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.
Universal property of a direct sum of modules
Statement
Let be left -modules and a left -module. For every family of homomorphisms , there is a unique homomorphism such that for every . It is given by For , this is the unique map .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A family of left -modules, a left -module , and homomorphisms .
Elements of have finite support, and is the coordinate inclusion (The direct sum of an indexed family of modules).
A module homomorphism preserves addition and scalar multiplication (Module homomorphism and isomorphism, kernel, image and cokernel).
Proof
Define ; the sum is finite by [F1], and padding it by zero terms shows it is independent of the chosen finite set containing the support.
Addition and scalar multiplication may be checked on the finite union of the relevant supports, so [F2] gives and .
For , step 1.1 gives , so .
Every equals the finite sum . Hence any homomorphism satisfying has and therefore equals .
If , the direct sum is by [F1], the formula is the empty sum, and the construction and uniqueness still apply. Thus the universal property holds for every index set.
Depends on
Used by
- Exact finite tensor functors have projective right-module kernels Corollary
- Localisation commutes with finite intersections of submodules Corollary
- A coproduct-preserving left exact module functor is not tensor Counterexample
- A projective generator need not be small Counterexample
- A right exact module functor without coproduct preservation is not tensor Counterexample
- A finite right exact functor needs no infinite-coproduct hypothesis Example
- Localised Hom can fail without finite presentation of the source Example
- Natural transformations between tensor composites are governed by bimodule maps Example
- An additive module functor is cocontinuous exactly when it is right exact and preserves coproducts Lemma
- Canonical free presentations force the comparison to be an isomorphism Lemma
- Degreewise direct sums and homogeneous free covers in graded modules Lemma
- Finite projective complex for proper flat coherent cohomology Lemma
- Graded modules with degree-zero maps form an abelian category Lemma
- Natural transformations of additive cocontinuous module functors are determined at the regular module Lemma
- Small projective modules are exactly finitely generated projective modules; the progenerator identification Lemma
- The copower presentation construction is left adjoint to the generator Hom functor Lemma
- The dual-basis isomorphism for a finitely generated projective bimodule Lemma
- The functor M⊗_A- is additive, right exact, and preserves direct sums over an arbitrary unital ring Lemma
- Universal finite projective cohomology complex over any base Lemma
- A module-valued coend is the direct sum of the diagonal values modulo the dinaturality submodule Theorem
- Cohomology and base change for proper flat coherent families Theorem
- Direct sums of projectives are projective, and module categories have enough projectives Theorem
- Endomorphisms of a finite direct sum are matrices of Hom-groups Theorem
- Equivalent characterizations of semisimple modules Theorem
- Finite abelian categories admit finite-dimensional module models Theorem
- Projective Hom pairing descends and is graded sesquilinear Theorem
- Tensor products commute with arbitrary direct sums Theorem
- The splitting lemma for short exact sequences of modules Theorem
- Universal property of the free module on a set Theorem
- Universal property of the tensor algebra Theorem
Dependency tree · two levels
6 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
- A. Kleshchev, Lectures on Abstract Algebra for Graduate Students, sections 3.6, 3.14, and 3.15 (standard reference, not scraped)
- The Stacks Project, Algebra (standard reference, not scraped)
- P. Hekmati, Homological Algebra, section 3.1 (standard reference, not scraped)