arXiv:1709.02603v1 [] 8 Sep 2017

VANISHING OF STABLE HOMOLOGY WITH RESPECT TO A
SEMIDUALIZING MODULE
LI LIANG
Abstract. We investigate stable homology of modules over a commutative
noetherian ring R with respect to a semidualzing module C, and give some
vanishing results that improve/extend the known results. As a consequence,
we show that the balance of the theory forces C to be trivial and R to be
Gorenstein.

1. Introduction
Stable homology, as a broad generalization of Tate homology to the realm of associative rings, was introduced by Vogel and Goichot [9], and further studied by Celikbas,
Christensen, Liang and Piepmeyer [2, 3], and Emmanouil and Manousaki [6]. In
their paper [2], it is shown that the vanishing of stable homology over commutative
noetherian local rings can detect modules of finite projective (injective) dimension,
even of finite Gorenstein dimension, which lead to some characterizations of classical rings such as Gorenstein rings, the original domain of Tate homology. In [6],
Emmanouil and Manousaki further investigate stable homology of modules, and
give some vanishing results that improve results in [2] by relaxing the conditions
on rings and modules.
The study of semidualizing modules was initiated independently by Foxby [8],
Golod [10] and Vasconcelos [19]. Over a commutative noetherian ring R, a finitely
generated R-module C is semidualizing if HomR (C, C) ∼
= R and ExtiR (C, C) = 0
for all i ≥ 1. Examples include finitely generated projective R-modules of rank 1.
Modules of finite homological dimension with respect to a semidualizing module
have been studied in numerous papers. For example, Takahashi and White [18],
and Salimi, Sather-Wagstaff, Tavasoli and Yassemi [15] give some characterizations
for such modules in terms of the vanishing of relative (co)homology. In this paper,
we show that the vanishing of stable homology can also detect modules of finite
homological dimension with respect to a semidualizing module. Our main results
are two theorems as shown below; see Theorems 4.6 and 4.7.
Theorem A. Let R be a commutative noetherian ring and let C be a semidualizing
R-module. For an R-module M , the following conditions are equivalent.
(i) FC - pdR M < ∞.
g nPC IC (M, −) = 0 for each n ∈ Z.
(ii) Tor
Date: September 11, 2017.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 13D05, 13D07, 16E05.
Key words and phrases. Stable homology, semidualizing module, proper resolution.
This research was partly supported by NSF of China (Grant Nos. 11761045, 11301240 and
11561039), NSF of Gansu Province (Grant No. 1506RJZA075) and SRF for ROCS, SEM.

2

L. LIANG

g PC IC (M, −) = 0 for some n ≥ 0.
(iii) Tor
n
Theorem B. Let R be a commutative noetherian ring and let C be a semidualizing
R-module. For an R-module N , the following conditions are equivalent.
(i) IC - idR N < ∞.
g nPC IC (−, N ) = 0 for each n ∈ Z.
(ii) Tor
g nPC IC (−, N ) = 0 for some n < 0.
(iii) Tor
The above two results improve the right and left vanishing results in the ing PC IC (−, −)
troduction of [2]. Here the notation FC - pdR M , IC - idR N and Tor
n
can be found in 2.2 and 4.1. As a consequence, we show that the isomorphisms
g ∗PC IC (N, M ) for all R-modules M and N force C to be trivial
g ∗PC IC (M, N ) ∼
Tor
= Tor
and R to be a Gorenstein ring; see Corollary 4.8.
We prove these results using the next characterization of stable (unbounded)
tensor product inspired by the work of Emmanouil and Manousaki [6]; see Theorem
3.5.
Theorem C. Let X be a complex of R◦ -modules and Y a bounded above complex of
R-modules with sup{i ∈ Z|Yi 6= 0} = k. Then there are isomorphisms of complexes
of Z-modules
X ⊗R Y ∼
= limi∈N ((X ⊗R Y )/(X ⊗R Y≤k−i )),
and
eR Y ∼
X⊗
= lim1i∈N (X ⊗R Y≤k−i ).

e R Y , and lim1 is the
One refers to 3.1 for the definitions of X ⊗R Y and X ⊗
right derived functor of the limit lim; see 3.2.
2. Preliminaries
We begin with some notation and terminology for use throughout this paper.
2.1. Throughout this work, all rings are assumed to be associative rings. Let R be
a ring; by an R-module we mean a left R-module, and we refer to right R-modules
as modules over the opposite ring R◦ . We denote by P (resp., F , I) the class of
projective R-modules (resp., flat R-modules, injective R-modules).
By an R-complex we mean a complex of R-modules. We frequently (and without
warning) identify R-modules with R-complexes concentrated in degree 0. For an Rcomplex X, we set sup X = sup{i ∈ Z|Xi 6= 0} and inf X = inf{i ∈ Z|Xi 6= 0}. An
R-complex X is bounded above if sup X < ∞, and it is bounded below if inf X > −∞.
An R-complex X is bounded if it is both bounded above and bounded below. The
nth homology of X is denoted by Hn (X). For each k ∈ Z, Σk X denotes the
complex with the degree-n term (Σk X)n = Xn−k and whose boundary operators
X
are (−1)k ∂n−k
. We set ΣM = Σ1 M .
// Y we mean
If X and Y are both R-complexes, then by a morphism α : X
X
Y
/
/
a sequence αn : Xn
Yn such that αn−1 ∂n = ∂n αn for each n ∈ Z. A quasiisomorphism, indicated by the symbol “≃”, is a morphism of complexes that induces
an isomorphism in homology.

