1
$\begingroup$

Let $R$ be a commutative ring and $A$ and $B$ two $R$-module. Suppose that $A$ is free of rank $n$ with basis $a_1,\dots,a_n$. Then there is an isomorphism $\Phi: Hom_R(A,B) \to Hom_R(A,R)\otimes_R B$ defined by $\Phi(\sigma)=\sum_{i=1}^n \psi_i\otimes \sigma_i$, where $\sigma_i=\sigma(a_i)$ and $\psi_i$ is the map such that $\psi_i(a_j)=\delta_{ij}$. Is there another way to describe $\Phi$?

$\endgroup$

3 Answers 3

1
$\begingroup$

Such an isomorphism is worthless if it is written down with a choice of a basis, because then naturality is unclear (which is, of course, very important if you need this isomorphism not just as an isolated relation). There is a homomorphism of $R$-modules

$\alpha : A^* \otimes B \to \hom(A,B)$

defined by $\phi \otimes b \mapsto \phi(-)b$, which is natural in $A$ and in $B$, which are arbitrary $R$-modules. It is a natural question when this is an isomorphism for all $B$, when we fix $A$. Note that the inverse will be, restricted to these $A,B$, also natural due to general reasons, although perhaps we need to make choices to write down the inverse (without making reference to $\alpha$)! Also remember the slogan "You can work locally, if you are given something globally".

Now both $(-)^* \otimes B$ and $\hom(-,B)$ are functors which transform finite direct sums into finite products, and transform split cokernels into split kernels. In particular, the set of $A$s for $\alpha$ is an isomorphism is closed under these operations and since $R$ is an example, we see that every finitely generatd projective $R$-module is an example. Now, the converse is also true: If $A^* \otimes - \cong \hom(A,-)$, then the right hand side is preserving all colimits (since this is true for the left hand side). Restricting to coequalizers shows that $A$ is projective, and restricting to filtered colimits shows that $A$ is finitely presented (in the categorical sense, thus also in the algebraic sense).

You can view this also as a special case of the Theorem of Eilenberg-Watts: If $A$ is finitely generated projective, then $\hom(A,-) : \text{Mod}(R) \to \text{Mod}(R)$ is a cocontinuous functor, thus is given by tensoring with a $R$-module, namely $\hom(A,R) = A^*$.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ I don't think that "naturality is unclear", if the iso "is written down with a choice of a basis". Given $A,A'$ with bases $\lbrace a_i \rbrace, \lbrace a'_j\rbrace$ and a hom $\alpha: A \to A'$ of $R$-modules, then by writing $\alpha(a_i) = \sum_j r_{ij}a'_j$ it's a direct computation to show that $\phi \circ \alpha^{\ast} = (\alpha^{\ast} \otimes \operatorname{id}_B) \circ \phi'$ (where $\phi$ is taken from the OP). Similarly nat. in $B$ can be shown. In the general case of $A$ being f.g. projective just replace the bases through projective bases. $\endgroup$
    – Ralph
    Jul 11, 2011 at 16:11
  • $\begingroup$ I know that you can do a computation, but you cannot see naturality without this computation when you write the inverse map as above. Thus it is somewhat unclear. $\endgroup$ Jul 11, 2011 at 18:09
  • $\begingroup$ I agree in this point of view. Thanks for your explication. $\endgroup$
    – Ralph
    Jul 11, 2011 at 19:16
1
$\begingroup$

By definition of freeness, $Hom_R(A,X)$ is naturally (with respect to $X$) isomorphic to the direct product of $n$ copies of $X$. Apply this in both the domain and codomain of $\Phi$, and use the fact that $-\otimes B$ distributes over finite products (because they're the same as finite sums in abelian categories). Is that "another" description? The content is the same but the viewpoint seems a bit different.

$\endgroup$
6
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ When I said another way, what I had in mind was something like the inverse map, i.e. not involving explicitely $a_1,\dots,a_n$. In fact $\Phi^{-1}(\nu\otimes b)=(a\mapsto \nu(a)b)$. Instead, if I'm not wrong, identifying $Hom(A,X)$ with $X^n$ require the basis of $A$. $\endgroup$ Jul 10, 2011 at 14:20
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ What about "the inverse of the map $\nu\otimes b\mapsto \left(a\mapsto \nu\left(a\right)b\right)$ ? Because I don't think there is anything more explicit. If there was, it would work for any module, not necessarily free... $\endgroup$ Jul 10, 2011 at 14:24
  • $\begingroup$ I agree with darij. If the inverse of a naturally defined map doesn't always exist, there's no reason to expect that it has a more natural definition than "the inverse, when it exists." $\endgroup$ Jul 10, 2011 at 14:30
  • $\begingroup$ I agree too. That what I was thinking but I was hoping to be wrong.Thank you. $\endgroup$ Jul 10, 2011 at 14:34
  • $\begingroup$ At least the result also holds if $A$ is a finitely generated projective $R$-module. $\endgroup$
    – Ralph
    Jul 10, 2011 at 14:42
1
$\begingroup$

As Benjamin Steinberg says in his comment, the inverse map always exists and moreover it is natural in $A$ and $B$,

$\Psi\colon Hom_R(A,R)\otimes_RB\longrightarrow Hom_R(A,B)$

but it's only an isomorphism for f.g. projective $A$. A definition of $\Psi$ in terms of functors and adjunctions is as follows. By the adjointness between $-\otimes_RB$ and $Hom_R(B,-)$, the natural homomorphism $\Psi$ is the same as a natural morphism

$\Psi'\colon Hom_R(A,R)\longrightarrow Hom_R(B,Hom_R(A,B))\cong Hom_R(B\otimes_RA,B)$

This $\Psi'$ is the same as

$Hom_R(A,R)\mathop{\longrightarrow}\limits^{{B\otimes_R-}} Hom_R(B\otimes_RA,B\otimes_RR)\cong Hom_R(B\otimes_RA,B)$

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.