Direct products of Gorenstein flat modules over coherent rings

We first prove that \operatorname{Tor}_n^R(I,\prod_jB_j)\ne0 for every n\ge1. Let a_y,\epsilon_0\inD(A_0) extract the y_0-coefficient and the constant coefficient, respectively. Then a_yx_0=0. For every f\inD(A_0), f x_0=f(x_0)\epsilon_0 and f y_0=f(y_0)\epsilon_0. Define \eta=a_y\otimes e_0 in D(A_0)\otimes_{A_0}F_0 and define the linear functional \lambda(\sum_na_n\otimes e_n)=a_0(y_0). Then \eta is a cycle, \lambda(\eta)=1, and \lambda(1\otimes d)=0.

Put w_j=x_jf_0\in V_j. For b=\sum_n b_nf_n, let \mu_j(b)=[x_j]b_0-[y_j]b_1, where [x_j] and [y_j] mean coefficient extraction in the basis 1,x_j,y_j. Note that t_jw_j=0 and \mu_j(w_j)=1. In t_j(b), the two extracted coefficients are both the constant coefficient of b_0. Thus \mu_jt_j=0. Since \lambda and \mu_j vanish on the images of the differentials induced by d and t_j, respectively, the cycle u_j=(\eta\otimes w_j,0) in D(A_0)\otimes_{A_0}U_j and the functional \ell_j=(\lambda\otimes\mu_j,0) satisfy

Hence u_j is not a boundary.

The R^{\mathrm{op}}-module I=D(R) is injective, since \operatorname{Hom}_{R^{\mathrm{op}}}(M,D(R))\cong\operatorname{Hom}_k(M,k) for R^{\mathrm{op}}-modules M. The right action is (f r)(a)=f(ra). Define i\in I by i(a\otimes s)=a_y(a)\epsilon(s) for a\in A_0 and s\in\bigotimes_{j\ge1}A_j, where \epsilon is the augmentation of \bigotimes_{j\ge1}A_j. Put q_j=(e_0\otimes w_j,0)\in Q_j, W=\prod_{j\ge1}Q_j, and \partial=\prod_j\delta_j. Then

Since \delta_jq_j=x_0q_j and ix_0=0, z is a cycle. The same formula gives a cycle z_N in I\otimes_{R_N}W for every N.

Fix N and choose j>N. Put C_N=\bigotimes_{1\le r\le N}A_r and S_{N,j}=\bigotimes_{r>N,\ r\ne j}A_r. Then R=A_0\otimes C_N\otimes A_j\otimes S_{N,j} and Q_j=U_j\otimes C_N\otimes S_{N,j} after reordering factors. For f\in I and c\in C_N, let f_c(a)=f(a\otimes c\otimes1\otimes1) for a\in A_0. Define

Balancing over C_N multiplies c in the same way on both sides. Balancing over A_0 uses f_c a\otimes q=f_c\otimes aq. Thus the map is well defined. The map r_{N,j} acts componentwise on the two summands and commutes with every block of the differential, since each block acts only on U_j. Note that r_{N,j} is defined for every f\inD(R).

Let p_j:W\to Q_j be the coordinate projection. The composite \ell_jr_{N,j}(1\otimes p_j) kills every boundary and takes value one on z_N, by (Proof). Hence z_N is not a boundary for any N.

It follows that z is not a boundary over R. Indeed, let V_0=I\otimes_kW, and let H_N be the span of (fr)\otimes w-f\otimes rw with f\in I, w\in W, and r\in R_N. Then I\otimes_{R_N}W=V_0/H_N. The subspace generated by all R-balancing relations is \bigcup_NH_N, since each finite linear combination involves only finitely many scalars from R. If z=(1\otimes\partial)b over R, representatives of the two sides in V_0 would differ by an element of some H_N. Then z_N would be a boundary, a contradiction. The argument applies to arbitrary elements of I and W, including tuples in W with infinitely many nonzero coordinates.