STABLE HOMOLOGY WITH RESPECT TO A SEMIDUALIZING MODULE

3

2.2. Let X be a class of R-modules. Following Enochs and Jenda [7], an X -precover
of an R-module M is a homomorphism X → M with X ∈ X such that the homomorphism HomR (X ′ , X) → HomR (X ′ , M ) is surjective for each X ′ ∈ X . X is
called a precovering class if each R-module has a X -precover.
For a precovering class X , there is a complex
X+ ≡ · · ·

// X1

// X0

// M

// 0

with each Xi in X , such that HomR (X ′ , X + ) is exact for each X ′ ∈ X . The
// X1
// X0
// 0 is called a proper X -resolution of
truncated complex X ≡ · · ·
M , which is always denoted by X → M . If X contains all projective R-modules,
≃
then the complex X + is exact. In this case, we always denote by X −−→ M the
proper X -resolution of M .
The X -projective dimension of M is the quantity:
X - pdR M = inf{sup X | X → M is a proper X -resolution of M }.
We define preenveloping classes Y, proper Y-coresolutions and Y-injective dimension, Y- idR M , of M dually.
When X is the class of projective (resp, flat) R-modules, X - pdR M is the classical
projective (resp. flat) dimension; we refer the reader to [15, Remark 2.6] for the
flat case. Also when Y is the class of injective R-modules, Y- idR M is the classical
injective dimension.
3. A characterization of stable (unbounded) tensor product
We start by recalling the definition of stable (unbounded) tensor product.
3.1. Let X be an R◦ -complex and Y an R-complex. The tensor product X ⊗R Y
is the Z-complex with degree-n term
a
(X ⊗R Y )n =
(Xi ⊗R Yn−i )
i∈Z

and differential given by ∂ X⊗R Y (x ⊗ y) = ∂ X (x) ⊗ y + (−1)|x| x ⊗ ∂ Y (y). Following
[2, 9], the unbounded tensor product X ⊗R Y is the Z-complex with degree-n term
Y
(X ⊗R Y )n =
(Xi ⊗R Yn−i )
i∈Z

and differential defined as above. X ⊗R Y is a subcomplex of X ⊗R Y , so we let
e R Y denote the quotient complex (X ⊗R Y )/(X ⊗R Y ), which is called the
X⊗
stable tensor product.
We notice that if X or Y is bounded, or if both of them are bounded on the
same side (above or below), then the unbounded tensor product coincides with the
e R Y is zero.
tensor product, and so the stable tensor product X ⊗
3.2. Let {ν uv : X v → X u }u≤v be an N-inverse system of R-complexes. For the
Q
Q
morphism 1−ν : i∈N X i → i∈N X i given by (1−ν)k (xi )i∈N = (xi −νki,i+1 (xi+1 ))i∈N
Q
for each k ∈ Z, where (xi )i∈N ∈ i∈N Xki , it is well known that Ker(1 − ν) =
limi∈N X i and Coker(1 − ν) = lim1i∈N X i . Here lim1 is the right derived functor of

4

L. LIANG

the limit lim; see e.g. Emmanouil [5], Roos [14] and Yeh [20] for more details. That
is, there is an exact sequence of R-complexes
Y
Y
0 → limi∈N X i →
Xi →
X i → lim1i∈N X i → 0.
i∈N

i∈N

Let X be an R-complex, and X = X 0 ⊇ X 1 ⊇ · · · a filtration. Then the
embeddings εi : X i → X i−1 and the morphisms π i : X/X i → X/X i−1 determine
the N-inverse systems
{εuv : X v → X u }u≤v and {π uv : X/X v → X/X u }u≤v
respectively. For these systems, we have the following result.
3.3 Lemma. Let X be an R-complex, and X = X 0 ⊇ X 1 ⊇ · · · a filtration. Then
lim1i∈N X/X i = 0, and there exists an exact sequence
0 → limi∈N X i → X → limi∈N X/X i → lim1i∈N X i → 0.
Proof. Consider the following commutative diagram with exact rows
Q
Q
Q
i
i
//
//
// 0
//
0
i∈N X
i∈N X
i∈N X/X
1−ε

0
//

Q 

i∈N

Xi

1−π

//

1−id

Q 

i∈N

X
//

Q


i
X/X
i∈N

// 0.

We notice that the constant N-inverse system {X} has limi∈N X = X and lim1i∈N X =
0 since 1 − id is surjective. Then by 3.2 and the snake lemma, one gets the desired
results.

3.4. Let X be an R◦ -complex and Y an R-complex. Fix k ∈ Z, the filtration
Y≤k ⊇ Y≤k−1 ⊇ Y≤k−2 ⊇ · · ·
induces a filtration
X ⊗R Y≤k ⊇ X ⊗R Y≤k−1 ⊇ X ⊗R Y≤k−2 ⊇ · · · .
Thus we have two N-inverse systems {εuv : X ⊗R Y≤k−v → X ⊗R Y≤k−u }u≤v and
{π uv : (X ⊗R Y≤k )/(X ⊗R Y≤k−v ) → (X ⊗R Y≤k )/(X ⊗R Y≤k−u )}u≤v .
3.5 Theorem. Let X be an R◦ -complex and Y a bounded above R-complex with
sup Y = k. Then there are isomorphisms of Z-complex
X ⊗R Y ∼
= limi∈N ((X ⊗R Y )/(X ⊗R Y≤k−i )),
and

eR Y ∼
X⊗
= lim1i∈N (X ⊗R Y≤k−i ).

Proof. We first prove the case where k = 0. In this case, Y = Y≤0 . For each
n ∈ Z,
a
a
(X ⊗R Y≤0 )n =
(Xn+p ⊗R (Y≤0 )−p ) =
(Xn+p ⊗R (Y≤0 )−p ),
p∈Z

and for each i ≥ 1,
(X ⊗R Y≤−i )n =

a
p∈Z

p≥0

(Xn+p ⊗R (Y≤−i )−p ) =

a

(Xn+p ⊗R (Y≤0 )−p ).

p≥i

STABLE HOMOLOGY WITH RESPECT TO A SEMIDUALIZING MODULE

5

Thus one gets
((X ⊗R Y≤0 )/(X ⊗R Y≤−i ))n ∼
=

i−1
a

(Xn+p ⊗R (Y≤0 )−p ) =

p=0

i−1
Y

(Xn+p ⊗R (Y≤0 )−p ).

p=0

This implies that
limi∈N ((X ⊗R Y≤0 )/(X ⊗R Y≤−i ))n ∼
=

Y

(Xn+p ⊗R (Y≤0 )−p ) = (X ⊗R Y≤0 )n .

