Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: Literature-sourcedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-13
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.

Equivalent characterizations of injective modules

Statement

For a left R-module I, the following are equivalent:

  1. I is injective;
  2. every short exact sequence 0→I→E→C→0 splits;
  3. Hom⁡R(−,I) takes every short exact sequence to a short exact sequence.

These equivalences use no choice principle.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A left R-module I.

[F1]

Injectivity is the extension property along every module monomorphism (Injective modules and the extension property).

[L1]

A short exact sequence splits exactly when its monomorphism has a retraction (The splitting lemma for short exact sequences of modules).

[L2]

Applying Hom⁡R(−,I) to an exact sequence A→B→C→0 gives an exact sequence 0→Hom⁡R(C,I)→Hom⁡R(B,I)→Hom⁡R(A,I) (Covariant and contravariant Hom⁡ are left exact).

[F2]

Quotient modules have the usual coset operations (Quotient module M/N with scalar multiplication on additive cosets).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1

If I is injective and 0→I→jE→C→0 is short exact, extend id⁡I along j using [F1]. The extension is a retraction, so [L1] makes the sequence split.

assume-hypF1L1
1.2

Conversely, assume every short exact sequence beginning in I splits. Given a monomorphism u:A→B and f:A→I, let S={(f(a),−u(a)):a∈A}≤I⊕B and P=(I⊕B)/S.

assume-hypF2construct
1.3

If I is injective, every map A→I extends across the monomorphism in a short exact sequence 0→A→B→C→0, so the final precomposition map in [L2] is surjective; hence Hom⁡R(−,I) is exact.

assume-hypF1L2
1.4

Conversely, if Hom⁡R(−,I) takes short exact sequences to short exact sequences, apply it to 0→A→uB→B/u(A)→0. Surjectivity of u∗ extends every A→I across u, so [F1] makes I injective.

assume-hypF1F2L2
2.1

The map j:I→P, j(t)=[(t,0)], is injective: if (t,0)=(f(a),−u(a)), injectivity of u gives a=0 and t=0. Hence 0→I→jP→P/j(I)→0 is short exact and splits by hypothesis; let r:P→I retract j.

step 1.2L1F2
3.1

Define f~:B→I by f~(b)=r([(0,b)]). In P, [(0,u(a))]=[(f(a),0)], so f~(u(a))=r(j(f(a)))=f(a). Thus I is injective by [F1].

step 1.2step 2.1F1construct
4.1

Steps 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, and 3.1 prove 1⇔2, while steps 1.3 and 1.4 prove 1⇔3.

step 1.1step 1.2step 2.1step 3.1step 1.3step 1.4∎

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

15 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