4
$\begingroup$

Can somebody give me an example of a subcategory of an abelian category which is also an abelian category, but not an abelian subcategory (which means some kernels or cokernels are different from the initial ones).

$\endgroup$
8
  • 13
    $\begingroup$ The category of presheaves of abelian groups on a space $X$ is abelian, as is the subcategory of sheaves. But the inclusion is not generally right exact, so the cokernels can differ. $\endgroup$ Aug 21, 2011 at 23:39
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Donu, why don't you make that an answer? :) $\endgroup$ Aug 22, 2011 at 0:28
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you, Donu. Is there a simpler example? $\endgroup$
    – Victor
    Aug 22, 2011 at 0:51
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ Take any nontrivial abelian category A and any object a not isomorphic to the zero object. Then the subcategory consisting of the object a together with its identity map is abelian, but not an abelian subcategory. $\endgroup$ Aug 22, 2011 at 1:50
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Also, the question states that the only way in which a subcategory can fail to be a sub-Abelian-category is if it has different (co)kernels. But this isn't so: another way it can fail is if it has different (co)products or a different zero object (as in my example). $\endgroup$ Aug 22, 2011 at 1:53

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

Here is a small example of a full subcategory that is abelian, but not an abelian subcategory:

Let $k$ be a field and let $R_n$ denote the ring of upper triangular $n \times n$-matrices over $k$. Then $mod (R_3)$ is an abelian category with $6$ indecomposable objects (up to isomorphism). There is a unique indecomposable object $P$ of length $3$. It has a simple socle $s(P)$ and a simple top $t(P)$. Consider the full additive subcategory with indecomposable objects $P$, $s(P)$, and $t(P)$. This category is equivalent to $mod (R_2)$ and therefore abelian. It is not an abelian subcategory since the lengths do not add up in $mod (R_3)$.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, I guess I am not supposed to ask how you are doing in the comments, so I won't do that :) $\endgroup$ Oct 24, 2011 at 22:37
  • $\begingroup$ @Dag. Do you consider the category of finitely generated R_n modules? Could you give a more explicit description of the indecomposable representations of R_n? It must be classical, do you know a good reference? $\endgroup$
    – Victor
    Oct 26, 2011 at 1:18
  • $\begingroup$ @Victor. Yes, it is the category of finitely generated $R_n$-modules, but I don't think it matters in this example. Honestly, I was considering the equivalent category of repreresentations of the quiver $A_n$ with "linear orientation". Here is an online reference: arXiv:math/0505082v1. Hope this helps. $\endgroup$ Oct 26, 2011 at 8:25

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.