p∈Z

Now it is straightforward to verify
X ⊗R Y≤0 ∼
= limi∈N ((X ⊗R Y≤0 )/(X ⊗R Y≤−i )).
Since limi∈N (X ⊗R Y≤−i ) = 0, there is an exact sequence
0 → X ⊗R Y≤0 → X ⊗R Y≤0 → lim1i∈N (X ⊗R Y≤−i ) → 0
by Lemma 3.3 and the isomorphism proved above. Thus one gets
e R Y≤0 ∼
X⊗
= lim1 (X ⊗R Y≤−i ).
i∈N

In the general case, where sup Y = k ∈ Z, we notice that Y = Σk (Σ−k Y )≤0 and
(Σ Y )≤−i = Σ−k Y≤k−i . Thus one has,
−k

X ⊗R Y = Σk (X ⊗R (Σ−k Y )≤0 )
∼
= Σk limi∈N ((X ⊗R (Σ−k Y )≤0 )/(X ⊗R (Σ−k Y )≤−i ))
∼
= Σk limi∈N ((X ⊗R Σ−k Y≤k )/(X ⊗R Σ−k Y≤k−i )
∼
= limi∈N ((X ⊗R Y )/(X ⊗R Y≤k−i )) ,
and
e R Y = Σk (X ⊗
e R (Σ−k Y )≤0 )
X⊗
1
∼
= Σk lim (X ⊗R (Σ−k Y )≤−i )
i∈N

1
∼
= Σk limi∈N (X ⊗R Σ−k Y≤k−i )
∼
= lim1 (X ⊗R Y≤k−i ) ,
i∈N

as desired.



3.6 Corollary. Let X be an R◦ -complex and Y a bounded above R-complex with
sup Y = k. Then there exists an exact sequence
Y
Y
e R Y → 0.
0→
(X ⊗R Y≤k−i ) →
(X ⊗R Y≤k−i ) → X ⊗
i∈N

i∈N

∼ X⊗
e R Y by
Proof. Since limi∈N (X ⊗R Y≤k−i ) = 0 and lim1i∈N (X ⊗R Y≤k−i ) =
Theorem 3.5, Q
the desired exact sequence
now
follows
from
3.2.
We
notice
that
Q
the map from i∈N (X ⊗R Y≤k−i ) to i∈N (X ⊗R Y≤k−i ) in the statement is 1 − ε,
where εuv : X ⊗R Y≤k−v → X ⊗R Y≤k−u for u ≤ v is induced by the filtration
Y≤k ⊇ Y≤k−1 ⊇ Y≤k−2 ⊇ · · · ; see 3.2 and 3.4.

3.7 Corollary. Let X be an R◦ -complex and Y a bounded above R-complex with
sup Y = k. Then for each n ∈ Z, there exists an exact sequence
e R Y ) → limi∈N Hn (X ⊗R Y≤k−i ) → 0.
0 → lim1i∈N Hn+1 (X ⊗R Y≤k−i ) → Hn+1 (X ⊗

6

L. LIANG

e R Y ) = 0 if and only if lim1i∈N Hn+1 (X ⊗R Y≤k−i ) = 0 =
In particular, Hn+1 (X ⊗
limi∈N Hn (X ⊗R Y≤k−i ).
Proof. By Corollary 3.6 there is an exact sequence
Y
Y
e R Y → 0.
0→
(X ⊗R Y≤k−i ) →
(X ⊗R Y≤k−i ) → X ⊗
i∈N

i∈N

Thus one gets the following exact sequence
Y
Y
eR Y )
··· →
Hn+1 (X ⊗R Y≤k−i ) →
Hn+1 (X ⊗R Y≤k−i ) → Hn+1 (X ⊗
i∈N

i∈N

→

Y

Hn (X ⊗R Y≤k−i ) →

i∈N

Y

Hn (X ⊗R Y≤k−i ) → · · · ,

i∈N

which yields the desired exact sequence from the definitions of the lim and lim1
groups.

3.8. Recall that an N-inverse system {δuv : Mv → Mu }u≤v of R-modules satisfies
the Mittag-Leffler condition if for each i ∈ N there exists an index j ∈ N with
j ≥ i, such that Im δ ij = Im δ ik for each k ∈ N with k ≥ j. It is clear that if
δi,i+1 is surjective for each i ≫ 0 then the N-inverse system {δuv : Mv → Mu }u≤v
satisfies the Mittag-Leffler condition. Grothendieck proved in [11] that if the Ninverse system {δuv : Mv → Mu }u≤v satisfies the Mittag-Leffler condition then one
(N)
has lim1i∈N Mi = 0. Moreover, following [5, Corollary 6], lim1i∈N Mi = 0 if and only
if the N-inverse system {δuv : Mv → Mu }u≤v satisfies the Mittag-Leffler condition.
3.9 Corollary. Let X be an R◦ -complex and Y a bounded above R-complex with
e R Y ) = 0, then the N-inverse system
sup Y = k, and let n ∈ Z. If Hn (X (N) ⊗
{δuv : Hn (X ⊗R Y≤k−v ) → Hn (X ⊗R Y≤k−u )}u≤v satisfies the Mittag-Leffler condition.
e R Y ) = 0, then by Corollary 3.7, lim1i∈N Hn (X (N) ⊗R Y≤k−i ) =
Proof. If Hn (X (N) ⊗
0, and so one gets lim1i∈N (Hn (X ⊗R Y≤k−i ))(N) = 0, which implies that the N-inverse
system {δuv : Hn (X ⊗R Y≤k−v ) → Hn (X ⊗R Y≤k−u )}u≤v satisfies the Mittag-Leffler
condition; see 3.8.

