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

Hi everybody,

I have a lack of references concerning projective limits and injective limits. Up to my faults in Bourbaki there are only proj and inj limits indexed by a partially ordered set (not a category), and this set is almost systematically directed (i.e. for all $i,j$ there exists $k$ such that $k\geq i$, and $k\geq j$). The problem of combining projective limits with inductive limits is not treated at all as far as I can see.

I need a reference for this. Can someone help me ? Thank you !

My specific problem is the following: Assume given a system of modules $(M_{i,j})_{i,j}$ and arrows among them, over the same ring $A$.

We consider both

1) the projective limit with respect to the index $j$ of the injective limits with respect to the indexes $i$. Call it

$\projlim_j \;\;(\injlim_i \;\; (M_{i,j}))$

2) the injective limit with respect to the index $i$ of the projective limits with respect to the indexes $j$. Call it

$\injlim_i \;\;(\projlim_j\;\; (M_{i,j}))$

-- (Up to errors) There exists a canonical map

$\displaystyle CAN : \injlim_i \;\;(\projlim_j\;\; (M_{i,j})) \;\to\; \projlim_j\;\; (\injlim_i\;\; (M_{i,j})) $

Under which assumptions this map is INJECTIVE ?

As an example if there is no arrows at all between the $M_{i,j}$, then one has a direct sum instead of the injective limit, and a product instead of a projective limit. The arrow CAN becomes

$\displaystyle CAN : \oplus_i \;\;\prod_j \;M_{i,j} \;\to\; \prod_j \;\;\oplus_i \;M_{i,j}$


$((a_{i,j})_i)_j \mapsto ((a_{i,j})_j)_i$

In this case the arrow CAN is always injective independently on the nature of the $M_{i,j}$ (and up to errors it is an isomorphism if and only if one of the sets of index "$i$" or "$j$" is finite). I suspect that in the general case the injectivity only depends on the nature of the arrows, but not of the nature of the objects. Does anyone have a useful comment or a reference?

Many thanks !

share|cite|improve this question
Sorry for all the edits. Feel free to roll-back if you want to reduce the total number of edits. Just remember the trick of using backticks ` around the dollar signs to deal with math that doesn't render correctly. Also, you have a typo but I don't want to pile on more edits: "insteand" is written where "instead" is meant. – David White Feb 13 '12 at 19:43
@DavidWhite good eye! – crystalline Feb 6 at 19:46
up vote 7 down vote accepted

The canonical morphism $\alpha : \mathrm{colim}_{i \in I} ~ \mathrm{lim}_{j \in J} M_{ij} \to \mathrm{lim}_{j \in J} ~ \mathrm{colim}_{i \in I} M_{i,j}$ is injective in the following situation:

1) $I$ is a directed set.

2) For every $j \in J$ and every $i \to i'$ in $I$ the morphism $M_{i,j} \to M_{i',j}$ is injective.

More detailed: Let us still assume 1) and let $x \in \mathrm{ker}(\alpha)$. Choose $i$ such that $x$ comes from an element in $\lim_j M_{i,j}$, say $x = (x_{ij})_j$. Now $\alpha(x)=0$ says that for all $j$ there is some $i(j) \geq i$ such that the image of $x_{ij}$ in $M_{i(j),j}$ vanishes. If we have 2), this already gives us $x_{ij}=0$ for all $j$, thus $x=0$.

More generally, if $j \mapsto i(j)$ is a bounded function, say by $i_{\infty}$, we see that the image of $x$ in $\lim_j M_{i_{\infty},j}$ vanishes, which implies $x=0$ in the colim-lim. Now it's easy to find an example where this function is not bounded and, in fact, $\alpha$ is not injective:

Let's take $I=\mathbb{N}$ as a partial order and $J = \mathbb{N}$ as a discrete category, so that we consider the canonical map $\mathrm{colim}_n \prod_m M_{nm} \to \prod_m \mathrm{colim}_n M_{n,m}$. For all $n,m$ let $M_{n,m} = A[X]$ and let $M_{n,m} \to M_{n+1,m}$ be the formal derivative of polynomials. Then $(1,X,X^2,X^3,\dotsc)$ represents a nontrivial element in the kernel of $\alpha$, since every $X^m$ satisfies $\partial^{m+1} X^m = 0$, but there is no $n$ with $\partial^{n} X^m = 0$ for all $m$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank you for the answer ! Do you have a counterexample to the general case ? – PULITA ANDREA Feb 13 '12 at 20:48
Have you tried to find one by yourself? – Martin Brandenburg Feb 13 '12 at 21:19
Yes, I have tried, but I think I am basically stupid. My "psycological problem" is that the two cases that we know (direct sum case, and the case that you found of a directed set with injective maps) seems to be somehow "orthogonal". What is the right assumption that should include both these two cases cases ? For this reason I am thinking that maybe the map CAN is always injective ? What is your feeling ? Thanks again – PULITA ANDREA Feb 13 '12 at 21:38
I've added an example and more details. – Martin Brandenburg Feb 13 '12 at 22:35

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.