Bourbaki

Corollary

Tag 05PX, permanent. Cite it as [Bourbaki, Tag 05PX].

Algebra, chapter II, § 4. Relations between tensor products and homomorphism modules

(i) When FF is a projective (resp. finitely generated projective) module, the canonical homomorphism (11) is injective (resp. bijective). (ii) When EE is a finitely generated projective module, the canonical homomorphism (11) is bijective.

Even when EE and FF are both finitely generated, θ\theta is not necessarily surjective, as is shown by the example A=Z,E=F=Z/2ZA = \mathbf{Z}, E = F = \mathbf{Z}/2\mathbf{Z}; the right hand side of (11) is non-zero but E∗=0E^* = 0. On the other hand, examples can be given where EE is free, but (11) is neither injective nor surjective (Exercise 3(b)).

When E admits a finite basis (ei)(e_i), the inverse isomorphism θ−1\theta^{-1} of θ\theta can be found explicitly as follows. Let (ei∗)(e_i^*) be the dual basis of (ei)(e_i) (§ 2, no. 6); for all u∈Hom(E,F)u \in \mathrm{Hom}(E, F) and all x=∑iξieix = \sum_i \xi_i e_i with ξi∈A\xi_i \in A,

u(x)=∑iξiu(ei)=∑i⟨x,ei∗⟩u(ei) u(x) = \sum_i \xi_i u(e_i) = \sum_i \langle x, e_i^* \rangle u(e_i)

and therefore u=∑iθ(ei∗⊗u(ei))u = \sum_i \theta(e_i^* \otimes u(e_i)), in other words

θ−1(u)=∑iei∗⊗u(ei). \theta^{-1}(u) = \sum_i e_i^* \otimes u(e_i).

In particular, if further F=EF = E, it is seen that the image under θE−1\theta_E^{-1} of the identity mapping 1E1_E is the element ∑iei∗⊗ei\sum_i e_i^* \otimes e_i, which is therefore independent of the basis (ei)(e_i) considered in E.

Note on the other hand that when E is a finitely generated projective module the ring structure on EndA(E)\mathrm{End}_A(E) can be transported by θE−1\theta_E^{-1} to E∗⊗AEE^* \otimes_A E; it is immediately verified that, for x,yx, y in E, x∗,y∗x^*, y^* in E∗E^*, in the ring EndA(E)\mathrm{End}_A(E),

θE(x∗⊗x)∘θE(y∗⊗y)=θE((y∗⟨y,x∗⟩)⊗x). \theta_E(x^* \otimes x) \circ \theta_E(y^* \otimes y) = \theta_E((y^* \langle y, x^* \rangle) \otimes x).

Remark (2). Let E be a right A-module; replacing E by E∗E^* in (11), we obtain a canonical Z\mathbf{Z}-homomorphism

E∗∗⊗AF→HomA(E∗,F). E^{**} \otimes_A F \to \mathrm{Hom}_A(E^*, F).

On the other hand, there is a canonical A-homomorphism cE:E→E∗∗c_E : E \to E^{**}, whence there is a Z\mathbf{Z}-homomorphism cE⊗1F:E⊗AF→E∗∗⊗AFc_E \otimes 1_F : E \otimes_A F \to E^{**} \otimes_A F; composing the latter with the homomorphism (14), we hence obtain a canonical Z\mathbf{Z}-homomorphism

θ′:E⊗AF→HomA(E∗,F) \theta' : E \otimes_A F \to \mathrm{Hom}_A(E^*, F)

such that θ′(x⊗y)\theta'(x \otimes y) is the linear mapping

x∗↦⟨x,x∗⟩y. x^* \mapsto \langle x, x^* \rangle y.

If E and F are projective modules, the mapping (15) is injective. For cEc_E is then injective (§ 2, no. 7, Corollary 4 to Proposition 13) and as F is projective, the Z\mathbf{Z}-homomorphism cE⊗1F:E⊗AF→E∗∗⊗AFc_E \otimes 1_F : E \otimes_A F \to E^{**} \otimes_A F is also injective (§ 3, no. 7, Corollary 6 to Proposition 7); finally, it has been seen (Proposition 2) that the homomorphism (14) is injective, whence the conclusion.

If E is projective and finitely generated, the mapping (15) is bijective for the two mappings of which it is composed are then bijective (§ 2, no. 7, Corollary 4 to Proposition 13 and Proposition 2 above).

Bourbaki puts the proof directly after the statement, so what is above is the statement and its proof together.

Cited by

Cites

Transcribed from the printed edition, 1998, Springer. Not translated.