Checking the proof of [6, Lemma 4.1], one gets the following result.
3.10 Lemma. Let {δuv : Xv → Xu }u≤v be an N-inverse system of R-modules satisfying the Mittag-Leffler condition. If limi∈N Xi = 0, then one has
colimi∈N HomZ (Xi , Q/Z) = 0.
The next proposition will be used to prove our main results advertised in the
introduction.
3.11 Proposition. Let X be an R◦ -complex and Y a bounded above R-complex
e R Y ) = 0 = Hn+1 (X ⊗
e R Y ), then one
with sup Y = k, and let n ∈ Z. If Hn (X (N) ⊗
has
colim H−n (HomR◦ (X, HomZ (Y, Q/Z)≥i−k )) = 0
i∈N

and
colim H−n (HomR (Y≤k−i , HomZ (X, Q/Z))) = 0.
i∈N

STABLE HOMOLOGY WITH RESPECT TO A SEMIDUALIZING MODULE

7

Proof. The N-inverse system {δuv : Hn (X ⊗R Y≤k−v ) → Hn (X ⊗R Y≤k−u )}u≤v sateR Y )
isfies the Mittag-Leffler condition by Corollary 3.9. The vanishing of Hn+1 (X ⊗
implies that limi∈N Hn (X ⊗R Y≤k−i ) = 0; see Corollary 3.7. Thus by Lemma 3.10,
one has
∼ colim HomZ (Hn (X ⊗R Y≤k−i ), Q/Z) = 0.
colim H−n (HomZ (X ⊗R Y≤k−i , Q/Z)) =
i∈N

i∈N

Now the desired equations hold by the adjoint isomorphism.



We end this section with the following result that will be used in the next section.
3.12 Proposition. Let X be an R◦ -complex, let Y be a bounded (R, S ◦ )-complex,
and let Z be an S-complex. Then there is an isomorphism of Z-complexes,
eS Z → X ⊗
e R (Y ⊗S Z),
(X ⊗R Y ) ⊗
which is functorial in X, Y and Z.

Proof. Consider the commutative diagram of Z-complexes:
0

// (X ⊗R Y ) ⊗S Z

0


// X ⊗R (Y ⊗S Z)

// (X ⊗R Y ) ⊗S Z

// (X ⊗R Y ) ⊗
eS Z

// 0

// X ⊗
e R (Y ⊗S Z)

// 0.

α


// X ⊗R (Y ⊗S Z)

We notice that X ⊗R Y = X ⊗R Y and Y ⊗S Z = Y ⊗S Z since Y is bounded.
Then the second vertical map α is an isomorphism by [2, Proposition A4]. The
first one is clearly an isomorphism. So one gets an isomorphism
eS Z → X ⊗
e R (Y ⊗S Z),
(X ⊗R Y ) ⊗
which is clearly functorial in X, Y and Z.



4. stable homology with respect to a semidualizing module
Convention. In this section, R is a commutative noetherian ring, and C is a
semidualizing R-module.
4.1 Definition. Let X (resp., Y) be a precovering (resp., preenveloping) class of
R-modules. For R-modules M and N , let X → M be a proper X -resolution of
M , and N → Y be a proper Y-coresolution of N . For each n ∈ Z, the nth stable
homology of M and N with respect to X and Y is
Y
gX
e
Tor
n (M, N ) = Hn+1 (X ⊗R Y ) .

4.2. Following [7, Section 8.2], any two proper X -resolutions of M , and similarly
any two proper Y-coresolution of N , are homotopy equivalent. Thus by [2, 1.5(d)],
the above definition is independent of the choices of (co)resolutions. We notice that
g PI (M, N ) is the classical stable homology, Tor
g R (M, N ), of M and N defined
Tor
n
n
by Goichot [9]; see also [2].
We denote by PC (resp., FC , IC ) the class of R-modules C ⊗R P (resp., C ⊗R F ,
HomR (C, I)) with P projective (resp., F flat, I injective). Then PC and FC are
precovering and IC is preenveloping; see e.g. Holm and White [12, Proposition 5.3].
In the next lemma, (a) and (b) can be found in [15, Lemma 3.1], (c) can be proved
as in [15, Lemma 3.1(c)], and (d) is from [18, Lemma 2.1(b)].

8

L. LIANG

4.3 Lemma. Let M be an R-module.
≃

(a) If F −−→ HomR (C, M ) is a proper flat (resp., projective) resolution, then
C ⊗R F → M is a proper FC (resp., PC )-resolution of M .
≃
(b) If G → M is a proper FC (resp., PC )-resolution of M , then HomR (C, G) −−→
HomR (C, M ) is a proper flat (resp., projective)-resolution of HomR (C, M ).
≃
(c) If C ⊗R M −−→ I is an injective resolution of C ⊗R M , then M → HomR (C, I)
is a proper IC -coresolution.
≃
(d) If M → J is a proper IC -coresolution of M , then C ⊗R M −−→ C ⊗R J is an
injective resolution of C ⊗R M .
4.4 Proposition. Let M and N be R-modules. Then there are isomorphisms
∼ g FC IC (M, N ),
gR
g nPC IC (M, N ) ∼
Tor
= Tor
n (HomR (C, M ), C ⊗R N ) = Torn

which are functorial in M and N .
≃

Proof. Let P −−→ HomR (C, M ) be a projective resolution of HomR (C, M ), and
≃
let C ⊗R N −−→ I be an injective resolution of C ⊗R N . Then by Lemma 4.3(a)(c),
C ⊗R P → M is a proper PC -resolution of M , and N → HomR (C, I) is a proper
IC -coresolution, and so one gets
g nPC IC (M, N ) = Hn+1 ((C ⊗R P ) ⊗
e R HomR (C, I))
Tor
∼
e R (C ⊗R HomR (C, I)))
= Hn+1 (P ⊗
∼
e R I)
= Hn+1 (P ⊗

∼
g R (HomR (C, M ), C ⊗R N ),
= Tor
n

where the first isomorphism follows from Proposition 3.12, and the second one holds
since I is a complex of injective R-modules.
gR
g nFC IC (M, N ) ∼
The isomorphism Tor
= Tor
n (HomR (C, M ), C ⊗R N ) can be proved
≃
similarly by taking a proper flat resolution F −−→ HomR (C, M ) and using Lemma
4.3(a) and [2, Proposition 2.6].
Now it is straightforward to verify that the desired isomorphisms are functorial
in M and N .

