This question is possibly related to this other one.

Let $\mathcal A$ be a dg-category over a commutative ring $k$. I denote by $\text{dgm-}\mathcal A$ the dg-category of right dg-$\mathcal A$-modules, that is, dg-functors \begin{equation} \mathcal A^{\text{op}} \to \mathbf C_{\text{dg}}(k), \end{equation} where $\mathbf C_{\text{dg}}(k)$ is the dg-category of cochain complexes of $k$-modules. In general, the category of dg-functors $\mathrm{Fun}_{\text{dg}}(\mathcal A, \mathcal B)$ between two dg-categories is itself a dg-category, with hom-complexes denoted by $\mathrm{Nat}_{\text{dg}}(F,G)$ (the complex of natural transformations $F \to G$).

Let me recall the (differential graded) Yoneda lemma. Given $F \in \text{dgm-}\mathcal A$, we have a natural isomorphism of complexes: \begin{equation} \mathrm{Nat}_{\text{dg}}(\mathcal A(-,A),F) \cong F(A). \end{equation} We also have the differential graded Yoneda embedding: \begin{align} h_{-} : \mathcal A \hookrightarrow \text{dgm-}\mathcal A, \\ A \mapsto \mathcal A(-,A). \end{align}

A useful operation on dg-modules is taking cohomology. In fact, there is a functor \begin{equation} H^0(-) : H^0(\text{dgm-}\mathcal A) \to \text{mod-}H^0(\mathcal A), \end{equation} which takes a dg-module $F$ to the $H^0(\mathcal A)$-module of its zeroth cohomology.

Now, notice that the zeroth cohomology of a representable module $\mathcal A(-,A)$ is given by $H^0(\mathcal A(-,A)) = H^0(\mathcal A)(-,A)$. So, this $H^0(\mathcal A)$-module is also represented by $A$. Then, we can apply both the differential graded and the ordinary version of Yoneda lemma: \begin{align} & H^0(\mathrm{Nat}_{\text{dg}}(\mathcal A(-,A),F)) \cong H^0(F(A)) \\ &= H^0(F)(A) \cong \mathrm{Nat}(H^0(\mathcal A(-,A)), H^0(F)), \end{align} and it is immediate to see that this chain of maps gives actually the functorial map \begin{equation} H^0(\mathrm{Nat}_{\text{dg}}(\mathcal A(-,A),F)) \to \mathrm{Nat}(H^0(\mathcal A(-,A)), H^0(F)) \end{equation} given by the above $H^0(-)$ functor. So, we have proven that in this case, this natural map is an isomorphism.

Now, let me take another step. I start from a closed degree zero map $f: A \to B$ in $\mathcal A$, which corresponds to a closed degree zero morphism $h_f : h_A \to h_B$ via the Yoneda embedding. The category $\text{dgm-}\mathcal A$ is (strongly) pretriangulated, so we can take the cone $C(h_f)$, which fits in the following pretriangle: \begin{equation} h_A \xrightarrow{h_f} h_B \to C(h_f) \to h_A[1]. \end{equation} Now, let $F \in \text{dgm-}\mathcal A$, and consider the dg-functor \begin{equation} \mathrm{Nat}_{\text{dg}}(-, F) : (\text{dgm-}\mathcal A)^{\text{op}} \to \mathbf{C}_{\text{dg}}(k). \end{equation} As a dg-functor, it maps pretriangles to pretriangles (caveat: because of contravariance, the sign of the shift is changed to the opposite). Hence, we obtain a pretriangle in $\mathbf{C}_{\text{dg}}(k)$: \begin{equation} \mathrm{Nat}_{\text{dg}}(h_B,F) \to \mathrm{Nat}_{\text{dg}}(h_A,F) \to \mathrm{Nat}_{\text{dg}}(C(h_f)[-1],F) \to \mathrm{Nat}_{\text{dg}}(h_B[-1],F). \end{equation} Moreover, Yoneda lemma gives a commutative square:

(source: presheaf.com)

so we obtain a (functorial and strict!) isomorphism between cones: \begin{equation} \mathrm{Nat}_{\text{dg}}(C(h_f)[-1],F) \cong C(F(f)) \end{equation} as cochain complexes. Rearranging shifts, we obtain: \begin{equation} \mathrm{Nat}_{\text{dg}}(C(h_f),F) \cong C(F(f))[-1]. \end{equation} Now, I'd like to compare $H^0(\mathrm{Nat}_{\text{dg}}(C(h_f),F)) \cong H^0(C(F(f))[-1])$ with $\mathrm{Nat}(H^0(C(h_f)),H^0(F))$. Is it true or false that the natural map \begin{equation*} H^0(\mathrm{Nat}_{\text{dg}}(C(h_f),F)) \to \mathrm{Nat}(H^0(C(h_f)),H^0(F)) \end{equation*} is an isomorphism? I expect the answer to be no, because, roughly speaking, taking cohomology "destroys" the functoriality of cones. How can I find a counterexample?


1 Answer 1


You can take your DG-category to be a plain ring $R$, or the category of f.g. projective $R$-modules. Then you're asking the following question: Given a complex of f.g. projective $R$-modules $C$ concentrated in degrees $-1$ and $0$ and an arbitrary complex $F$, is $H^0(\hom(C,F))\cong \hom(H^0(C),H^0(F))$? Actually you're asking whether a specific map is an isomorphism, but I'll show you an example where there is no even an abstract isomorphism. Assume that the projective dimension of $R$ is $>0$ (otherwise your map is indeed an iso). Take two $R$-modules $M$ and $N$, $M$ finitely presented, such that $\operatorname{Ext}_R^1(M,N)\neq 0$. Let $C$ be a presentation of $M$ and $F=N[-1]$, in particular $H^0(F)=0$. However $H^0(\hom(C,F))$ surjects onto $\operatorname{Ext}_R^1(M,N)$, so it cannot be trivial.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! What about if I require $\mathcal A$ to be a dg-category over a field? $\endgroup$ Aug 7, 2014 at 17:13
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Take $R$ to be a $k$-algebra... $\endgroup$ Aug 7, 2014 at 20:16

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.