10
$\begingroup$

Question: Is the following statement true?

Let $R$ be an associative, commutative, unital ring. Let $M$ and $N$ be $R$-modules. Let $n\geq 1$. Then $Tor_n^R(M,N)$ is torsion.

By " $Tor_n^R(M,N)$ is torsion" I mean that every of its elements is a torsion element. Maybe I want to assume that $R$ is an integral domain.

Remark: The above statement is true if $R$ is a principal ideal domain (then $Tor_n^R$ vanishes for $n\geq 2$) and $M$ and $N$ are finitely generated (then we can apply the structure theorem).

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ By the way, is my question in some sense ill-posed, if $R$ has zero divisors? $R$'s being an integral domain seems crucial at least for Sasha's and David's approaches. $\endgroup$ – Rasmus Jul 13 '10 at 18:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Rasmus, I think you are right. If R is not a domain, sometimes "torsion" means being killed by a nonzero divisor. If that's the case, then Tor(M,N) may not be torsion. As an example, take $R=k[x,y]/(x^2)$ and $M=R/(x)$. Then $Tor_i(M,M)$ is either $0$ or $M$, which is not torsion in that sense. $\endgroup$ – Hailong Dao Jul 13 '10 at 18:46
17
$\begingroup$

$Tor$ commutes with extension of scalars, hence (if $R$ is an integral domain and $K$ is its field of fractions), we have $$ Tor_n^R(M,N) \otimes_R K = Tor_n^K(M\otimes_R K,N\otimes_R K). $$ The right-hand-side vanishes for $n\ge 1$, because $K$ is a field. Hence $Tor$ vanishes after tensoring with $K$, which means that $Tor$ is torsion.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Do you have a reference or explanation for "Tor commutes with extension of scalars"? $\endgroup$ – Rasmus Jul 13 '10 at 16:26
  • 13
    $\begingroup$ Tor does not commute with extension of scalars, unless the extension of scalars is flat. The localization which you need inthis case is flat, though. $\endgroup$ – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Jul 13 '10 at 16:47
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ In the derived sense, it commutes always. Just because the tensor product commutes with extension of scalars: $(M\otimes_R R')\otimes_{{R'}} (N\otimes_R R') \cong (M\otimes_R N)\otimes_R R'$. $\endgroup$ – Sasha Jul 13 '10 at 20:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ But your formulas are not about derived tensor products but their homologies... $\endgroup$ – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Jul 14 '10 at 7:19
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Tensor product commutes with extension of scalars (which in fact is a tensor product itself), hence their derived functors also commute --- $(M\otimes_R^L R')\otimes_{{R'}}^L (N\otimes_R^L R') \cong (M\otimes_R^L N)\otimes_R^L R'$. In the case of $R' = K$, as it was mentioned by Mariano, $R' = K$ is flat over $R$, so the derived product can be replaced with the usual one in the corresponding places. This gives $(M\otimes_R K)\otimes_K^L (N\otimes_R K) \cong (M\otimes_R^L N)\otimes_R K$. Taking the cohomology, we get $Tor_n^K(M\otimes_R K,N\otimes_R K) \cong Tor_n^R(M,N)\otimes_R K$. $\endgroup$ – Sasha Jul 14 '10 at 14:55
3
$\begingroup$

Some thoughts:

  1. Since Tor commutes with colimits, one can reduce to the finitely generated case.

  2. By choosing projective resolution, we can reduce to $\mathrm{Tor}_1^R$.

  3. If $M = R/r$ is cyclic, we have $\mathrm{Tor}_1^R(R/r, N) = {}_rN$ the $r$-torsion in $N$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Could you please elaborate on 2.? $\endgroup$ – Rasmus Jul 13 '10 at 15:54
  • $\begingroup$ Isn't 2 just connected with Tor and Ext dropping in dimension if you replace the correct of its argument modules with a projective cover of it? So you could do things like $Tor_n(M,N) = Tor_{n-1}(M,\Sigma N)$ (likely to be wrong in details - I have no books around me now!) $\endgroup$ – Mikael Vejdemo-Johansson Jul 13 '10 at 15:59
2
$\begingroup$

Yes. Set $K = \mathrm{Frac} \ R$.

