arXiv:1208.4064v2 [] 20 Jun 2013

COHOMOLOGICALLY COFINITE COMPLEXES
MARCO PORTA, LIRAN SHAUL AND AMNON YEKUTIELI
Abstract. Let A be a commutative noetherian ring, and a an ideal in it. In
this paper we continue the study, begun in [PSY1], of the derived a-adic completion and the derived a-torsion functors. Here are our results: (1) a structural
characterization of bounded above cohomologically complete complexes; (2) the
Cohomologically Complete Nakayama Theorem; and (3) a characterization of
cohomologically cofinite complexes.

0. Introduction
Let A be a noetherian commutative ring, and let a be an ideal in it. (We do
not assume that A is a-adically complete.) There are two operations associated to
this data: the a-adic completion and the a-torsion. For an A-module M its a-adic
completion is the A-module
c := lim M/ai M.
Λa (M ) = M
←i

We say that M is an a-adically complete module if the canonical homomorphism
M → Λa (M ) is an isomorphism. An element m ∈ M is called an a-torsion element
if ai m = 0 for i ≫ 0. The a-torsion elements form the a-torsion submodule Γa (M )
of M . We say that M is an a-torsion module if the canonical homomorphism
Γa (M ) → M is an isomorphism.
Let us denote by Mod A the category of A-modules. So we have additive functors
Λa , Γa : Mod A → Mod A.
The functor Γa is left exact; whereas Λa is neither left exact nor right exact. (Of
course the completion functor Λa is exact on the subcategory Modf A of finitely
generated modules.) Both functors Λa and Γa are idempotent, namely for any
M ∈ Mod A the module Λa (M ) is a-adically complete, and the module Γa (M ) is
a-torsion. (Note that when A is not noetherian, the functor Λa might fail to be
idempotent.)
In this paper we continue the study of questions of homological nature about
the functors Λa and Γa , that was started in [PSY1].
We denote by C(Mod A) the category of complexes over A. Recall that a complex
P ∈ C(Mod A) is called K-projective if for any acyclic complex N ∈ C(Mod A),
the complex HomA (P, N ) is also acyclic. A complex I ∈ C(Mod A) is called Kinjective if for any acyclic complex N , the complex HomA (N, I) is also acyclic.
Date: 11 June 2013.
Key words and phrases. adic completion, torsion, derived functors.
Mathematics Subject Classification 2010. Primary: 13D07; Secondary: 13B35, 13C12, 13D09,
18E30.
This research was supported by the Israel Science Foundation and the Center for Advanced
Studies at BGU.
1

2

MARCO PORTA, LIRAN SHAUL AND AMNON YEKUTIELI

These definitions were introduced in [Sp]. In [Ke, Section 3] it is shown that “Kprojective” is the same as “having property (P)”, and “K-injective” is the same as
“having property (I)”.
The derived category of Mod A is denoted by D(Mod A). As usual we write
Db (Mod A) for the full subcategory of D(Mod A) consisting of bounded complexes.
Less customary is our notation D(Mod A)b for the category of complexes with
bounded cohomology. Of course the inclusion Db (Mod A) ⊂ D(Mod A)b is an equivalence; and often the distinction between these categories is blurred. However, since
much of our work has to do with boundedness conditions, we wish to be accurate
on this point. Similarly we have equivalences D⋆ (Mod A) ⊂ D(Mod A)⋆ , where ⋆ is
either + or −.
The derived functors
LΛa , RΓa : D(Mod A) → D(Mod A)
exist. The left derived functor LΛa is constructed using K-projective resolutions,
and the right derived functor RΓa is constructed using K-injective resolutions. The
functors LΛa and RΓa have finite cohomological dimensions, and therefore they
send D(Mod A)⋆ into itself, where ⋆ is either b, + or −.
A complex M ∈ D(Mod A) is called a cohomologically a-torsion complex if
the canonical morphism RΓa (M ) → M is an isomorphism. The complex M is
called a cohomologically a-adically complete complex if the canonical morphism
M → LΛa (M ) is an isomorphism. We denote by D(Mod A)a-tor and D(Mod A)a-com
the full subcategories of D(Mod A) consisting of cohomologically a-torsion complexes and cohomologically a-adically complete complexes, respectively. These are
triangulated subcategories. The MGM Equivalence, [PSY1, Theorem 1.1], says that
the functor
RΓa : D(Mod A)a-com → D(Mod A)a-tor
is an equivalence of triangulated categories, with quasi-inverse LΛa . (Note that in
the noetherian case, the MGM equivalence follows easily from results of [AJL2].)
In [PSY1] we proved that a complex M is cohomologically torsion, namely it
belongs to D(Mod A)a-tor , if and only if all of its cohomology modules Hi (M ) are
torsion modules. This is false for cohomologically complete complexes – indeed, in
Example 1.22 we exhibit a cohomologically complete complex M such that Hi (M ) =
0 for all i 6= 0, and the module H0 (M ) is not a-adically complete. So the category
D(Mod A)a-com is quite mysterious.
However we do have a structural characterization of the subcategory
D(Mod A)−
a-com of cohomologically complete complexes with bounded above cohomology. The notion of a-adically projective module is recalled in Definition 1.4. (See
Theorem 1.10 for a comparison to the formally projective modules of [EGA IV].)
The structure of a-adically projective modules is well-understood (see Corollary
1.7). Let us denote by AdPr(A, a) the full subcategory of Mod A consisting of aadically projective modules. This is an additive category. There is a corresponding
triangulated category K− (AdPr(A, a)), which is a full subcategory of the homotopy
category K(Mod A).
Here is the first main result of this paper.

