Divisorial objects in abelian categories (Q1239248)
From MaRDI portal
| This is the item page for this Wikibase entity, intended for internal use and editing purposes. Please use this page instead for the normal view: Divisorial objects in abelian categories |
scientific article; zbMATH DE number 3558029
| Language | Label | Description | Also known as |
|---|---|---|---|
| English | Divisorial objects in abelian categories |
scientific article; zbMATH DE number 3558029 |
Statements
Divisorial objects in abelian categories (English)
0 references
1976
0 references
This paper shows the connection between an abstract notion of a divisible (divisorial) object in an abelian category, the theory of localizations and the theory of local cohomology. The first section contains variations on the usual results on \(\mathfrak C\)-envelopes. The second section contains the definition of a \(\mathfrak C\)-divisorial envelope and of \(\mathfrak C\)-divisorial objects. lt is pointed out that the latter notion corresponds in Module categories to the well-known idea of an \(F\)-injective of Walker and Walker [c.f. \textit{B. Stenström}, Rings of Quotients, Springer Verlag (1975; Zbl 0296.16001)]. Section 3 examines the particular case of these results in categories of modules over a commutative ring. There is a large amount of overlap between this note and the work of various other authors. There is little or no attempt to indicate the extent of this overlap within the paper. A similar idea of divisible objects can be found in \textit{J. Lambek} [Torsion theories, additive semantics, and rings of quotients (1971; Zbl 0213.31601 )] and its connections with local cohomology are contained in some work of \textit{P. J. Cahen} [Queen' s Mathematical Preprint No. 1972-9 ``Torsion Theory over a scheme'', Queen' s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada]. The result on p. 544 is to be found, correctly stated, in \textit{M. Hacque} ``Eléments de la Théorie de la Localisation'' [Cours de D.E.A., 1969-1970 Université de Lyon 1] - here, although the proof is very nearly correct, the failure to pass to equivalence classes of pairs \((F,\sigma)\) (where \(F\) is a left exact functor and \(\sigma : 1 \to F\) a natural transformation so that \(\sigma F = F\sigma\) is an isomorphism) means that the correspondence constructed is not a bijection; The same criticism applies to Proposition 1.9 on the previous page. Although these criticisms are valid, the paper is otherwise well written and the idea of a general \(\mathfrak C\)-divisional object in an arbitrary abelian category sheds some extra light on the general properties of divisible or \(F\)-injective objects.
0 references