Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Let $I$ be a directed category and let $A$ be the category of $R$-modules ($R$ any ring). I'm trying to understand why the direct limit functor $$ \varinjlim_{I}: A^I \to A $$ is exact. Since it has a right adjoint it's sufficient to show that it preserves monomorphisms. Let $\alpha: F \to G$ be a monomorphism in $A^I$. The proofs in the literature I know of (Weibel: "Introduction to homological algebra", 2.6.15 or Eisenbud: "Commutative Algebra", A6.4) seem to use the following as definition for $\alpha$ being mono:

$\alpha(i): F(i) \to G(i)$ is a monomorphism in $A$ for each $i \in obj(I).$ $\hspace{27pt}$ $\hspace{27pt}$ $(*)$

It's easy to see that $(*)$ implies that $\alpha$ is mono in the usual sense (e.g. if $\beta: H \to F$ is a homomorphism in $A^I$ such that $\alpha \beta = 0$ then $\beta = 0$).

Does anyone know if $(*)$ is equivalent to this definition of a monomorphism ?

I was only able to settle the following special case:

Let $A$ be an abelian category and $I$ a small category such that for all $i, j \in obj(I)$:

  • $Hom_I(i,i) = \lbrace id_i \rbrace $
  • $Hom_I(i,j) \neq \emptyset \implies Hom_I(j,i) = \emptyset \hspace{5pt} (i \neq j)$
Then $\alpha$ above is mono iff $(*)$ holds.

share|improve this question
Showing that taking direct limit is exact is exercise 19 in chapter 2 of Atiyah-Macdonald (there's a hint there). –  Łukasz Grabowski Jan 10 '11 at 13:03
@Lukasz: Thanks for the reference. But they also take (*) as definition for being mono. –  Ralph Jan 10 '11 at 13:18
@Ralph: To show that mono implies (*) at a given i \in I consider a system over I which is non-zero only at i. –  Łukasz Grabowski Jan 10 '11 at 13:34
The point Sergio is making in his answer is a very good one -- it concerns your initial motivation that you want to show that filtered colimits of $R$-modules are exact. This is a special property of module categories and it is important to notice that the dual is wrong. Filtered limits of short exact sequences need not be exact, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mittag-Leffler_condition –  Theo Buehler Jan 10 '11 at 14:40
add comment

3 Answers

The answer is yes if $A=R\mbox{-Mod}$ has pullbacks (which I'm pretty sure it does). See Tom Leinster's answer to a similar question.

share|improve this answer
Good point . –  Martin Brandenburg Jan 10 '11 at 13:55
Thanks Finn, that's what I was looking for. –  Ralph Jan 10 '11 at 14:14
add comment

An Abelian category where filtrant colimts are exats is called a (abelian) Grothendieck category, no all Abelan categories are Grothendieck. Of course R-Mod is Grothendieck, because the forgetful functors U: R-Mod -> Set create limits (then preserve and reflexct Monomorphisms) and U create filtrant colimits, just because these (in Set) are coherent with finite products and algebraic structures.

share|improve this answer
add comment

$A^I$ is an abelian category. Namely, the direct sums, kernels and cokernels may be constructed pointwise. In particular, $\alpha$ is mono iff $\ker(\alpha)=0$. But a functor $I \to A$ vanishes iff it vanishes pointwise. Thus $\alpha$ mono iff all $\alpha(i)$ mono.

share|improve this answer
Why the downvote? –  Martin Brandenburg Mar 15 '12 at 8:32
add comment

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.