Definition
Let R be a ring. For two modules M and N, define to be the set of R-linear maps from M to N modulo the relation that f ~ g if f − g factors through a projective module. The stable module category is defined by setting the objects to be the R-modules, and the morphisms are the equivalence classes .
Given a module M, let P be a projective module with a surjection . Then set to be the kernel of p. Suppose we are given a morphism and a surjection where Q is projective. Then one can lift f to a map which maps into . This gives a well-defined functor from the stable module category to itself.
For certain rings, such as Frobenius algebras, is an equivalence of categories. In this case, the inverse can be defined as follows. Given M, find an injective module I with an inclusion . Then is defined to be the cokernel of i. A case of particular interest is when the ring R is a group algebra.
The functor Ω−1 can even be defined on the module category of a general ring (without factoring out projectives), as the cokernel of the injective envelope. It need not be true in this case that the functor Ω−1 is actually an inverse to Ω. One important property of the stable module category is it allows defining the Ω functor for general rings. When R is perfect (or M is finitely generated and R is semiperfect), then Ω(M) can be defined as the kernel of the projective cover, giving a functor on the module category. However, in general projective covers need not exist, and so passing to the stable module category is necessary.
Read more about this topic: Stable Module Category
Famous quotes containing the word definition:
“I’m beginning to think that the proper definition of “Man” is “an animal that writes letters.””
—Lewis Carroll [Charles Lutwidge Dodgson] (1832–1898)
“Beauty, like all other qualities presented to human experience, is relative; and the definition of it becomes unmeaning and useless in proportion to its abstractness. To define beauty not in the most abstract, but in the most concrete terms possible, not to find a universal formula for it, but the formula which expresses most adequately this or that special manifestation of it, is the aim of the true student of aesthetics.”
—Walter Pater (1839–1894)
“The man who knows governments most completely is he who troubles himself least about a definition which shall give their essence. Enjoying an intimate acquaintance with all their particularities in turn, he would naturally regard an abstract conception in which these were unified as a thing more misleading than enlightening.”
—William James (1842–1910)