To compute the Tor groups, put P=\prod_jB_j and take direct products of the exact sequences 0\to B_j\to Q_j\to B_j\to0. This gives 0\to P\to W\xrightarrow{\overline\partial}P\to0. Since R is coherent, W is flat by [Chase, Theorem 2.1]. Thus the repeated maps \partial give a flat resolution

The cycle z, which is not a boundary, shows that \operatorname{Tor}_n^R(I,P)=H(I\otimes_RW,1\otimes\partial)\ne0 for all n\ge1. Hence \operatorname{Gfd}_RP=\infty by the Tor vanishing recalled in Subsection ?.

It remains to construct B and obtain the assertions for its countable power. The ring properties follow from Lemma 3.1. Put Q=\bigoplus_jQ_j, \delta=\bigoplus_j\delta_j, and B=\bigoplus_jB_j. Then Q is countably generated and free, \ker\delta=\operatorname{im}\delta=B, and the periodic complex remains exact after tensoring with every injective R^{\mathrm{op}}-module. Thus B is PGF and countably generated. The coordinatewise inclusions B_j\to B and projections B\to B_j split P=\prod_jB_j off B^{\mathbb N}. They induce split maps on Tor. Therefore \operatorname{Tor}_n^R(I,B^{\mathbb N})\ne0 for all n\ge1. The same Tor vanishing gives the dimension assertion.

Put P=\prod_jB_j. There is a pure monomorphism P\to B^{++} by Lemma 2.1. Pure monomorphisms induce monomorphisms on \operatorname{Tor}_n^R(I,-) by Lemma 2.1. The nonvanishing of \operatorname{Tor}_n^R(I,P) established in the proof of Theorem 1.1 therefore gives \operatorname{Tor}_n^R(I,B^{++})\ne0 for every n\ge1. The Tor vanishing recalled in Subsection ? gives \operatorname{Gfd}_RB^{++}=\infty. Since E^+=B^{++}, this also proves \operatorname{Gfd}_RE^+=\infty.

Character modules are pure-injective, so E=B^+ is pure-injective. Since B is Gorenstein flat, E is Ding injective by [MD, Lemma 2.8]. Finally, \operatorname{Gid}_{R^{\mathrm{op}}}E^{++}=\operatorname{Gfd}_RB^{++}=\infty by [Holm, Proposition 3.11].

Conditions (1) and (2) are equivalent by Proposition 4.4. Their equivalence with conditions (3) and (4) follows from Proposition 4.5 and Proposition 4.6, and their equivalence with conditions (5) and (6) follows from Proposition 4.8. Since \mathcal{GF}(R) is closed under pure submodules and direct limits, we obtain condition (7) from the definition of a definable class (see [Prest, SS]). Conditions (1) and (8) are equivalent by [RS, Corollary 3.5(c)].

The isomorphisms follow from [Lambek, p. 241], applied to R and R^{\mathrm{op}}. If 0\to N\to M\to D\to0 is pure, its character dual splits (see [Stenstrom, Proposition 9.1]). Thus the dual of \operatorname{Tor}_q^R(T,N)\to\operatorname{Tor}_q^R(T,M) is a split epimorphism, so this Tor map is a monomorphism. The splitting also gives M^+\cong D^+\oplus N^+, so the Tor–Ext isomorphism gives closure under pure submodules and pure quotients. Closure under direct summands follows from additivity of Tor. Closure under direct limits follows because Tor commutes with direct limits. For the pure embedding, see the proof of (ii)\Rightarrow(iv) in [MP, Theorem 4.4].

The monomials obtained by choosing at most one of x_j,y_j for each j, with only finitely many indices used, form a k-basis of R. Those using only indices greater than N form an R_N-basis of R. For j\ge1, those using neither index 0 nor index j form an A_0\otimes A_j-basis. The monomial k-basis of R is countably infinite, so |R|=|k|+\aleph_0. Every finite matrix over R has its entries in some R_N. Since R_N is finite-dimensional, the kernel of this matrix over R_N is finitely generated. Flat base change identifies the kernel over R with the scalar extension of that kernel. Therefore every finite matrix over R has finitely generated kernel, and R is coherent (see [Chase, GT]).