COHOMOLOGICALLY COFINITE COMPLEXES

3

Theorem 0.1. Let A be a noetherian commutative ring, and a an ideal in A. The
localization functor K(Mod A) → D(Mod A) induces an equivalence of triangulated
categories
K− (AdPr(A, a)) → D(Mod A)−
a-com .
This is Theorem 1.19 in the body of the paper. In particular we see that a
bounded above complex M is cohomologically complete iff it is isomorphic (in
D(Mod A)) to a bounded above complex of adically projective modules.
Our second main result is influenced by [KS], as explained in Remark 2.6 below.
For the rest of the introduction we assume A is a-adically complete.
Theorem 0.2 (Cohomologically Complete Nakayama). Let A be a noetherian commutative ring, a-adically complete with respect to an ideal a, and let A0 := A/a.
Let M ∈ D(Mod A)a-com and i0 ∈ Z be such that Hi (M ) = 0 for all i > i0 , and
Hi0 (A0 ⊗LA M ) is a finitely generated A0 -module. Then Hi0 (M ) is a finitely generated A-module.
This is Theorem 2.2 in the body of the paper. Note that in particular H0 (M ) is
a-adically complete as A-module, in contrast to Example 1.22.
A consequence of Theorem 0.2 is:
L
Corollary 0.3. Let M ∈ D(Mod A)−
a-com . If A0 ⊗A M = 0 then M = 0.

See Remark 2.6 for an extension of this result to unbounded complexes.
Consider the category Df (Mod A)b of complexes with bounded finitely generated
cohomology. It is the closure under isomorphisms, inside D(Mod A), of Dbf (Mod A).
It is not hard to see that Df (Mod A)b is contained in D(Mod A)a-com (see Proposition
3.1). We denote by D(Mod A)ba-cof the essential image of Df (Mod A)b under the
functor RΓa ; so
D(Mod A)ba-cof ⊂ D(Mod A)ba-tor .
The objects of D(Mod A)ba-cof are called cohomologically a-adically cofinite complexes. By MGM Equivalence we have an equivalence of triangulated categories
RΓa : Df (Mod A)b → D(Mod A)ba-cof ,
with quasi-inverse LΛa . This implies that for M ∈ D(Mod A)ba-tor to be cohomologically cofinite it is necessary and sufficient that LΛa (M ) ∈ Df (Mod A)b . See
Proposition 3.3. Yet this last condition is hard to check!
The importance of D(Mod A)ba-cof comes from the fact that it contains the tdualizing complexes (defined in [AJL2]). The next theorem (which is Theorem 3.10
in the body of the paper, and whose proof uses Theorem 0.2) answers a question
we asked in 1998 in [Ye1].
Theorem 0.4. Let A be a noetherian commutative ring, a-adically complete with
respect to an ideal a, and let A0 := A/a. The following conditions are equivalent
for M ∈ D(Mod A)ba-tor :
(i) M is cohomologically a-adically cofinite.
(ii) For every i the A0 -module ExtiA (A0 , M ) is finitely generated.
In Proposition 3.13, we show that our definition of a cohomologically cofinite
complex coincides with that of [Ha2] for bounded complexes when A is a regular
ring.

4

MARCO PORTA, LIRAN SHAUL AND AMNON YEKUTIELI

Acknowledgments. We wish to thank Joseph Lipman, Ana Jeremias and Leo
Alonso for helpful discussions. We are also grateful to the anonymous referee who
read the paper carefully and made some useful suggestions.
1. Structural Results for Cohomologically Complete Complexes
In this section we assume this setup:
Setup 1.1. A is a noetherian commutative ring, and a is an ideal in it.
We do not assume that A is a-adically complete. We wish to gain a better
understanding of cohomologically a-adically complete complexes. For this we recall
some notation, definitions and results from [Ye2].
Let Z be a set. We denote by F(Z, A) the set of all functions f : Z → A. This is
an A-module. The subset of finite support functions is denoted by Ffin (Z, A); this
is a free A-module with basis the set {δz }z∈Z of delta functions.
b := Λa (A), and let b
b an ideal of the ring A.
b Then b
Let A
a := a · A,
a ∼
= Λa (a),
b
b
b
the ring A is a-adically complete and noetherian, and the homomorphism A → A
b
is flat. Given an element a ∈ A, its a-adic order is
orda (a) := sup {i ∈ N | a ∈ b
a i } ∈ N ∪ {∞}.

Definition 1.2. Let Z be a set.
b is called a-adically decaying if for every i ∈ N the set
(1) A function f : Z → A
{z ∈ Z | orda (f (z)) ≤ i}
is finite.
b is called the module of
(2) The set of a-adically decaying functions f : Z → A
b
decaying functions, and is denoted by Fdec (Z, A).
b for
(3) An A-module is called a-adically free if it is isomorphic to Fdec(Z, A)
some set Z.
b is an A-submodule
b
b
Note that Fdec (Z, A)
of F(Z, A).
b 1 , . . . , tn }, defined in
Example 1.3. The ring of restricted formal power series A{t
b
[CA, Section III.4.2], is canonically isomorphic, as an Â-module, to Fdec (Nn , A).
Recall that an A-module M is called a-adically complete if the canonical homomorphism τM : M → Λa (M ) is bijective.
Definition 1.4. An A-module P is called a-adically projective if it has these two
properties:
(i) P is a-adically complete.
(ii) Suppose M and N are a-adically complete modules, and φ : M → N is a
surjection. Then any homomorphism ψ : P → N lifts to a homomorphism
ψ̃ : P → M ; namely φ ◦ ψ̃ = ψ.
Theorem 1.5 ([Ye2, Section 3]). Let Z be a set.
b is the a-adic completion of Ffin (Z, A). More pre(1) The A-module Fdec (Z, A)
cisely, there is a unique A-linear isomorphism
b ∼
Fdec (Z, A)
= Λa (Ffin (Z, A))
that is compatible with the homomorphisms from Ffin (Z, A).

