Let
0→M′→M→M′′→0 be an exact sequence of
A-modules.
a) We have
dpA(M)≤sup(dpA(M′),dpA(M′′)). Equality occurs as soon as
dpA(M′′)=dpA(M′)+1.
b) We have
dpA(M′′)≤sup(dpA(M),dpA(M′)+1). Equality occurs as soon as
dpA(M)=dpA(M′).
c) We have
dpA(M′)≤sup(dpA(M),dpA(M′′)−1). Equality occurs as soon as
dpA(M)=dpA(M′′).
Let us prove for example a), the proofs of b) and c) being analogous. If N is an arbitrary a-module and n an integer ≥0, we have an exact sequence
ExtAn+1(M′′,N)→ExtAn+1(M,N)→ExtAn+1(M′,N)→ExtAn+2(M′′,N) →ExtAn+2(M,N). If
dpA(M′),dpA(M′′)≤n, then
ExtAn+1(M′,N)=0 and
ExtAn+1(M′′,N)=0 (prop. 1), hence
ExtAn+1(M,N)=0 and
dpA(M)≤n (prop. 1), so that
dpA(M)≤sup(dpA(M′),dpA(M′′)).
If dpA(M)<sup(dpA(M′),dpA(M′′)), then necessarily dpA(M)<+∞. For every n>dpA(M) and every a-module N, we have
ExtAn+1(M′,N)=0⟺ExtAn+2(M′′,N)=0,
by the preceding exact sequence; by prop. 1, this immediately implies dpA(M′′)=dpA(M′)+1, since one of the quantities dpA(M′), dpA(M′′) is >dpA(M).
Bourbaki puts the proof directly after the statement, so what is above is the statement and its proof together.
Nothing.
Nothing.