4.5 Lemma. Let M be an R-module and let n ∈ Z.
g PC IC (−, M ) = 0, then Tor
g PC IC (−, M ) = 0.
(a) If Tor
n−1

n

g PC IC (M, −) = 0.
g PC IC (M, −) = 0, then Tor
(b) If Tor
n
n+1

Proof. (a) For an R-module M ′ , by [12, Proposition 5.3(b)] there is a complex
0 → K → P → M ′ → 0 with P ∈ PC such that the sequence
0 → HomR (P ′ , K) → HomR (P ′ , P ) → HomR (P ′ , M ′ ) → 0
is exact for each P ′ ∈ PC . In particular, the sequence
0 → HomR (C, K) → HomR (C, P ) → HomR (C, M ′ ) → 0
is exact. Since HomR (C, P ) is projective, one gets
′
∼ gR
gR
Tor
n (HomR (C, M ), C ⊗R M ) = Torn−1 (HomR (C, K), C ⊗R M ),

STABLE HOMOLOGY WITH RESPECT TO A SEMIDUALIZING MODULE

9

∼ Tor
g PC IC (M ′ , M ) =
g PC IC (K, M ) = 0, which yields
and so by Proposition 4.4, Tor
n
n−1
g nPC IC (−, M ) = 0.
Tor
(b) Let N be an R-module. Then by [12, Proposition 5.3(c)] there is a complex
0 → N → I → K → 0 with I ∈ IC such that the sequence
0 → HomR (K, I ′ ) → HomR (I, I ′ ) → HomR (N, I ′ ) → 0
is exact for each I ′ ∈ IC . Since C ∨ = HomZ (C, Q/Z) is in IC , the sequence
0 → HomR (K, C ∨ ) → HomR (I, C ∨ ) → HomR (N, C ∨ ) → 0
is exact, which implies that the sequence
0 → C ⊗R N → C ⊗R I → C ⊗R K → 0
is exact. We notice that C ⊗R I is injective. Thus one gets
∼ gR
gR
Tor
n (HomR (C, M ), C ⊗R N ) = Torn+1 (HomR (C, M ), C ⊗R K),

g PC IC (M, K) = 0, which yields
g nPC IC (M, N ) ∼
and so by Proposition 4.4, Tor
= Tor
n+1
P
I
g C C (M, −) = 0.
Tor

n

Now we are in a position to give the main results of this section described in the
introduction.
4.6 Theorem. For an R-module N , the following conditions are equivalent:
(i) IC - idR N < ∞.
g PC IC (−, N ) = 0 for each n ∈ Z.
(ii) Tor
n
g PC IC (−, N ) = 0 for some n < 0.
(iii) Tor
n

Proof. (i) =⇒ (ii): Since IC - idR N < ∞, there is a proper IC -coresolution N → I
with I bounded. Thus for each R-module M with P → M a proper PC -resolution,
g PC IC (M, N ) = Hn+1 (P ⊗
e R I) = 0.
one has Tor
n
(ii) =⇒ (iii) is clear.
g PC IC (−, N ) = 0 = Tor
g PC IC (−, N ) = 0 by
(iii) =⇒ (i): We first notice that Tor
0
−1
Lemma 4.5.
≃
Let M be an R-module and F −−→ HomR (C, M ) a proper flat resolution. Then
by Lemma 4.3(a), C ⊗R F → M is a proper FC -resolution of M . Let N → I be
g FC IC (M, N ) ∼
g PC IC (M, N ) = 0 by
a proper IC -coresolution of N . Since Tor
= Tor
0
0
e R I) = 0.
Proposition 4.4, one gets H1 ((C ⊗R F ) ⊗
g PC IC (M (N) , N ) = 0, so by Proposition 4.4,
On the other hand, one has Tor
−1
(N)
gR
Tor
, C ⊗R N ) = 0.
−1 ((HomR (C, M ))

≃

≃

Note that F −−→ HomR (C, M ) is a flat resolution, and so F (N) −−→ (HomR (C, M ))(N)
≃
is a flat resolution of (HomR (C, M ))(N) . Since C ⊗R N −−→ C ⊗R I is an injective
e R (C ⊗R I)) = 0; see [2, Proposiresolution by Lemma 4.3(d), one gets H0 (F (N) ⊗
tion 2.6]. Thus we have
e R I) ∼
e R I) ∼
e R (C ⊗R I)) = 0,
H0 ((C ⊗R F )(N) ⊗
= H0 ((C ⊗R F (N) ) ⊗
= H0 (F (N) ⊗
where the second isomorphism follows from Proposition 3.12.
Now by Proposition 3.11 one gets

colim H0 (HomR (C ⊗R F , HomZ (I, Q/Z)≥i )) = 0.
i∈N

10

L. LIANG

We notice that C ⊗R F → M is a proper FC -resolution of M , and HomZ (I, Q/Z) →
HomZ (N, Q/Z) is a proper FC -resolution of HomZ (N, Q/Z). Then by Proposition
A.13 one gets
g 0 (M, HomZ (N, Q/Z)) = 0
Ext
FC

for each R-module M . Thus FC -pdR HomZ (N, Q/Z) < ∞ by Proposition A.11, and
so IC - idR N < ∞; see Sather-Wagstaff, Sharif and White [16, Lemma 4.2].


4.7 Theorem. For an R-module M , the following conditions are equivalent:
(i) FC - pdR M < ∞.
g PC IC (M, −) = 0 for each n ∈ Z.
(ii) Tor
n
g
(iii) TornPC IC (M, −) = 0 for some n ≥ 0.