COHOMOLOGICALLY COFINITE COMPLEXES

5

b is flat and a-adically complete.
(2) The A-module Fdec (Z, A)
(3) Let M be any a-adically complete A-module, and let f : Z → M be any
b →
function. Then there is a unique A-linear homomorphism φ : Fdec (Z, A)
M such that φ(δz ) = f (z) for every z ∈ Z.
Corollary 1.6 ([Ye2, Corollary 3.15]). Any a-adically complete A-module is a
quotient of an a-adically free A-module.
Corollary 1.7 ([Ye2, Proposition 3.13]). An A-module is a-adically projective if
and only if it is a direct summand of some a-adically free module.
Corollary 1.8.
(1) Any a-adically projective A-module is flat.
(2) Any a-adically complete A-module is a quotient of an a-adically projective
A-module.
(3) If P is a projective A-module then its a-adic completion Pb is a-adically
projective.
Proof. Combine Theorem 1.5 and Corollaries 1.6 and 1.7



For k ∈ N let us write Ak := A/ak+1 .
c be its a-adic completion.
Corollary 1.9. Let M be any A-module, and let M
c is a-adically complete.
(1) The A-module M
c, that is
(2) For any k ∈ N the homomorphism τM,k : Ak ⊗A M → Ak ⊗A M
c
induced by τM : M → M , is bijective.
Proof. (1) is [Ye2, Corollary 3.5]. As for (2): in the course of the proof of [Ye2,
Theorem 1.2] it is shown that the homomorphism τM,k is an injection (this is true
regardless if the ideal a is finitely generated); and the implication (i) ⇒ (ii) of loc.
cit., together with item (1) above, shows that τM,k is surjective.

In [EGA IV, Section 0IV .19.2] the notion of formally projective module is defined.
Here is what it means in our situation, where every A-module is given its a-adic
topology. An A-module P is formally projective if for every k, the Ak -module
Pk := Ak ⊗A P is projective. The next results compare the two notions of projective
modules.
Theorem 1.10. The following conditions are equivalent for an a-adically complete
A-module P :
(i) P is a-adically projective.
(ii) P is formally projective.
Proof. (i) ⇒ (ii): This is trivial, since any Ak -module is an a-adically complete
A-module.
b → P for
(ii) ⇒ (i): According to Corollary 1.6 there is a surjection α : Fdec (Z, A)
some set Z. We will prove that α is split; and then by Corollary 1.7 the A-module
P is a-adically projective.
To obtain a splitting β of α we will construct an inverse system of splittings
βk : Pk → Ffin (Z, Ak ) of the surjections αk : Ffin (Z, Ak ) → Pk induced by α. For
k = 0 this is easy, since P0 is a projective A0 -module.

6

MARCO PORTA, LIRAN SHAUL AND AMNON YEKUTIELI

Now suppose we have a compatible system of splittings β0 , . . . , βk . Let us choose
′
any splitting βk+1
: Pk+1 → Ffin (Z, Ak+1 ). Write Lk+1 := Ker(αk+1 ) and Lk :=
Ker(αk ). Consider the commutative diagram (solid arrows)
β′

0

/ Lk+1
φk+1,k

0


/ Lk

k+1
❴ ❲ ❖
♦ ❣
●
✇{
/ Ffin (Z, Ak+1 ) αk+1 / Pk+1
P
θk+1,k

F
θk+1,k


/ Ffin (Z, Ak )
●c
❖ ❲

/0

αk

❴ ❣ ♦


/ Pk
✇

/0

βk

P
F
with exact rows, where θk+1,k
and θk+1,k
are the canonical surjections induced by
the ring surjection θk+1,k : Ak+1 → Ak , and φk+1,k is the unique homomorphism
that agrees with the rest. There is a homomorphism χ : Pk+1 → Ffin (Z, Ak ),
P
F
′
. But αk ◦ χ = 0, and hence χ : Pk+1 → Lk .
χ := βk ◦ θk+1,k
− θk+1,k
◦ βk+1
Because the homomorphism αk is gotten from αk+1 by applying the right exact
functor Ak ⊗Ak+1 −, it follows that φk+1,k : Lk+1 → Lk is surjective. Since Pk+1
is a projective Ak+1 -module, there is a homomorphism χ̃ : Pk+1 → Lk+1 lifting
χ, namely φk+1,k ◦ χ̃ = χ. The homomorphism βk+1 : Pk+1 → Ffin (Z, Ak+1 ),
′
βk+1 := βk+1
− χ̃, is a splitting of αk+1 that’s compatible with βk .


Corollary 1.11. An A-module P is formally projective iff its a-adic completion Pb
is a-adically projective.
Proof. By Corollary 1.9 the A-module Pb is a-adically complete, and Ak ⊗A P ∼
=

Ak ⊗A Pb for every k. Now use Theorem 1.10.
L
Let M = i∈Z M i be a graded A-module. We define
(1.12)

inf(M ) := inf{i | M i 6= 0} ∈ Z ∪ {±∞}

and
(1.13)

sup(M ) := sup{i | M i 6= 0} ∈ Z ∪ {±∞}.

The amplitude of M is
(1.14)

amp(M ) := sup(M ) − inf(M ) ∈ N ∪ {±∞}.

(For M = 0 this reads inf(M ) = ∞, sup(M ) = −∞ and amp(M ) = −∞.)
L Thus M
is bounded iff amp(M ) < ∞. For M ∈ D(Mod A) we write H(M ) := i∈Z Hi (M ).
Theorem 1.15. The following conditions are equivalent for M ∈ D(Mod A)− .
(i) M is a-adically cohomologically complete.
(ii) There is an isomorphism P ∼
= M in D(Mod A), where P is a complex of
a-adically free modules, and sup(P ) = sup(H(M )).
(iii) There is an isomorphism P ∼
= M in D(Mod A), where P is a bounded above
complex of a-adically projective modules.
Before the proof, let us recall some notation from [PSY1]. For M ∈ D(Mod A),
there is a canonical homomorphism τM : M → Λa (M ) in C(Mod A), and there
L
are canonical morphisms τM
: M → LΛa (M ) and ξM : LΛa (M ) → Λa (M ) in

COHOMOLOGICALLY COFINITE COMPLEXES

7

L
D(Mod A). These are related by τM = ξM ◦τM
. By definition, M is cohomologically
L
complete if τM is an isomorphism.