Lemma: Let $\ldots \to C_2 \to C_1 \to C_0$ be a complex of $R$-modules. Suppose that $C^{\bullet} \otimes_R K$ is exact (but not necessarily surjective at $C_0$). Then $H_k(C_{\bullet})$ is $R$-torsion for $k>0$.

Proof: Let $v \in C_k$ with $dv=0$. So $d(v \otimes 1)=0$. By the exactness of $C^{\bullet} \otimes_R K$, there is $u \in C_{k+1} \otimes_R K$ with $du=v$. Write $u=\sum w_i \otimes (f_i/g_i)$, with $f_i/g_i \in K$ and $w_i \in C_{k+1}$. Set $g=\prod g_i$ and $w=\sum \left( \prod_{j \neq i} g_j \right) f_i w_i$. Then $dw=gv$, so $[v]$ is $g$-torsion in $H_k(C_{\bullet})$. QED

Take resolutions $A_{\bullet} \to M$ and $B_{\bullet} \to N$ by free $R$-modules. Then $\mathrm{Tor}_{\bullet}(M,N)$ is the homology of the complex formed by collappsing the double complex $A_{\bullet} \otimes_R B_{\bullet}$. Note that $\left( A_{\bullet} \otimes_R B_{\bullet} \right) \otimes_R K \cong (A_{\bullet} \otimes_R K) \otimes_K (B_{\bullet} \otimes_R K)$.

Since $A^{\bullet}$ is exact, so is $A^{\bullet} \otimes_R K$. Thus $A_{\bullet} \otimes_R K$ breaks up as a direct sum of complexes of the form $\ldots \ldots 0 \to K \to K \to 0 \ldots$, and the complex $\ldots \to 0 \to K$, with the $K$ in the last position. (This uses the Axiom of Choice; I suspect you should be able to avoid it, but I don't see how right now.) The complex $B \otimes_R K$ breaks up into pieces of the same kind. So the double complex breaks up into squares $\begin{smallmatrix} K & \to & K \\ \downarrow & & \downarrow \\ K & \to & K \end{smallmatrix}$, vertical strips $\begin{smallmatrix} K \\ \downarrow \\ K \end{smallmatrix}$, horizontal strips $\begin{smallmatrix} K & \to & K \end{smallmatrix}$ and, in position $(0,0)$, some isolated copies of $K$.

Only summands of the last type contribute to the cohomology of the double complex, so the double complex obeys the hypotheses of the lemma and we are done.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ $A_\bullet\otimes K$ is a resolution of $M\otimes K$ as a $K$-module, and the same with $B_\bullet\otimes K$, so the complex $(A\otimes B)\otimes K$ computes $\Tor^K(M\otimes K,N\otimes K)$. The vanishing in positive degrees follows from $K$'s being a field. $\endgroup$ – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Jul 13 '10 at 16:13
  • $\begingroup$ «computes $\mathrm{Tor}^K(M\otimes K,N\otimes K)$» $\endgroup$ – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Jul 13 '10 at 16:14
  • $\begingroup$ You're right; that's a cleaner way to finish. $\endgroup$ – David E Speyer Jul 13 '10 at 16:19
  • $\begingroup$ (Not that it avoids AoC, I guess) In fact, the cleanest would be to remark that $\mathrm{Tor}$ commutes with localization (which is, essentially, what you did), so that $\mathrm{Tor}^R(M,N)_{(0)}=\mathrm{Tor}^K(M\otimes K,N\otimes K)$, which is zero in positive degrees. $\endgroup$ – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Jul 13 '10 at 16:28

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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