Let $A$ be a unital dg-algebra over a base field $k$. We consider the category of (unbounded) right $A$-dg-modules with morphisms closed degree $0$ maps. We denote this category by dg-mod-$A$. We could consider homotopic morphisms and get the homotopy category [dg-mod-$A$]. Moreover we could invert quasi-isomorphisms in [dg-mod-$A$] and obtain its derived category. Let us denote this category by $D(A)$.

On the other hand, we could consider the dg-category DG-MOD-$A$: its objects are right $A$-dg-modules and its morphisms are chain complexes of maps between dg-modules.

We notice that there is a general construction of the derived category of a dg-category $\mathcal{C}$: We first consider the dg-category of right modules over $\mathcal{C}$, which is the dg-category of contravariant dg-functors from $\mathcal{C}$ to Ch$(k)$. Let us denote this dg-category by DGM-$\mathcal{C}$. We also consider the full dg-subcategory Acycl-$\mathcal{C}$, which consists of dg-functors $\mathcal{F}:\mathcal{C}\to \text{Ch}(k)$ such that $\mathcal{F}(c)$ is acyclic for any object $c\in \mathcal{C}$. Then the derived category of $\mathcal{C}$ is given by the Verdier quotient $$ [\text{DGM}-\mathcal{C}]/[\text{Acycl}-\mathcal{C}] $$ where $[\cdot]$ is the homotopy category of dg-categories. We denote the derived category of $\mathcal{C}$ by $D(\mathcal{C})$. We could show that the Yoneda functor induces a fully faithful functor $[\mathcal{C}]\to D(\mathcal{C})$.

Now go back to the dg-algebra $A$ and the dg-category DG-MOD-$A$.

My question is: is the derived category $D(A)$ equivalent to the derived category $D(\text{DG-MOD}-A)$? Why?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If one interprets what you wrote literally, then D(DG-MOD-A) is formed from the dg-category of right modules over the dg-category DG-MOD-A, which itself consists of right modules over A. Do you really mean to take dg-modules over dg-modules here? Such a category would be clearly much bigger than ordinary dg-modules over A, which form D(A). Presumable one would want to take a suitable subcategory of D(DG-MOD-A). $\endgroup$ – Dmitri Pavlov Jan 25 '18 at 4:49

I think it is not good point of view to think that $A \mapsto H^0(Mod-A)[Qis^{-1}]$ is canonical construction for dg-algebras and $\mathcal{C} \mapsto H^0(Mod-\mathcal{C})/H^0(Acyc-\mathcal{C})$ is canonical construction for dg-categories. In fact, both constructions can be done for algebras and for categories in the same way. Third very useful model for $D(\mathcal{A})$ is $H^0(SF-\mathcal{A})$ - homotopy category of all semi-free dg-modules-$\mathcal{A}$ which just strictly full triangulated subcategory of $H^0(Mod-\mathcal{A})$. So I see there are 2 questions:

  1. Let $A$ is dg-algebra, why $D(A)$ and $D(Mod-A)$ canonically triangulated equivalent?
  2. Let $\mathcal{C}$ is dg-category, why $H^0(Mod-\mathcal{C})[Qis^{-1}]$ and $H^0(Mod-\mathcal{C})/H^0(Acyc-\mathcal{C})$ canonically triangulated equivalent?

Both questions are quite classical.

Let $F : A \to Mod-A$ canonical embedding of $A$ (which we consider as category with one object $*$ and $End(*) = A$) to $Mod-A$ as rank 1 free module-$A$.

First question is composition of following facts

  1. Let $SF-\mathcal{A} \subset Mod-\mathcal{A}$ full dg-category which consists all semi-free dg-modules. Then induced localization functor $H^0(SF-\mathcal{A}) \to D(A)$ is quasi-equivalence. (Every dg-module-$\mathcal{A}$ have semi-free resolution). Keller Deriving DG-categories 3.1

  2. Let $G : \mathcal{B} \to \mathcal{C}$ be full embedding of dg-categories. And let $G^* : SF-\mathcal{B} \to SF-\mathcal{C}$ be the extension dg-functor. Then the induced functor $H^0(G^*) : D(\mathcal{B}) \to D(\mathcal{C})$ is fully faithful. If, in addition, the category $H^0(\mathcal{C})$ is classically generated by $Ob \mathcal{B}$ then $H^0(G^*)$ is an equivalence. Proposition 1.15 in Luntz Orlov, "UNIQUENESS OF ENHANCEMENT FOR TRIANGULATED CATEGORIES"

  3. $F$ is full embedding of classical generator of $SF-\mathcal{A}$. It is quite obvious, you can construct any semi-free modules from free using cone operation. Argument of such type must be also written in Keller Deriving DG-categories

Your second question is more or less also implies from theorem 3 in Keller Deriving DG-categories.


Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

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