Proof. (i) ⇒ (ii): We assume that M is a-adically cohomologically complete and
nonzero. Choose a free resolution Q → M in C(Mod A), i.e. a quasi-isomorphism
where Q is a bounded above complex of free modules, such that sup(Q) =
sup(H(M )). This is standard. Let P := Λa (Q), which is a complex of a-adically
free modules, and sup(P ) = sup(Q). Because Q ∼
= M in D(Mod A), Q is also
L
a-adically cohomologically complete, so τQ
: Q → LΛa (Q) is an isomorphism in
D(Mod A). But Q is K-projective, so LΛa (Q) ∼
= Λa (Q) = P . (This in fact proves
that τQ : Q → P is a quasi-isomorphism!) We conclude that M ∼
= P in D(Mod A).
(ii) ⇒ (iii): This is trivial.
(iii) ⇒ (i): Let P be a bounded above complex of a-adically projective modules. The
idempotence of completion (see [Ye2, Corollary 3.6]) implies that τP : P → Λa (P )
is an isomorphism in C(Mod A). According to Corollary 1.8(1) the complex P is
K-flat; therefore ξP : LΛa (P ) → Λa (P ) is an isomorphism in D(Mod A). It follows
that τPL = (ξP )−1 ◦ τP is an isomorphism in D(Mod A). So P is cohomologically
complete, and hence, so is M .

For any M we denote by 1M the identity automorphism of M .
Lemma 1.16. Let N be an a-adically complete A-module, and let M be any Amodule. Then the homomorphism
Hom(τM , 1N ) : HomA (Λa (M ), N ) → HomA (M, N )
induced by τM is bijective.
Proof. Given φ : M → N consider the homomorphism
−1
τN
◦ Λa (φ) : Λa (M ) → N.

This operation is inverse to Hom(τM , 1N ). Hence Hom(τM , 1N ) is bijective.



Lemma 1.17.
(1) Let 0 → P ′ → P → P ′′ → 0 be an exact sequence, with P
′′
and P a-adically projective modules. Then this sequence is split, and P ′
is also a-adically projective.
(2) Let P be an acyclic bounded above complex of a-adically projective modules.
Then P is null-homotopic.
(3) Let P and Q be bounded above complexes of a-adically projective modules,
and let φ : P → Q be a quasi-isomorphism. Then φ is a homotopy equivalence.
Proof. (1) Since both P and P ′′ are complete, the sequence is split by property
(ii) of Definition 1.4. And it is easy to see that a direct summand of an a-adically
projective module is also a-adically projective.
(2) This is like the usual proof for a complex of projectives, but using part (1)
above. Cf. [We, Lemma 10.4.6].
(3) Let L := cone(φ), the mapping cone. This is an acyclic bounded above complex
of a-adically projective modules. By part (2) the complex L is null-homotopic; and
hence φ is a homotopy equivalence.


8

MARCO PORTA, LIRAN SHAUL AND AMNON YEKUTIELI

Lemma 1.18. Let P be a bounded above complex of a-adically projective modules, and let M be a complex of a-adically complete modules. Then the canonical
morphism
ξP,M : HomA (P, M ) → RHomA (P, M )
in D(Mod A) is an isomorphism.
Proof. Choose a resolution φ : Q → P where Q is a bounded above complex of
projective modules. Since both P and Q are K-flat complexes, it follows that
Λa (φ) : Λa (Q) → Λa (P ) is also a quasi-isomorphism. But τP : P → Λa (P ) is
bijective. We get a quasi-isomorphism
ψ := τP−1 ◦ Λa (φ) : Λa (Q) → P,
satisfying ψ ◦ τQ = φ : Q → P . According to Lemma 1.17(3), ψ is a homotopy
equivalence. Hence it induces a quasi-isomorphism
Hom(ψ, 1M ) : HomA (P, M ) → HomA (Λa (Q), M ).
On the other hand, since M consists of complete modules, by Lemma 1.16 we see
that the homomorphism
Hom(τQ , 1M ) : HomA (Λa (Q), M ) → HomA (Q, M )
is bijective. We conclude that
Hom(φ, 1M ) : HomA (P, M ) → HomA (Q, M )
is a quasi-isomorphism. But the homomorphism Hom(φ, 1M ) represents ξP,M . 
Let us denote by AdPr(A, a) the full subcategory of Mod A consisting of a-adically
projective modules. This is an additive category. There is a corresponding triangulated category K− (AdPr(A, a)), which is a full subcategory of K(Mod A).
Theorem 1.19. The localization functor K(Mod A) → D(Mod A) induces an equivalence of triangulated categories
K− (AdPr(A, a)) → D(Mod A)−
a-com .
Proof. By Theorem 1.15, the category D(Mod A)−
a-com is the essential image of
K− (AdPr(A, a)). And by Lemma 1.18 we see that
H0 (ξP,Q ) : HomK(Mod A) (P, Q) → HomD(Mod A) (P, Q)
is bijective for any P, Q ∈ K− (AdPr(A, a)).