Let \mathfrak m be the augmentation ideal of R. Every element of \mathfrak m is nilpotent in some R_N, whereas an element with nonzero constant coefficient is a unit in a subring R_N containing it. Hence \mathfrak m is the unique maximal ideal and the nilradical. It follows that R has Krull dimension zero. The classes of x_j,y_j are linearly independent in \mathfrak m/\mathfrak m^2. Thus \mathfrak m is not finitely generated, and R is not noetherian.

Define a k-linear map h:F_0\to F_0 by h(e_n)=0, h(x_0e_n)=e_{2n}, and h(y_0e_n)=e_{2n+1}. Then dh+hd=1, and h\otimes1 commutes with 1\otimes t_j. Consequently,

Thus (U_j,\Delta_j) is exact.

Let \epsilon_j,a_{x_j},a_{y_j} be the basis of D(A_j) dual to 1,x_j,y_j. The differential on D(A_j)\otimes_{A_j}V_j sends a_{x_j}f_n to \epsilon_jf_{2n}, a_{y_j}f_n to \epsilon_jf_{2n+1}, and \epsilon_jf_n to zero. It has a k-linear contraction h' defined by h'(\epsilon_jf_{2n})=a_{x_j}f_n, h'(\epsilon_jf_{2n+1})=a_{y_j}f_n, and h'(a_{x_j}f_n)=h'(a_{y_j}f_n)=0. Since \Lambda_j is finite-dimensional, one has

Under this identification, the differential 1\otimes\Delta_j has the same block matrix, with the maps induced by d and t_j. The map 1\otimes h' contracts the differential induced by t_j and commutes with the differential induced by d. Hence

This proves exactness after tensoring with D(\Lambda_j).

Finally, every injective \Lambda_j^{\mathrm{op}}-module J is a direct summand of a direct sum of copies of D(\Lambda_j). Indeed, a\mapsto[b\mapsto ab] embeds J into \operatorname{Hom}_k(\Lambda_j,J)\congD(\Lambda_j)\otimes J. The embedding splits by injectivity. A vector-space basis of J expresses the latter module as a direct sum of copies of D(\Lambda_j). Tensor products preserve direct sums and summands. Thus (U_j,\Delta_j) remains exact after tensoring with every injective J. Note that the contractions need only be k-linear.

Each R_N is a commutative artinian local ring, hence complete, and admits a dualizing complex; see the proof of [CFH, Theorem 5.10]. Therefore Gorenstein flat R_N-modules are closed under direct products by [CFH, Theorem 5.7]. The basis of A_{N+1} shows that R_{N+1} is free over R_N. Failure over the union follows from Theorem 1.1.

Definable classes are closed under character biduals (see [MP, Corollary 4.6]). Thus the assertions about \mathcal{GF}(R) and \mathcal{GI}(R^{\mathrm{op}}) follow from Corollary 1.2. Since R is nonnoetherian, the Ding injective R^{\mathrm{op}}-modules are not closed under direct sums by [MD, Proposition 2.7] and hence do not form a definable class.

Take E=B^+. Since {}_RR is free, R^+ is an injective R^{\mathrm{op}}-module. Tensor–Hom adjunction gives \operatorname{Hom}_{R^{\mathrm{op}}}(E,R^+)\cong E^+, so \operatorname{Gfd}_R\operatorname{Hom}_{R^{\mathrm{op}}}(E,R^+)=\infty by Corollary 1.2.

For the final assertion, suppose that e:M\longrightarrow G is a Gorenstein flat preenvelope. Each projection p_j:M\longrightarrow B factors as h_je. The map h=(h_j):G\longrightarrow M then satisfies he=1_M. Hence M is a direct summand of a Gorenstein flat module, so it is Gorenstein flat by [Holm, Theorem 3.7], a contradiction. The same proof applies to a projectively coresolved Gorenstein flat preenvelope, since B belongs to that class and that class is contained in \mathcal{GF}(R).

Let L_d be the dth syzygy in a free resolution of M, with L_0=M. Dimension shifting gives \operatorname{Tor}_1^R(T,L_d)\cong\operatorname{Tor}_{d+1}^R(T,M). Thus vanishing implies L_d\in\mathcal{GF}(R) and \operatorname{Gfd}_RM\le d. Since \mathcal{GF}(R) is resolving, every syzygy of a Gorenstein flat module is Gorenstein flat. Hence all positive Tor groups with T vanish on \mathcal{GF}(R). A finite Gorenstein flat resolution and its long exact Tor sequences give the converse.