Moreover, if M is finitely generated, then (i)–(iii) are equivalent to
(i’ ) PC - pdR M < ∞.
Proof. (i) =⇒ (ii): Since FC - pdR M < ∞, there is a proper FC -resolution F → M
with F bounded. Thus for each R-module N with N → I a proper IC -coresolution,
g nFC IC (M, N ) = Hn+1 (F ⊗
g nPC IC (M, N ) ∼
e R I) = 0 by Proposition
one has Tor
= Tor
4.4.
(ii) =⇒ (iii) is clear.
g PC IC (M, −) = 0 = Tor
g PC IC (M, −) = 0 by
(iii) =⇒ (i): We first notice that Tor
0
−1
Lemma 4.5.
≃
Let F −−→ HomR (C, M ) be a proper flat resolution of HomR (C, M ). Then
C ⊗R F → M is a proper FC -resolution by Lemma 4.3(a), and
≃
C ⊗R HomZ (M, Q/Z) ∼
= HomZ (HomR (C, M ), Q/Z) −−→ HomZ (F, Q/Z)
is an injective resolution of C ⊗R HomZ (M, Q/Z), and so
HomZ (M, Q/Z) → HomR (C, HomZ (F, Q/Z)) ∼
= HomZ (C ⊗R F , Q/Z)
is a proper IC -coresolution of HomZ (M, Q/Z) by Lemma 4.3(c).
≃
Let N be R-module, and let C ⊗R N −−→ I be an injective resolution of C ⊗R N .
Then N → HomR (C, I) is a proper IC -coresolution by Lemma 4.3(c), and
≃
C ⊗R N (N) ∼
= (C ⊗R N )(N) −−→ I (N)

is an injective resolution of C ⊗R N (N) , and so
N (N) → HomR (C, I (N) ) ∼
= (HomR (C, I))(N)
is a proper IC -coresolution by Lemma 4.3(c).
g FC IC (M, N ) = 0 = Tor
g FC IC (M, N (N) ) by Proposition 4.4, one gets
Since Tor
0
−1
e R HomR (C, I)) = 0, and
H1 ((C ⊗R F ) ⊗
e R HomR (C, I)) ∼
e R (HomR (C, I))(N) ) = 0
H0 ((C ⊗R F )(N) ⊗
= H0 ((C ⊗R F ) ⊗

by Proposition 3.12. Now using Proposition 3.11, one gets

colim H0 (HomR (HomR (C, I)≤−i , HomZ (C ⊗R F , Q/Z))) = 0,
i∈N

g 0 (N, HomZ (M, Q/Z))
Ext
IC

and so
= 0 for each R-module N by Proposition A.14.
Thus IC -idR HomZ (M, Q/Z) < ∞ by Proposition A.12, and so FC - pdR M < ∞;
see [16, Lemma 4.2].

STABLE HOMOLOGY WITH RESPECT TO A SEMIDUALIZING MODULE

11

Finally, if M is finitely generated, then by [15, Theorem 5.5] the conditions (i)
and (i′ ) are equivalent.

As a corollary of the above theorems, we give a balance result for stable homology
with respect to a semidualizing module.
4.8 Corollary. The following conditions are equivalent for a local ring R:
g nPC IC (N, M ) for all R-modules M and N , and for each
g nPC IC (M, N ) ∼
(i) Tor
= Tor
n ∈ Z.
(ii) IC -idR C < ∞.
(iii) C ∼
= R and R is Gorenstein.
Proof. (i) =⇒ (ii): Since C is C-projective, one gets
g PC IC (C, M ) = 0
g PC IC (M, C) ∼
Tor
= Tor
n
n

for all R-modules M and for each n ∈ Z, and so IC - id(C) < ∞ by Theorem 4.6.
The implication (ii) =⇒ (iii) follows from Sather-Wagstaff and Yassemi [17,
Lemma 2.11], and (iii) =⇒ (i) holds by [2, Corollary 4.7].

Appendix. Stable cohomology
The next definitions of bounded and stable Hom-complexes can be found in Avramov
and Veliche [1], and [9].
A.1. For R-complexes X and Y , the bounded Hom-complex HomR (X, Y ) is the
subcomplex of HomR (X, Y ) with degree-n term
a
HomR (X, Y )n =
HomR (Xi , Yn+i ).
i∈Z

] R (X, Y ) the quotient complex HomR (X, Y )/HomR (X, Y ), which
We denote by Hom
is called the stable Hom-complex.
A.2 Proposition. Let X and Z be an R-complex and an S-complex, respectively,
and let Y be a bounded (S, R◦ )-complex. Then there are isomorphisms of Zcomplexes,
HomS (Y ⊗R X, Z) ∼
= HomR (X, HomS (Y, Z))
and
] S (Y ⊗R X, Z) ∼
] R (X, HomS (Y, Z)),
Hom
= Hom
which are functorial in X, Y and Z.
Proof. For every n ∈ Z one has,
HomS (Y ⊗R X, Z)n =

a

HomS ((Y ⊗R X)h , Zn+h )

h∈Z

=

a

HomS (

h∈Z

∼
=

aa

a

(Yq ⊗R Xh−q ), Zn+h )

q∈Z

HomS (Yq ⊗R Xh−q , Zn+h )

h∈Z q∈Z

=

aa

p∈Z q∈Z

HomS (Yq ⊗R Xp , Zn+p+q ) .

12

L. LIANG

On the other hand, for every n ∈ Z one has,
a
HomR (X, HomS (Y, Z))n =
HomR (Xp , HomS (Y, Z)n+p )
p∈Z

=

a

HomR (Xp ,

p∈Z

∼
=

aa

Y

HomS (Yq , Zn+p+q ))

q∈Z

HomR (Xp , HomS (Yq , Zn+p+q )) .

p∈Z q∈Z

Here the isomorphisms in the above computations hold since Y is bounded.
We notice that there is a natural isomorphism of Z-modules
ρYq Xp Zn+p+q : HomS (Yq ⊗R Xp , Zn+p+q ) −→ HomR (Xp , HomS (Yq , Zn+p+q )).
Thus one gets an isomorphism of Z-complexes
ρY XZ : HomS (Y ⊗R X, Z) −→ HomR (X, HomS (Y, Z)).
It is straightforward to verify that ρY XZ is functorial in X, Y and Z.
For the second isomorphism in the statement, consider the following commutative
diagram of Z-complexes:
0

// HomS (Y ⊗R X, Z)

// HomS (Y ⊗R X, Z)

ρ

// Hom
] S (Y ⊗R X, Z)

// 0

̺



] R (X, HomS (Y, Z)) // 0.
0 // HomR (X, HomS (Y, Z)) // HomR (X, HomS (Y, Z)) // Hom
Since ρ and ̺ are isomorphisms, one gets an isomorphism
] S (Y ⊗R X, Z) → Hom
] R (X, HomS (Y, Z)),
Hom
which is clearly functorial in X, Y and Z.