Lemma 1.20. Let M be an a-adically complete A-module. Then there is a quasiisomorphism P → M , where P is a complex of a-adically free A-modules with
sup(P ) ≤ 0.
Proof. First consider any a-adically complete module N . The module N is a complete metric space with respect to the a-adic metric (see [Ye2, Section 1]). Suppose
N ′ is a closed A-submodule of N (not necessarily a-adically complete). Choose a
collection {nz }z∈Z of elements of N ′ , indexed by a set Z, that generates N ′ as an
b of decaying functions with values in A
b
A-module. Consider the module Fdec (Z, A)
(see [Ye2, Section 2]). According to [Ye2, Corollary 2.6] there is a homomorphism
b
b to the convergent
φ : Fdec
function g : Z → A
P(Z, A) → N that sends a decaying
′
series z∈Z g(z)nz ∈ N . Because N is closed it follows that φ(g) ∈ N ′ . Writing

COHOMOLOGICALLY COFINITE COMPLEXES

9

b we have constructed a surjection φ : P → N ′ . And of course P is
P := Fdec (Z, A),
an a-adically free module.
We now construct an a-adically free resolution of the a-adically complete module
M . By the previous paragraph there is an a-adically free module P 0 and a surjection
η : P 0 → M . The module N 0 := Ker(η) is a closed submodule of the a-adically
complete module P 0 . Hence there is an a-adically free module P 1 and a surjection
P 1 → N 0 . And so on.

Theorem 1.21. Let M ∈ D(Mod A) be a complex whose cohomology H(M ) =
L
i
i
i∈Z H (M ) is bounded, and all the A-modules H (M ) are a-adically complete.
Then M is cohomologically a-adically complete.
Proof. If amp(H(M )) = 0, then we can assume M is a single a-adically complete
module. By the lemma above and Theorem 1.19 we see that M ∈ D(Mod A)a-com .
In general the proof is by descending induction on the amplitude of H(M ), as in
[RD, pages 69-71].
Using smart truncation we get a distinguished triangle M ′ → M → M ′′ →
′
M [1] in D(Mod A), such that H(M ′ ) and H(M ′′ ) have smaller amplitudes, and
H(M ′ ) ⊕ H(M ′′ ) ∼
= H(M ). Thus Hi (M ′ ) and Hi (M ′′ ) are complete modules. By
the induction hypotheses, M ′ and M ′′ are in D(Mod A)a-com . Since D(Mod A)a-com
is a triangulated subcategory of D(Mod A), it contains M too.

Here is an example showing that the converse of the theorem above is false.
Example 1.22. Let A := K[[t]], the power series ring in the variable t over a field
K, and a := (t). As shown in [Ye2, Example 3.20], there is a complex

d
P = · · · → 0 → P −1 −
→ P0 → 0 → ···
in which P −1 and P 0 are a-adically free A-modules (of countable rank in the adic
sense, i.e. P −1 ∼
= Fdec (N, A)), H−1 (P ) = 0, and the module H0 (P ) is not
= P0 ∼
a-adically complete. Yet by Theorem 1.19 the complex P is cohomologically aadically complete.
We end this section with a result on the structure of the category of derived
torsion complexes, that is analogous to Theorem 1.21. (The referee alerted us that
this result was already observed in [Li], in the proof of Proposition 3.5.4(i).) Let
us denote by Inja-tor the full subcategory of Mod A consisting of a-torsion injective
A-modules. This is an additive category.
Lemma 1.23. Let I be an injective A-module. Then Γa (I) is also an injective
A-module.
Proof. This is well-known: see [Ha1, Lemma III.3.2].



Proposition 1.24. The localization functor K(Mod A) → D(Mod A) induces an
equivalence
K+ (Inja-tor ) → D(Mod A)+
a-tor .
Proof. The fact that this is a fully faithful functor is clear, since the complexes
in K+ (Inja-tor ) are K-injective. We have to prove that this functor is essentially
surjective on objects. So take M ∈ D(Mod A)+
a-tor , and let M → I be a minimal
injective resolution of M . We know that all the cohomology modules Hp (M ) are atorsion. By Lemma 1.23 it follows that the injective hull of Hp (M ) is also a-torsion.
This implies that I belongs to K+ (Inja-tor ).


10

MARCO PORTA, LIRAN SHAUL AND AMNON YEKUTIELI

2. Cohomologically Complete Nakayama
In this section we prove a cohomologically complete version of the Nakayama
Lemma. This is influenced by the paper [KS], as explained in Remark 2.6 below.
Throughout this section we assume this:
Setup 2.1. A is a noetherian ring, a-adically complete with respect to some ideal
a. We write A0 := A/a.
Theorem 2.2 (Cohomologically Complete Nakayama). With Setup 2.1, let M ∈
D(Mod A)a-com and i0 ∈ Z be such that Hi (M ) = 0 for all i > i0 , and Hi0 (A0 ⊗LA M )
is a finitely generated A0 -module. Then Hi0 (M ) is a finitely generated A-module.
Proof. We may assume that i0 = 0. According to Theorem 1.15 we can replace M
with a complex P of a-adically free A-modules such that sup(P ) = 0. There is an
exact sequence of A-modules
d

η

P −1 −
→ P0 −
→ H0 (P ) → 0.
∼ A0 ⊗A P in D(Mod A0 ). Let L0 := H0 (A0 ⊗A P ), so we have an
Now A0 ⊗LA M =
exact sequence of A0 -modules
1A ⊗ d

ν

→ L0 → 0.
A0 ⊗A P −1 −−−0−−→ A0 ⊗A P 0 −
Choose a finite collection {p̄z }z∈Z of elements of A0 ⊗A P 0 , such that the collection
{ν(p̄z )}z∈Z generates L0 . Let
θ0 : Ffin (Z, A0 ) → A0 ⊗A P 0
be the homomorphism corresponding to the collection {p̄z }z∈Z . Then the homomorphism
ψ0 := (1A0 ⊗ d, θ0 ) : (A0 ⊗A P −1 ) ⊕ Ffin (Z, A0 ) → A0 ⊗A P 0
is surjective.
For any z ∈ Z choose some element pz ∈ P 0 lifting the element p̄z , and let
θ : Ffin (Z, A) → P 0 be the corresponding homomorphism. We get a homomorphism
of A-modules
ψ := (d, θ) : P −1 ⊕ Ffin (Z, A) → P 0 .
It fits into a commutative diagram
P −1 ⊕ Ffin (Z, A)

ψ

/ P0

ρ

π



(A0 ⊗A P −1 ) ⊕ Ffin (Z, A0 )

ψ0



/ A0 ⊗A P 0 ,

where ρ and π are the canonical surjections induced by A → A0 . Now ψ0 ◦ρ = π◦ψ is
surjective. By the complete Nakayama [Ye2, Theorem 2.11] the homomorphism ψ is
surjective. We conclude that H0 (P ) is generated by the finite collection {η(pz )}z∈Z .