For the R^{\mathrm{op}}-module J, use the dth cosyzygy of an injective coresolution of J. The condition that this cosyzygy belongs to \mathcal{GI}(R^{\mathrm{op}}) is \operatorname{Ext}^{d+1}_{R^{\mathrm{op}}}(T,J)=0. Conversely, heredity of the cotorsion pair gives vanishing of all positive Ext groups from T on \mathcal{GI}(R^{\mathrm{op}}). A finite Gorenstein injective coresolution gives the required vanishing. The equality \operatorname{Gfd}_RM=\operatorname{Gid}_{R^{\mathrm{op}}}M^+ follows from Lemma 2.1 and also from [Holm, Proposition 3.11]. The final assertion follows by applying Lemma 2.1 in degree d+1.

Fix a free resolution F_\bullet of T and bases of its terms. Set P=\prod_iM_i. Choose a cycle representing a nonzero class, and write it as z=\sum_{j=1}^m e_j\otimes a_j, where the e_j are distinct basis vectors of F_n and a_j\in P.

For each finite subset of the basis of F_{n+1}, write the images of its elements using e_1,\ldots,e_m and the additional basis vectors which occur. A preimage of z involving only the basis vectors in this subset exists exactly when a finite system of the form

has a solution, where A and B are finite matrices over R and \mathbf a is the column vector with entries a_1,\ldots,a_m. The second block imposes zero coefficients on all additional basis vectors. Every preimage of z in F_{n+1}\otimes_RP involves only finitely many basis vectors of F_{n+1}, so these systems characterize the boundaries whose coefficients vanish outside e_1,\ldots,e_m.

Only the sizes and entries of A and B occur in (Proof); the names of additional basis vectors do not occur. There are at most \rho distinct such systems. Denote their set by \Phi, including the condition \mathbf a=0 corresponding to the empty subset of the basis of F_{n+1}. A fixed finite system is solvable in a direct product if and only if it is solvable in every coordinate.

Since z is not a boundary, every \varphi\in\Phi fails in P. For each \varphi, choose a coordinate i_\varphi where it fails, and put X=\{i_\varphi:\varphi\in\Phi\}. Then |X|\le\rho. Coordinate projection sends z to a cycle z_X in F_n\otimes_R\prod_{i\in X}M_i. Every system in \Phi still fails at its selected coordinate. Hence z_X is not a boundary. This proves the assertion, and the criterion for closure under direct products follows immediately. For the assertion about Gorenstein flat modules, apply this result in degree one and use (?), since direct products over subsets of the index set are direct summands.

First, the finite dimensions have a uniform bound, as in [CI, Proposition 2.4]. Otherwise, for each n<\omega, choose such a direct product P_n with \operatorname{Gfd}_RP_n>n. After reindexing, \prod_{n<\omega}P_n still has at most \rho Gorenstein flat factors. Its dimension is finite, say d. Each P_n is a direct summand, whence \operatorname{Gfd}_RP_n\le d, a contradiction for n>d.

We now adapt the dimension-shifting argument in the proof of [CFH, Theorem 5.7]. Let d be the least uniform bound. Suppose that d>0. For an arbitrary family (G_i) in \mathcal{GF}(R) indexed by a set of cardinality at most \rho, choose exact sequences 0\to G_i\to F_i\to G_i'\to0 from complete flat resolutions, with F_i flat and G_i' Gorenstein flat. Put P=\prod_iG_i and P'=\prod_iG_i'. Taking direct products gives 0\to P\to\prod_iF_i\to P'\to0. Since R is right coherent, \prod_iF_i is flat by [Chase, Theorem 2.1]. We obtain \operatorname{Tor}_d^R(T,P)\cong\operatorname{Tor}_{d+1}^R(T,P')=0 by dimension shifting and Lemma 4.1. Thus \operatorname{Gfd}_RP\le d-1, contradicting minimality of d. Consequently d=0, and \mathcal{GF}(R) is closed under arbitrary direct products by Theorem 4.2.

