I have recently come across the following question :

Let $X$ be a (bounded below)chain complex in an arbitrary abelian category, and denote ${\sigma_{\leq n}}$ the stupid truncations functors (i.e. it replaces all $X_k$ by 0 for $k > n $). We have obvious (natural) inclusion morphisms :

$$ \sigma_{\leq n}X \hookrightarrow \sigma_{\leq n+1}X$$

and it is very easy to see that this form a diagram in the category of chain complexes such that :

$$ \mathrm{colim}\ \sigma_{\leq n}X = X.$$

My question is : does this equality still holds in the derived category?

I am not talking about homotopy colimit, but standard colimit in the derived category. More precisely, if $\gamma$ is the localization functor, I am asking if $\gamma$ preserves this colimit.

Actually, I wasn't even able to answer this question when you replace the derived category by the category of chain complexes quotiented by homotopies of chain complexes. Thus, I would already be happy with an answer to that simpler question.


1 Answer 1


No, not in general.

For example, let $R=k[x]/(x^2)$ for a field $k$ and let $X$ be the object $$\dots\stackrel{x}{\to}R\stackrel{x}{\to}R\stackrel{x}{\to}R\to0\to0\to\dots$$ of the derived category of $R$-modules, with the last non-zero term in degree zero.

To show that $X$ is not the colimit of its truncations $\sigma_{\leq n}X$ it suffices to find a non-zero map $X\to Y$ such that the restriction $\sigma_{\leq n}X\to X\to Y$ to $\sigma_{\leq n}X$ is zero for every $n$.

Take $$Y=\bigoplus_n(\sigma_{\leq n}X)[1],$$ (where $[1]$ denotes a shift to the left), and take the chain map $\alpha:X\to Y$ that in degree $n+1$ is just the map given by multiplication by $x$ from the degree $n+1$ term of $X$ to the first non-zero term of $(\sigma_{\leq n}X)[1]$.

It's easy to check that the components $X\to(\sigma_{\leq n}X)[1]$ are all homotopic to zero, but only by a chain homotopy that is non-zero in degree zero.

Each restriction to a truncation of $X$ maps into a finite subsum of $Y$, and so is homotopic to zero.

But $\alpha$ itself is not homotopic to zero (since a chain homotopy would need a map $R\to\bigoplus_nR$ in degree zero that had non-zero component for every $n$).

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you. However I do have two questions to make sure I fully understand your counter-example. First, when you say "...to the first non-zero term of $(\sigma_{\leq n}X)[1]$", didn't you mean ''...to the first non-zero term of $\bigoplus (\sigma_{\leq n}X)[1]$" instead? Secondly, at the end you have that $\alpha$ cannot be homotopic to $0$, but what we asked for is that it cannot be $0$ in the derived category. I guess you use the fact that $X$ (and $Y$) are both free modules in each degree to conclude that it's the same thing. Is that correct? $\endgroup$
    – L.Guetta
    Jun 20, 2017 at 22:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @L.Guetta First question: no, I mean that, for each $n$, in degree $n+1$ the chain map $\alpha$ has component $\alpha_{n+1}$ that maps into the summand $(\sigma_{\leq n})[1]$ of $Y$. This makes sense as a chain map, since in each degree it maps into only one summand, but is not null homotopic, even though each $\alpha_n$ is, since a chain homotopy would have to involve a non-zero map in degree zero into every summand of $Y$, but a map $R\to\oplus_nR$ can only map into a finite subsum. $\endgroup$ Jun 21, 2017 at 8:29
  • $\begingroup$ @L.Guetta Second question: Yes, all complexes I consider are bounded to the right complexes of projective modules, so maps between them in the derived category and in the homotopy category are the same. $\endgroup$ Jun 21, 2017 at 8:32
  • $\begingroup$ When you say each $\alpha_n$ is null-homotopic, does it mean that you consider $\alpha_n$ as a chain map whose source is the chain complex $R$ concentrated in degree $n$? Because, it seems to me that this map is not null homotopic. $\endgroup$
    – L.Guetta
    Jun 21, 2017 at 12:23
  • $\begingroup$ @L.Guetta No, as a chain map $X\to Y$. $\endgroup$ Jun 21, 2017 at 12:37

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.