MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I would like to understand the accounts of P. Gabriel (link text), pag 365, when he shows that the composition of this category is well defined.

Definition: Given a Serre subcategory $\mathcal{C}$ of $\mathcal{A}$, the quotient category $\mathcal{A}/\mathcal{C}$ of $\mathcal{A}$ with respect to $\mathcal{C}$ is defined as follows. The objects in $\mathcal{A}/\mathcal{C}$ are the objects in $\mathcal{A}$. Given two objects $A,B$ in $\mathcal{A}$, there is for each pair of subobjects $A' \subset A$ and $B'\subset B$ and induced map $Hom_{\mathcal{A}}(A,B) \to Hom_{\mathcal{A}}(A',B/B')$. The pairs $(A',B')$ such that both $A/A'$ and $B'$ lie in $\mathcal{C}$ form a directed set, and one obtains a direct system of abelian groups $Hom_{\mathcal{A}}(A',B/B')$. We define $$ Hom_{\mathcal{A}/\mathcal{C}} (A,B)= colim_{(A',B')} Hom_{\mathcal{A}}(A',B/B') $$ Let $\bar{f} \in Hom_{\mathcal{A}/\mathcal{C}} (M,N)$ and $\bar{g} \in Hom_{\mathcal{A}/\mathcal{C}} (N,P)$. Else, exist $f \in Hom_{\mathcal{A}}(M',N/N')$ and $g \in Hom_{\mathcal{A}}(N'',P/P')$. Thus, let $M''=f^{-1}((N''+N')/N')$. Why $M/M'' \in \mathcal{C}$? (first question).

The author then takes the following object: $g(N'' \cap N')$ lie in $\mathcal{C}$. Why? (second quastion).

Let $P''=P'+ g(N'' \cap N')$, too $P'' \in \mathcal{C}$, why? (third question)

Now, let the morphism $f' : M'' \to (N''+N')/N'$ induced $f$ and the morphism $g': N''/(N''\cap N') \to P/P''$ induced $g$.

Finally, it takes the following morphism: $M'' \xrightarrow{f'} (N''+N')/N' \cong N''/(N''\cap N') \xrightarrow{g'} P/P''$. He claims that this morphism is the representative of composite function $\bar{g}\bar{f}$ independently of morphisms $f$ and $g$. I do not understand this statement. (fourth question).

Comments: Let $f: A \to B$ and $A' \subset A$, $f(A')$ is the image of the $ A'\hookrightarrow A \xrightarrow{f} B$. If $B'\subset B$, $f^{-1}(B')$ is the kernel of the $ A \xrightarrow{f} B \twoheadrightarrow B/B'$.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 4 down vote accepted

First, you actually want $((N'' + N')/N')$ every time you have $(N'' + N')/N$. If this was the source of your confusion, sweet. If not, here goes. (Also, the double underscores in the NUMDAM url got messed up by MO's processing; here's a working link.)

  1. There's a short exact sequence $0 \to M'/M'' \to M/M'' \to M/M' \to 0$, and $M'/M'' \cong N/(N'' + N')$, since $M''$ is the kernel of the composition $M' \to N/N' \to N/(N'' + N')$; finally, $N/(N'' + N')$ is a quotient of $N/N''$, which is in $\mathcal{C}$, so it's in $\mathcal{C}$ as well.

  2. $\mathcal{C}$ is closed under taking subobjects and quotient objects. $N'$ is in $\mathcal{C}$, $N' \cap N''$ is a subobject, and $g(N' \cap N'')$ is a quotient of that.

  3. A sum of two subobjects of another object is a quotient of their direct sum. Here, $P'$ and $g(N'' \cap N')$ are in $\mathcal{C}$, so their direct sum is as well, and so this internal sum is as well.

  4. The point of this was to compose $\overline{f}$ and $\overline{g}$ in the quotient category, but to do this, we had to lift them to maps $f$ and $g$ in the original category. Gabriel's saying that we get the same composition in the quotient category even if we had picked different lifts of $\overline{f}$ and $\overline{g}$. Let's say we picked $\tilde{f}:\widetilde{M'} \to N/\widetilde{N'}$ and $\tilde{g}:\widetilde{N''} \to P/\widetilde{P'}$ instead. Since these have to become $\overline{f}$ and $\overline{g}$ in the direct limit, then, for example, $\widetilde{f}$ and $f$ must be the same as maps from some subobject of $M' \cap \widetilde{M'}$ to some quotient of $N/(N' + \widetilde{N'})$, and likewise for $g$ and $\widetilde{g}$.

    So we reduce to the case where $\widetilde{f}$ is defined 'further along in the direct system' than $f$. That is, $\widetilde{f}$ is a map $\widetilde{M'} \to N/\widetilde{N'}$ where $\widetilde{M'}$ and $\widetilde{N'}$ are subobjects of $M'$ and $N'$ respectively, with the obvious restrictions on their quotients, and we have to show that $gf$ and $g\widetilde{f}$ become the same map in the quotient category (and then do the same but vary $g$). I'm not going to do this whole proof for you, but if you're confused about things like this, it's probably worth doing yourself. Good luck!

share|cite|improve this answer
First, thank you for the answer. With your help, I wrote the details but is missing justify an assertion of P. Gabriel. When he wrote that the morphism $g'$ is induced for g. I wonder how would be a category of modules, for example. But I can not justify in a abelian category. Would use it? $$ N'' \xrightarrow{g} P/P' \twoheadrightarrow P/P' $$ – Vasco May 19 '13 at 14:01
$g$ is a map $N'' \to P/P'$; taking a further quotient induces $N'' \to P/P''$; and then by definition, $N' \cap N''$ is a subobject of the kernel of this map, so it passes to $N''/(N'\cap N'')\to P/P''$. There's a good reason why arguments about abelian categories look like arguments about modules: the Freyd-Mitchell embedding theorem, which says that any small abelian category embeds into some category of modules over a ring. So any statement you can phrase in terms of an arbitrary small set of objects in an abelian category, and prove when those objects are modules, is true in general! – Paul VanKoughnett May 19 '13 at 23:08

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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