Remark 2.3. With some extra work (cf. proof of Lemma 3.8) one can prove the
i
following stronger result: Let M ∈ D(Mod A)−
a-com and i0 ∈ Z. Then H (M ) is
i
L
finitely generated over A for all i ≥ i0 iff H (A0 ⊗A M ) is finitely generated over
A0 for all i ≥ i0 .

COHOMOLOGICALLY COFINITE COMPLEXES

11

The next result will be used several times. (The easy proof is an exercise.)
Lemma 2.4 (Künneth Trick). Let M, N ∈ D(Mod A). If i ≥ sup(H(M )) and
j ≥ sup(H(N )), then there is a canonical isomorphism of A-modules
Hi+j (M ⊗L N ) ∼
= Hi (M ) ⊗A Hj (N ).
A

L
Corollary 2.5. Let M ∈ D(Mod A)−
a-com . If A0 ⊗A M = 0 then M = 0.

Proof. Let’s assume, for the sake of contradiction, that M 6= 0 but A0 ⊗LA M = 0.
Let i := sup(H(M )), which is an integer, since M is nonzero and bounded above.
By Lemma 2.4 we know that
Hi (A0 ⊗L M ) ∼
= A0 ⊗A Hi (M );
A

therefore A0 ⊗A Hi (M ) = 0. Now Theorem 2.2 says that the A-module Hi (M ) is
finitely generated. So by the usual Nakayama Lemma we conclude that Hi (M ) = 0.
This is a contradiction.

Remark 2.6. A triangulated functor F with the property that F (M ) = 0 if and
only if M = 0 is called a conservative functor in [KS, Section 1.4]. The corollary
says that the functor
A0 ⊗LA − : D(Mod A)− → D(Mod A0 )−
is conservative.
Let a = (a1 , . . . , an ) be a generating sequence for the ideal a, and let K :=
K(A; a), the Koszul complex, which we view as a DG A-algebra. By arguments
similar to those used in [PSY2], one can show that the functor
K ⊗LA − : D(Mod A) → D̃(DGMod K)
is conservative. If a is a regular sequence then the DG algebra homomorphism
K → A0 is a quasi-isomorphism; and hence the functor A0 ⊗LA − is conservative
on unbounded complexes. This was proved in [KS, Corollary 1.5.9] in the principal
case (n = 1).
3. Cohomologically Cofinite Complexes
We continue with Setup 2.1. Recall that D(Mod A)ba-com is the category of
bounded cohomologically a-adically complete complexes.
Proposition 3.1. The category Df (Mod A)b is contained in D(Mod A)ba-com .
Proof. Any finitely generated A-module is a-adically complete. So this is a special
case of Theorem 1.21.

Definition 3.2. A complex M ∈ D(Mod A)b is called cohomologically a-adically
cofinite if M ∼
= RΓa (N ) for some N ∈ Df (Mod A)b .
We denote by D(Mod A)ba-cof the full subcategory of D(Mod A)b consisting of
cohomologically a-adically cofinite complexes.
See Example 3.15 for an explanation of the name “cofinite”.
Here is one characterization of cohomologically a-adically cofinite complexes. It
was previously proved in [AJL2, Section 2.5].
Proposition 3.3. The following conditions are equivalent for M ∈ D(Mod A)ba-tor :
(i) M is in D(Mod A)ba-cof .

12

MARCO PORTA, LIRAN SHAUL AND AMNON YEKUTIELI

(ii) The complex LΛa (M ) is in Df (Mod A)b .
Proof. Let N := LΛa (M ). By MGM Equivalence [PSY1, Theorem 0.3] we know
that N ∈ D(Mod A)ba-com , and that M ∼
= RΓa (N ′ ) for
= RΓa (N ). Moreover, if M ∼
′
b
′ ∼
some other N ∈ D(Mod A)a-com , then N = N . Thus M ∈ D(Mod A)ba-cof if and
only if N ∈ Df (Mod A)b .

Corollary 3.4. The functor RΓa induces an equivalence of triangulated categories
Df (Mod A)b → D(Mod A)ba-cof ,
with quasi-inverse LΛa .
Proof. Immediate from MGM Equivalence [PSY1, Theorem 0.3] and Proposition
3.3.

Remark 3.5. Let D(Mod A)a-cof be the essential image under RΓa of Df (Mod A).
The category D(Mod A)a-cof was first considered in [AJL2, Section 2.5], where the
notation D∗c was used.
The category D(Mod A)ba-cof is important because it contains the t-dualizing complexes. Recall that a t-dualizing complex is a complex R ∈ D(Mod A)ba-tor that has
finite injective dimension, ExtiA (A0 , R) is a finitely generated A-module for all i,
and the adjunction morphism A → RHomA (R, R) is an isomorphism. See [Ye1,
Definition 5.2], and [AJL2, Definition 2.5.1]. In [Ye1, Definition 5.2] we used the
name “dualizing complex” for “t-dualizing complex” in the adic case; but that usage is now obsolete. By [AJL2, Proposition 2.5.8], if R is a t-dualizing complex,
then the adjunction morphism
M → RHomA (RHomA (M, R), R)
is an isomorphism for any M ∈ D(Mod A)a-cof .
The characterization of cohomologically a-adically cofinite complexes in Proposition 3.3 is not very practical, since it is very hard to compute LΛa (M ). Another
characterization of the category D(Mod A)ba-cof was proposed in [Ye1, Problem 5.7];
but at the time we could not prove that it is correct. This is solved in Theorem
3.10 below.
Lemma 3.6. Let L, K ∈ D(Mod A)b . Assume that ExtiA (A0 , L) and Hi (K) are
finitely generated A0 -modules for all i. Then ExtiA (K, L) are finitely generated
A-modules for all i.
Proof. Step 1. Suppose K is a single A-module (sitting in degree 0). Then K is a
finitely generated A0 -module. Define
M := RHomA (A0 , L) ∈ D(Mod A0 )+ .
By Hom-tensor adjunction we get
RHomA (K, L) ∼
= RHomA0 (K, RHomA (A0 , L)) = RHomA0 (K, M )
in D(Mod A0 )+ . But the assumption is that M ∈ Df (Mod A0 )+ ; and hence we also
have
RHomA0 (K, M ) ∈ Df (Mod A0 )+ .
This shows that ExtiA (K, L) are finitely generated A0 -modules.
Step 2. Now K is a bounded complex, and Hi (K) are finitely generated A0 -modules
for all i. The proof is by induction on the amplitude of H(K). The induction starts