A.3. Let X be a precovering class of R-modules, and let XM → M and XN → N
be proper X -resolutions of R-modules M and N , respectively. For each n ∈ Z, the
nth stable cohomology of M and N with respect to X is
n

g (M, N ) = H−n (Hom
] R (XM , XN ) .
Ext
X
Dually, let Y be a preenveloping class of R-modules, and let M → YM and
N → YN be proper Y-coresolutions of M and N , respectively. For each n ∈ Z, the
nth stable cohomology of M and N with respect to Y is
n

g (M, N ) = H−n (Hom
] R (YM , YN ) .
Ext
Y
A.4. Any two proper X -resolutions of M , and similarly any two proper Y-coresolutions
of N , are homotopy equivalent; see [7, Section 8.2]. Thus the above definitions
n
g P (M, N ) is
are independent of the choices of (co)resolutions. We notice that Ext
n
g R (M, N ), of M and N ; see [1] and [9]. Also
the classical stable cohomology, Ext
n
g I (M, N ) is the cohomology given by Nucinkis [13].
Ext

STABLE HOMOLOGY WITH RESPECT TO A SEMIDUALIZING MODULE

13

Stable cohomology with respect to proper flat (injective) resolutions. The
proof of the next result can be modelled along the argument in the proof of [1,
Proposition 2.2], when the argument is applied to the functor ExtiF (M, −) that is
≃
computed by H−i (HomR (F, −)), where F −−→ M is a proper flat resolution.
A.5 Proposition. For an R-module M , the following conditions are equivalent:
(i) fdR M < ∞.
n
n
g (M, −) = 0 = Ext
g (−, M ) for each n ∈ Z.
(ii) Ext
F
F
0

g (M, M ) = 0.
(iii) Ext
F

Dually, we have the next result that is proved by Nucinkis in [13, Theorem 3.7].

A.6 Proposition. For an R-module N , the following conditions are equivalent:
(i) idR N < ∞.
n
n
g I (N, −) = 0 = Ext
g I (−, N ) for each n ∈ Z.
(ii) Ext
0

g I (N, N ) = 0.
(iii) Ext

≃

A.7 Proposition. Let M and N be R-modules with proper flat resolutions F −−→
≃
M and F ′ −−→ N , respectively. For every n ∈ Z there is an isomorphism
n
′
g F (M, N ) ∼
Ext
)).
= colim H−n (HomR (F, F≥i
i∈N

′
Proof. Set Ωs M = Coker(Fs+1 → Fs ) and Ωs N = Coker(Fs+1
→ Fs′ ). Using a
similar proof as proved in [13, Theorem 3.6], one gets a natural isomorphism

colim ExtiF (M, Ωi−n N ) ∼
= colim HomR (Ωi M, Ωi−n N )/ FHomR (Ωi M, Ωi−n N ).
i∈N

i∈N

Here FHomR (Ωi M, Ωi−n N ) denotes the set of all homomorphisms of R-modules
f ∈ HomR (Ωi M, Ωi−n N ) factoring through a flat R-module. As proved in [13,
Theorem 4.4] (see also [3, B.2]), one gets an isomorphism
g n (M, N ) ∼
Ext
= colim HomR (Ωi M, Ωi−n N )/ FHomR (Ωi M, Ωi−n N ).
F
i∈N

≃

′
On the other hand, we notice that Σ−i F≥i
−−→ Ωi N is a proper flat resolution.
Thus one has,
colim Exti (M, Ωi−n N ) ∼
= colim Exti+n (M, Ωi N )
i∈N

F

i∈N

F

′
∼
))
= colim H−i−n (HomR (F, Σ−i F≥i
i∈N

′
∼
)) ,
= colim H−n (HomR (F, F≥i
i∈N

where the second isomorphism follows from Christensen, Frankild and Holm [4,
Proposition 2.6]. Now one gets the isomorphism in the statement.

Dually, one gets the following result, which is proved in [6, Proposition 1.1(iii)].
≃

A.8 Proposition. Let M and N be R-modules with injective resolutions M −−→ I
≃
and N −−→ I ′ , respectively. For every n ∈ Z there is an isomorphism
n
g (M, N ) ∼
Ext
= colim H−n (HomR (I≤−i , I ′ )).
I
i∈N

14

L. LIANG

Stable cohomology with respect to a semidualizing module. In this subsection, we assume that R is a commutative noetherian ring, and let C be a semidualizing R-module.
A.9 Lemma. Let M and N be R-modules. Then there is an isomorphism
n
n
g (M, N ) ∼
g (HomR (C, M ), HomR (C, N )),
Ext
= Ext
FC
F

which is functorial in M and N .
≃

≃

Proof. Let F −−→ HomR (C, M ) and F ′ −−→ HomR (C, N ) be proper flat resolutions of HomR (C, M ) and HomR (C, N ), respectively. Then by Lemma 4.3(a),
C ⊗R F → M and C ⊗R F ′ → N are proper FC -resolutions of M and N , respectively. Thus one has,
n

g F (M, N ) = H−n (Hom
] R (C ⊗R F , C ⊗R F ′ ))
Ext
C

∼
] R (F, HomR (C, C ⊗R F ′ )))
= H−n (Hom
∼
] R (F, F ′ ))
= H−n (Hom
n
∼
g F (HomR (C, M ), HomR (C, N )) ,
= Ext

where the first isomorphism follows from Proposition A.2, and the second one holds
since F ′ is a complex of flat R-modules. It is straightforward to verify that the
desired isomorphism is functorial in M and N .

The next result can be proved dually using Lemma 4.3(c) and Proposition A.2.
A.10 Lemma. Let M and N be R-modules. Then there is an isomorphism
n

n

g I (C ⊗R M , C ⊗R N ),
g I (M, N ) ∼
Ext
= Ext
C

which is functorial in M and N .