The map u\otimes_RG_i is injective for every i by (?). Since F_T is free, \tau_{F_T} is injective. Naturality gives

Since \tau_{F_T} and \prod_i(u\otimes_RG_i) are injective, the two kernels agree. The long exact Tor sequence of (?) identifies this kernel with \operatorname{Tor}_1^R(T,P). For the relative Mittag–Leffler criterion for hereditary Tor-pairs, see [CI, Theorem 2.1].

Let h:L_\lambda\to E_U belong to each image in the intersection. Introduce variables x_a with values in E_U, one for every a\in L. Require x_{a+b}=x_a+x_b for all a,b\in L, x_{ar}=x_a r for all a\in L and r\in R, and x_a=h(a) for all a\in L_\lambda. Every finite subsystem involves finitely many elements of L. They lie in some finitely generated L_\mu\supseteq L_\lambda, and an extension of h to L_\mu solves that subsystem. Since E_U is pure-injective, algebraic compactness supplies a solution of the entire system; see [Stenstrom, Proposition 9.2]. It defines an extension L\to E_U. This proves the first equality. Since E_U\in T^\perp, (?) implies that \operatorname{Hom}_{R^{\mathrm{op}}}(F_T,E_U)\to\operatorname{Hom}_{R^{\mathrm{op}}}(L,E_U) is surjective. This proves the second equality.

By the first assertion, the intersection of the images is H_{u j_\lambda}(E_U). The images stabilize if and only if this intersection is attained at some stage. Thus the conditions (2) and (3) are equivalent.

We use tensor–Hom adjunction. For a map f:M\to N of R^{\mathrm{op}}-modules and an R-module G, the image of \operatorname{Hom}_{R^{\mathrm{op}}}(f,G^+) is the annihilator of \ker(f\otimes_RG) under \operatorname{Hom}_{R^{\mathrm{op}}}(M,G^+)\cong(M\otimes_RG)^+. Indeed, a character vanishing on the kernel defines a character on the image and extends to N\otimes_RG, because \mathbb Q/\mathbb Z is injective. Characters separate points of quotient groups, so equality of these annihilators is equivalent to equality of the kernels.

Assume condition (1). Apply the criterion (?) to L with Q=C_U. The equal kernels give H_{j_{\mu\lambda}}(E_U)=H_{j_\lambda}(E_U), proving condition (3).

Conversely, assume condition (3). The extension property holds with the same \mu when E_U is replaced by any direct product of copies of E_U, since maps into a direct product are determined by their coordinate maps. It also holds for every direct summand of such a direct product, by projecting an extension to the summand. As shown above, every G^+ with G\in\mathcal{GF}(R) is a direct summand of a direct product of copies of E_U. Hence the condition holds for every such G^+. Since G^+\in T^\perp, one has H_{u j_\lambda}(G^+)=H_{j_\lambda}(G^+). The annihilator observation gives \ker(j_\lambda\otimes_RG)=\ker(j_{\mu\lambda}\otimes_RG) for every such G. Thus (?) gives condition (1).

We prove (4)\Rightarrow(1). Choose d<\infty with \operatorname{Gfd}_RC_U^{++}\le d. We first show that every direct product of Gorenstein flat modules has Gorenstein flat dimension at most d. Otherwise, there is a nonzero \operatorname{Tor}_{d+1}^R(T,\prod_{i\in X}G_i) with |X|\le\rho, by Lemma 4.1 and Theorem 4.2. Choose a free resolution of T and a cycle representing a nonzero class in its tensor product with \prod_{i\in X}G_i. For each i\in X, choose a pure Gorenstein flat submodule H_i\subseteq G_i of cardinality at most \rho containing the finitely many coefficients in that coordinate, by [GT, Lemma 2.25(a)] and Lemma 2.1. Since the terms of the resolution are free, the inclusion \prod_{i\in X}H_i\subseteq\prod_{i\in X}G_i induces a monomorphism in each degree. Hence the same expression defines a cycle after tensoring the resolution with \prod_{i\in X}H_i. It is not a boundary, since its image in the resolution tensored with \prod_{i\in X}G_i is not a boundary.