COHOMOLOGICALLY COFINITE COMPLEXES

13

with amp(H(K)) = 0, and this is covered by Step 1. If amp(H(K)) > 0, then using
smart truncation (as in the proof of Theorem 1.21) we construct a distinguished
triangle K ′ → K → K ′′ → K ′ [1] in D(Mod A), where H(K ′ ) and H(K ′′ ) have
smaller amplitudes, and Hi (K ′ ) and Hi (K ′′ ) are finitely generated A0 -modules for
all j. By applying RHomA (−, L) to the triangle above we obtain a distinguished
triangle
RHomA (K ′′ , L) → RHomA (K, L) → RHomA (K ′ , L) →,
and hence a long exact sequence
· · · → ExtiA (K ′′ , L) → ExtiA (K, L) → ExtiA (K ′ , L) → · · · .
of A-modules. From this we conclude that ExtiA (K, L) are finitely generated (and
a-torsion) A-modules.

Lemma 3.7. Let L ∈ D(Mod A)b and i0 ∈ Z. Assume that Hi (L) = 0 for all i > i0 ,
and that ExtiA (A0 , L) is finitely generated over A0 for all i. Then Hi0 (A0 ⊗LA L) is
finitely generated over A0 .
Proof. It is clear that Hi0 (A0 ⊗LA L) is an A0 -module. We have to prove that it is
finitely generated as A-module.
Choose a generating sequence a = (a1 , . . . , an ) of the ideal a. Let K := K(A, a)
be the Koszul complex. We know that K is a bounded complex of finitely generated
free A-modules; the cohomologies Hi (K) are all finitely generated A0 -modules; they
vanish unless −n ≤ i ≤ 0; and H0 (K) ∼
= A0 . Also K has the self-duality property
K∨ ∼
= K[−n], where K ∨ := HomA (K, A).
Let us consider the complex M := HomA (K, L). By Lemma 3.6 we know that
Hi (M ) are all finitely generated A-modules. But there is also an isomorphism of
complexes M ∼
= K ∨ ⊗A L. By the Künneth trick (Lemma 2.4) we conclude that
Hn+i0 (M ) ∼
= H0 (K) ⊗A Hi0 (L)
= Hn (K ∨ ) ⊗A Hi0 (L) ∼
∼
= Hi0 (A0 ⊗LA L).
= A0 ⊗A Hi0 (L) ∼
So Hi0 (A0 ⊗LA L) is a finitely generated A-module.



Lemma 3.8. Let N ∈ D(Mod A)ba-com . The following two conditions are equivalent:
(i) For every j ∈ Z the A-module Hj (N ) is finitely generated.
(ii) For every j ∈ Z the A0 -module ExtjA (A0 , N ) is finitely generated.
Proof. (i) ⇒ (ii): It suffices to prove that ExtjA (A0 , N ) are finitely generated Amodules for all j. This follows from [RD, Proposition II.3.3].
(ii) ⇒ (i): The converse is more difficult. Let us choose an integer i0 such that
Hi (N ) = 0 for all i > i0 . We are going to prove that Hi (N ) is finitely generated by
descending induction on i (as in the proof of Theorem 1.21), starting from i = i0 +1
(which is trivial of course). So let’s suppose that Hj (N ) is finitely generated for
all j > i, and we shall prove that Hi (N ) is also finitely generated. Using smart
truncation of N at i (cf. [RD, pages 69-70]), there is a distinguished triangle
(3.9)

φ

ψ

L−
→N −
→ M → L[1]

in D(Mod A), such that: Hj (L) = 0 and Hj (ψ) : Hj (N ) → Hj (M ) is bijective
for all j > i; and Hj (M ) = 0 and Hj (φ) : Hj (L) → Hj (N ) is bijective for all
j ≤ i. By the induction hypothesis the bounded complex M has finitely generated

14

MARCO PORTA, LIRAN SHAUL AND AMNON YEKUTIELI

cohomologies; so by Proposition 3.1 it is cohomologically complete. Since N is also
cohomologically complete, and D(Mod A)ba-com is a triangulated category, it follows
that L is cohomologically complete too.
We know from the implication “(i) ⇒ (ii)”, applied to M , that ExtjA (A0 , M ) is
a finitely generated A0 -module for every j. The exact sequence
j
j
Extj−1
A (A0 , M ) → ExtA (A0 , L) → ExtA (A0 , N )

coming from (3.9) shows that ExtjA (A0 , L) is also finitely generated for every j. So
according to Lemma 3.7 the A0 -module Hi (A0 ⊗LA L) is finitely generated. We can
now use Theorem 2.2 to conclude that the A-module Hi (L) is finitely generated.
But Hi (L) ∼

