2

Let $\sf{A}$ be an abelian category and consider its homotopic category $\sf{K}(\sf{A})$. I am writing some notes about homological algebra and, since the reader usually wonders why this isn't generally an abelian category, I want to prove right after its definition that, if it is abelian, then it is semi-simple. (This means that, at this stage, I haven't yet proved that it is triangulated.)

Consider a short exact sequence in $\sf{K}(\sf{A})$:

The proof (which uses the triangulated structure of $\sf{K}(\sf{A})$) in Gelfand-Manin shows that $M^\bullet$ is homotopy equivalent to $L^\bullet\oplus \operatorname{cone}(\varphi^\bullet)$. This means that a splitting $M^\bullet\to L^\bullet$ of the exact sequence above would be given by the composition $$M^\bullet\to L^\bullet\oplus \operatorname{cone}(\varphi^\bullet) \to L^\bullet,$$ where the first morphism is the (homotopy) inverse of \begin{align*} L^i\oplus M^i\oplus L^{i+1} &\to M^i \\ (l,m,l') &\mapsto \varphi^i(l)+m \end{align*} and the second is just the usual projection. Now, a morphism $M^\bullet\to L^\bullet\oplus \operatorname{cone}(\varphi^\bullet)$ in $\sf{K}(\sf{A})$ would be an equivalence class of morphisms $M^i\to L^i$, $M^i\to M^i$ and $M^i\to L^{i+1}$. The only reasonable choice seems to take the morphism on the middle to be the identity and the other two to be zero. This would imply that our splitting $M^\bullet\to L^\bullet$ is the zero morphism. But the zero morphism is not usually homotopic to $\operatorname{id}_{L^\bullet}$.

What am I doing wrong and/or how can we prove this result without using the triangulated structure of $\sf{K}(\sf{A})$?

Gabriel
  • 4,513
  • 2
    Your "reasonable" choice is too reasonable: it would work from any map $L^\bullet \to M^\bullet$ (monic or not) in any abelian category (semisimple or not). – JHF Mar 06 '21 at 22:05
  • @JHF Indeed! But can you think of another choice? – Gabriel Mar 07 '21 at 07:36

1 Answers1

2

As JHF said in the comments, you shouldn't take a "reasonable" choice. Indeed, if you expect to construct a retraction $M^\bullet\to L^\bullet$ with only a "reasonable" map, the map would not use the fact that the category is semi-simple and would work in any category.

I would like to give a stronger statement : any triangulated category (not just the homotopy category) which is also an abelian category is semi-simple. (Here I use Gelfand-Manin definition of semi-simple : that is that any short exact sequence splits).

To see this, we have the following lemmas

Lemma 1 : Let $A\to B\to C\to A[1]$ be a distinguished triangle, then the following are equivalent :

  1. $C\to A[1]$ is the zero map
  2. $A\to B$ has a retraction
  3. $B\to C$ has a section
  4. There is an isomorphism $B\simeq A\oplus C$ such that $A\to B$ corresponds to the canonical inclusion $A\to A\oplus C$ and $B\to C$ correspond to the canonical projection $A\oplus C\to C$.

Proof :

$2.\Leftrightarrow 3. \Leftrightarrow 4.$ hold in any additive category.

$1.\Rightarrow 2.$ : Apply the functor $Hom(.,A)$, you get a long exact sequence $$ ...\to Hom(B,A)\to Hom(A,A)\to Hom(C[-1],A)\to ...$$ The map $Hom(A,A)\to Hom(C[-1],A)$ is zero since this is the precomposition with $C[-1]\to A$ which is zero by hypothesis. It follows from exactness that $Hom(B,A)\to Hom(A,A)$ is onto. So $id_A$ has a preimage $r$ which is thus a retraction of $A\to B$.

$2.\Rightarrow 1.$ Since there is a map $B\to A$ such that the composition $A\to B\to A$ is the identity, the map $C[-1]\to A$ can be written as the composition $C[-1]\to A\to B\to A$, but $C[-1]\to A\to B$ is zero, so $C[-1]\to A$ is zero.

Lemma 2 : In a triangulated category, every mono and every epi are split.

Proof : The proof for epi is dual of the proof for mono, so let us prove only the mono case. Consider a monomorphism $i:A\to B$. From the axioms of triangulated categories you can form a distinguished triangle $$A\rightarrow B\to C\rightarrow A[1]$$ We have $C[-1]\to A\to B$ is the zero map, but since $A\to B$ is mono, $C[-1]\to A$ is zero, and by lemma 1, $A\to B$ has a retraction.


The claim is now straightforward : consider a short exact sequence in a category which is both triangulated and abelian. Consider a short exact sequence : $$0\to A\to B\to C\to 0$$ Since the category is abelian, $A\to B$ is mono. Since the category is triangulated, by lemma 2, $A\to B$ splits.

Roland
  • 12,487
  • First of all, I have to say that while I already knew this proof, this is an absolutely beautiful presentation. However, I am afraid that's not what my question is about. I do indeed know how to prove this fact assuming that $\sf{K}(\sf{A})$ is triangulated, but I want a simpler proof which avoids this (not exactly quick) theorem. – Gabriel Mar 09 '21 at 08:03
  • @Gabriel Yes, I agree that I did not answer your question. I should have mention it at the begining. My point was the problem with the homotopy category is not that it is not abelian, but that it is triangulated and that triangulated and abelian are somehow incompatible. Moreover, the proof is kind of misleading : it uses a special construction of cones (whereas, even in the homotopy category, cones are not unique) and so you were trying to build a retraction out of it which is not something you should do. The abstract proof I gave shows that the retraction comes from somewhere else entirely. – Roland Mar 09 '21 at 13:24
  • Finally, you can try to adapt the proof as it uses only simple fact about triangulated categories. Namely : existence of cone (which is something you already have in the homotopy category), the fact that in a distinguished triangle, two consecutive maps compose to zero (which is something you will need to prove in the homotopy category, two of the three maps are easy, but the last require just a bit of work) and finally that a cone sequence leads to a long exact sequence with $Hom$ groups (also something to be proven in the homotopy category). Then you will be able to adapt the proof. – Roland Mar 09 '21 at 13:28