Since |X|\le\rho, D=\bigoplus_{i\in X}H_i is isomorphic to a direct summand of C_U. The module \prod_{i\in X}H_i embeds purely into D^{++} by Lemma 2.1, and hence into C_U^{++}. Thus \operatorname{Gfd}_R(\prod_{i\in X}H_i)\le d by Lemma 4.1, a contradiction. This proves that finite Gorenstein flat dimension of C_U^{++} bounds the Gorenstein flat dimensions of all direct products of modules in \mathcal{GF}(R). These direct products are Gorenstein flat by Proposition 4.4.

For (2)\Rightarrow(1), suppose that C_U^\rho is Gorenstein flat. If \mathcal{GF}(R) were not closed under direct products, the coordinate projection and the choice of pure submodules used for (4)\Rightarrow(1), applied in degree one, would give a direct product \prod_{i\in X}H_i with |X|\le\rho and \operatorname{Tor}_1^R(T,\prod_{i\in X}H_i)\ne0. Each H_i is isomorphic to a direct summand of C_U, so \prod_{i\in X}H_i is isomorphic to a direct summand of C_U^X, and hence of C_U^\rho, a contradiction.

Assume condition (1). Then C_U^\rho\in\mathcal{GF}(R), proving condition (2). Together with the already established closure under pure submodules and direct limits, closure under direct products makes \mathcal{GF}(R) definable. Definable classes are closed under character biduals (see [MP, Corollary 4.6]). Hence condition (3) holds, and it implies condition (4). Finally, (C_U^{++})^+=E_U^{++}, so (3)\Longleftrightarrow(5) and (4)\Longleftrightarrow(6) by Lemma 4.1.

Since F/N_n\cong M/M_n\cong B^n, closure under finite direct products and the resolving property imply N_n\prec F. Moreover, N=\ker\pi. For every q\geq1, the exact sequence 0\longrightarrow N\longrightarrow F\longrightarrow M\longrightarrow0 gives \operatorname{Tor}_q^R(I,N)\cong\operatorname{Tor}_{q+1}^R(I,M)\ne0. Thus \operatorname{Gfd}_RN=\infty. Finite character and the upper bound \rho for the Löwenheim–Skolem number follow from [ST, Theorem 2.11] and [GT, Theorem 10.28], respectively. For the lower bound, apply the Löwenheim–Skolem property to \{1\}\subseteq R\in\mathcal{GF}(R). Every submodule of R containing 1 equals R, so the Löwenheim–Skolem number is at least |R|=\rho.

If \mathcal{GF}(R) is closed under direct products, then F/\ker\pi\cong P is Gorenstein flat. Thus \ker\pi\prec F, proving condition (2). Condition (2) implies condition (3).

For (3)\Rightarrow(1), we adapt the argument in the proof of (1)\Rightarrow(2) in [BET, Lemma 2.8]. Suppose that \mathcal{GF}(R) is not closed under direct products. There is a least cardinal \lambda\leq\rho such that a direct product of \lambda Gorenstein flat modules is not Gorenstein flat, by Theorem 4.2. Since finite direct products are Gorenstein flat, \lambda is infinite. Choose such a direct product and an epimorphism from a free module as above. Minimality gives F/L_\alpha\in\mathcal{GF}(R) for every \alpha<\lambda. Then L_\alpha\prec F by the resolving property. Condition (3) would give \ker\pi\prec F, and hence P\in\mathcal{GF}(R), a contradiction.

For the final assertion, assume that \operatorname{cf}(\lambda)>\rho and L_\alpha\prec F for every \alpha<\lambda. Each direct product \prod_{\beta<\alpha}G_\beta, with \alpha<\lambda, belongs to \mathcal{GF}(R). Every subset X\subseteq\lambda of cardinality at most \rho is bounded in \lambda. Thus \prod_{\beta\in X}G_\beta is a direct summand of one of these direct products and is Gorenstein flat. We have P\in\mathcal{GF}(R) by Theorem 4.2, and hence \ker\pi\prec F.