How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
Conormal exact sequence for an algebra quotient
Statement
Let be a homomorphism of commutative rings, let be an ideal and let , with quotient map . Then the sequence of -modules
is exact, where is regarded as a -module and the first map sends the class of to , while the second is induced by and . No injectivity of the first arrow is asserted; it fails in general, and the failure is recorded on the examples page.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A ring homomorphism , an ideal and the quotient with quotient map .
Derivations are maps out of Ω: for every ring map with Kähler differential module and every -module , composition with is a natural -module isomorphism .
Existence and generators of Kähler differentials: a Kähler differential module exists for every ring map, is generated as an -module by the elements , and the representability statement of [F1] holds for it.
Tensoring is right exact: if is an exact sequence of modules over a commutative ring and is an -module, then is exact.
Derivation of an algebra: an -derivation is additive, -constant and satisfies the Leibniz rule; is an -module under pointwise operations.
Proof
The second map exists and is surjective. Regard as a -module along . The composite is an -derivation of into : it is additive, kills , and satisfies Leibniz because is a ring map and is a derivation. By [F1] it corresponds to a -linear map with . For we have , and -linearity gives , so kills the submodule . By [F3] applied to tensored with we have , so induces a -linear map with . It is surjective: every is for some , and the elements generate over by [F2].
The first map is well defined. The assignment defines a -linear map , and it kills : for , in the -module , because the classes of and in are zero. Hence it induces a -linear map with .
The composite vanishes. For , ; thus factors through the cokernel , giving a surjective -linear map .
A left inverse for . Let send to the class of ; it is the composite of the -derivation with the -linear quotient map, hence an -derivation, and it kills because the class of is for . Since is a -module, is constant on cosets of and satisfies Leibniz, so it descends to an -derivation : any has a lift , and is well defined because kills . Applying [F1] to the ring map gives a -linear map with for all .
is inverse to . For we have , and the classes generate over because the generate , so . Conversely, for with lift , , and the generate by [F2], so . Hence is an isomorphism, , and with surjective the displayed sequence is exact.
Depends on
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
16 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Stacks Algebra 10.131.9 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Vakil 22.2.12, pp.579–580 (standard reference, not scraped)