A.11 Proposition. For an R-module M , the following conditions are equivalent.
(i) FC - pdR M < ∞.
n
n
g F (M, −) = 0 = Ext
g F (−, M ) for each n ∈ Z.
(ii) Ext
C
C
0

g F (M, M ) = 0.
(iii) Ext
C

Proof. (i) =⇒ (ii): Since FC - pdR M < ∞, there is a proper FC -resolution F →
] R (F, −) = 0 = Hom
] R (−, F ). Thus one gets
M with F bounded, and so Hom
n
n
g
g
ExtFC (M, −) = 0 = ExtFC (−, M ) for each n ∈ Z.
(ii) =⇒ (iii) is clear.
0
g F (HomR (C, M ), HomR (C, M )) ∼
(iii) =⇒ (i): By Proposition A.9, one gets Ext
=
0

g F (M, M ) = 0, and so fdR HomR (C, M ) < ∞ by Proposition A.5. Thus one
Ext
C
gets FC - pdR M < ∞; see [15, Proposition 5.2(b)].

The next result can be proved dually using Propositions A.6 and A.10, and [18,
Theorem 2.11(b)].
A.12 Proposition. For an R-module N , the following conditions are equivalent.
(i) IC - idR N < ∞.
n
n
g I (−, N ) for each n ∈ Z.
g I (N, −) = 0 = Ext
(ii) Ext
C
C

STABLE HOMOLOGY WITH RESPECT TO A SEMIDUALIZING MODULE

15

g 0 (N, N ) = 0.
(iii) Ext
IC
A.13 Proposition. Let M and N be R-modules with proper FC -resolutions F →
M and F ′ → N , respectively. For every n ∈ Z there is an isomorphism
n
′
g F (M, N ) ∼
)).
Ext
= colim H−n (HomR (F, F≥i
C
i∈N

≃

≃

Proof. By Lemma 4.3(b), HomR (C, F ) −−→ HomR (C, M ) and HomR (C, F ′ ) −−→
HomR (C, N ) are proper flat resolutions of HomR (C, M ) and HomR (C, N ), respectively. Thus we have,
n

n

g (M, N ) ∼
g (HomR (C, M ), HomR (C, N ))
Ext
= Ext
FC
F
∼ colim H−n (HomR (HomR (C, F ), HomR (C, F ′ )≥i ))
=
i∈N

′
= colim H−n (HomR (HomR (C, F ), HomR (C, F≥i
)))
i∈N

′
∼
))
= colim H−n (HomR (C ⊗R HomR (C, F ), F≥i
i∈N

′
∼
)) ,
= colim H−n (HomR (F, F≥i
i∈N

where the first isomorphism follows from Proposition A.9, the second one follows
from Proposition A.7, and the last one holds since F is a complex of C-flat Rmodules.

Dually, we have the following result.
A.14 Proposition. Let M and N be R-modules with proper IC -coresolutions
M → I and N → I ′ , respectively. For every n ∈ Z there is an isomorphism
g n (M, N ) ∼
Ext
= colim H−n (HomR (I≤−i , I ′ )).
IC
i∈N

Acknowledgments
We thank Ioannis Emmanouil and Panagiota Manousaki for making [6] available to
us and for discussions regarding this work. We also thank the anonymous referees
for several corrections and valuable comments that improved the presentation at
several points.
References
[1] L. L. Avramov and O. Veliche, Stable cohomology over local rings, Adv. Math. 213 (2007),
93–139.
[2] O. Celikbas, L. W. Christensen, L. Liang and G. Piepmeyer, Stable homology over associate
rings, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 369 (2017), 8061–8086.
[3] O. Celikbas, L. W. Christensen, L. Liang and G. Piepmeyer, Complete homology over associate rings, Israel J. Math., to appear.
[4] L. W. Christensen, A. Frankild and H. Holm, On Gorenstein projective, injective and flat
dimensions—A functorial description with applications, J. Algebra 302 (2006), 231–279.
[5] I. Emmanouil, Mittag-Leffler condition and the vanishing of lim1 , Topology 35 (1996), 267–
←−
271.
[6] I. Emmanouil and P. Manousaki, On the stable homology of modules, J. Pure Appl. Algebra
221 (2017), 2198–2219.
[7] E. E. Enochs and O. M. G. Jenda, Relative homological algebra, de Gruyter Expositions in
Mathematics, Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, 2000.
[8] H.-B. Foxby, Gorenstein modules and related modules, Math. Scand. 31 (1972), 267–284.
[9] F. Goichot, Homologie de Tate-Vogel équivariante, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 82 (1992), 39–64.

16

L. LIANG

[10] E. S. Golod, G-dimension and generalized perfect ideals, in: Algebraic Geometry and Its
Applications, Tr. Mat. Inst. Steklova 165 (1984), 62–66.
[11] A. Grothendieck, EGA(III), Publ. Math. IHES 11, 1961.
[12] H. Holm and D. White, Foxby equivalence over associative rings, J. Math. Kyoto Univ. 47
(2007), 781–808.
[13] B. E. A. Nucinkis, Complete cohomology for arbitrary rings using injectives, J. Pure Appl.
Algebra 131 (1998), 297–318.
[14] J. E. Roos, Sur les foncteurs dérivés de lim. Applications, C. R. Acad. Sc. Paris 252 (1961),
←−
3702–3704.
[15] M. Salimi, S. Sather-Wagstaff, E. Tavasoli and S. Yassemi, Relative Tor functors with respect
to a semidualizing module, Algebr. Represent. Theory 17 (2014), 103–120.
[16] S. Sather-Wagstaff, T. Sharif and D. White, AB-contexts and stability for Gorenstein flat
modules with respect to semidualizing modules, Algebr. Represent. Theory 14 (2011), 403–
428.
[17] S. Sather-Wagstaff and S. Yassemi, Modules of finite homological dimension with respect to
a semidualizing module, Arch. Math. 93 (2009), 111–121.
[18] R. Takahashi and D. White, Homological aspects of semidualizing modules, Math. Scand.
106 (2010), 5–22.
[19] W. V. Vasconcelos, Divisor Theory in Module Categories, North-Holland Math. Stud., vol.
14, Notas Mat. (Notes on Mathematics), vol. 53, North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam,
1974.
[20] Z. Z. Yeh, Higher inverse limits and homology theories, Thesis, Princeton, 1959.
Li Liang, School of Mathematics and Physics, Lanzhou Jiaotong University, Lanzhou
730070, China.
E-mail address: lliangnju@gmail.com

