wofsey
178k12203331
answered Dec 15 at 6:50
Eric Wofsey
178k12203331
answered Dec 15 at 6:50
Eric Wofsey
178k12203331
answered Dec 15 at 6:50
Eric Wofsey
178k12203331
178k12203331
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3040173%2fisnt-the-category-of-abelian-groups-obviously-grothendieck%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
This is obvious for the case at hand because $cap $ and $bigcup$ for goups or $R$-,odules happen to be simply the set-theoretic intersection and union of he underlying set (and same underlying set means same module as long as we speak about submodules of a fixed module)
– Hagen von Eitzen
Dec 15 at 4:38
Thank you! May i ask then why in that link I gave (ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Grothendieck+category#Kiersz), under the section of examples they say "for $R$ a commutative ring, its category of modules $R$-Mod is a Grothendieck category. (see e.g Kiersz 06, prop. 4 for the proof that filtered colimits here are exact.)"? I mean to ask, is it really the case that their version of AB5 is that much harder to prove than the one I gave?
– SSF
Dec 15 at 4:41