= Hi (N ).
The main result of this section is this:
Theorem 3.10. Assuming Setup 2.1, let M ∈ D(Mod A)ba-tor . The following two
conditions are equivalent:
(i) M is cohomologically a-adically cofinite.
(ii) For every j ∈ Z the A0 -module ExtjA (A0 , M ) is finitely generated.
Proof. Let N := LΛa (M ), so N ∈ D(Mod A)ba-com , and according to Proposition 3.3
we know that N ∈ Df (Mod A)b if and only if M ∈ D(Mod A)ba-cof . In other words,
condition (i) above is equivalent to condition (i) of Lemma 3.8.
On the other hand, since A0 ∼
= LΛa (A0 ), by MGM Equivalence we have
j
j
∼
Ext (A0 , M ) = HomD(A) (A0 , M [j]) ∼
= Ext (A0 , N ),
= HomD(A) (A0 , N [j]) ∼
A

A

where D(A) := D(Mod A). So condition (ii) above is equivalent to condition (ii) of
Lemma 3.8.

Remark 3.11. In the notations of this paper, Lemma 2.5.3 in [AJL2] states that
if R is a t-dualizing complex, and if R is cohomologically a-adically cofinite, then
LΛa (R) is a c-dualizing complex. The above theorem shows that the assumption
that R is cohomologically a-adically cofinite is redundant.
Suppose the ring A admits a t-dualizing complex Rt ; see Remark 3.5. Following Hartshorne [Ha2] we say that a complex M ∈ D(Mod A) is cofinite if
M ∼
= RHomA (N, Rt ) for some N ∈ Df (Mod A). Proposition 3.13 below shows
that for bounded complexes the two notions of cofiniteness (ours and that of [Ha2])
coincide.
Lemma 3.12. There is a bifunctorial isomorphism
RΓa (RHomA (M, N )) ∼
= RHomA (M, RΓa (N ))
for M ∈ Df (Mod A)− and N ∈ D(Mod A)+ .
Proof. Let N → I be a bounded below injective resolution, and let P → N be
a bounded above resolution consisting of finitely generated projective A-modules.
We get
RΓa (RHomA (M, N )) ∼
= Γa (HomA (P, I))
= HomA (P, Γa (I)) ∼
= RHomA (M, RΓa (N )).

t

Proposition 3.13. Assuming Setup 2.1, suppose that R is a t-dualizing complex
over A. The following two conditions are equivalent for M ∈ D(Mod A)b :

COHOMOLOGICALLY COFINITE COMPLEXES

15

(i) The complex M is cohomologically a-adically cofinite, namely M ∼
= RΓa (L)
for some L ∈ Df (Mod A)b .
(ii) The complex M is cofinite, namely there is a complex N ∈ Df (Mod A) such
that M ∼
= RHomA (N, Rt ).
Moreover, when these conditions hold, the complex N has bounded cohomology,
and N ∼
= RHomA (L, R), where R := LΛa (Rt ).
Proof. We first observe that R = LΛa (Rt ) is in Df (Mod A)b , and it is a c-dualizing
complex over A (i.e. a dualizing complex in the usual sense). See [AJL2, Lemma
2.5.3(a)]. Let us write Dt (−) := RHomA (−, Rt ) and D(−) := RHomA (−, R).
(i) ⇒ (ii): We know that L ∼
= LΛa (M ). Define N := D(L) ∈ Df (Mod A)b . By
[AJL2, Proposition 2.5.8(a)] the adjunction morphism M → Dt (Dt (M )) is an
isomorphism. On the other hand, according to GM duality [PSY1, Theorem 7.12],
there is an isomorphism
Dt (M ) = RHomA (M, Rt ) ∼
= RHomA (L, R) = D(L) ∼
= N.
We conclude that M ∼
= Dt (N ).
(ii) ⇒ (i): By [AJL2, Proposition 2.5.8(c)] the adjunction morphism N →
Dt (Dt (N )) is an isomorphism; and this implies that N has bounded cohomology, i.e. N ∈ Df (Mod A)b . Let L := D(N ) ∈ Df (Mod A)b . Then, using Lemma
3.12, and the isomorphism M ∼
= Dt (Dt (M )), we have
∼ RHomA (N, Rt ) = Dt (N ) ∼
RΓa (L) = RΓa (RHomA (N, R)) =
= M.

Remark 3.14. In [Ha2], Hartshorne considered a ring A as in Setup 2.1, which
is also regular of finite Krull dimension. Then the complex Rt := RΓa (A) is a
t-dualizing complex. In this situation, and in view of Proposition 3.13, we see that
our Theorem 3.10 coincides with [Ha2, Theorem 5.1] for complexes with bounded
cohomology.
It is quite possible that the method of proof in [Ha2] can be extended to any
ring A that admits a dualizing complex R (and then Rt := RΓa (R) is a t-dualizing
complex). But we did not try to do this.
Note that our Theorem 3.10 does not require A to have a dualizing complex, nor
even to have finite Krull dimension.
For a local ring the category D(Mod A)ba-cof is actually easy to describe, using
Theorem 3.10. This was also noted by Hartshorne in [Ha2].
Example 3.15. Suppose A is local and m := a is its maximal ideal. An A-module
is called cofinite if it is artinian. We denote by Modcof A the category of cofinite
modules. Let J(m) be an injective hull of the residue field A0 = A/m. Then J(m) is
the only indecomposable injective m-torsion A-module (up to isomorphism). Matlis
duality [Ma] says that
(3.16)

HomA (−, J(m)) : Modf A → Modcof A

is a duality (contravariant equivalence).
Let M ∈ D(Mod A)bm-tor , and let M → I be its minimal injective
 resolution. The
bounded below complex of injectives I = · · · → I 0 → I 1 → · · · has this structure:
Iq ∼
= J(m)⊕µq , where µq are the Bass numbers, that in general could be infinite

16

MARCO PORTA, LIRAN SHAUL AND AMNON YEKUTIELI

cardinals. The Bass numbers satisfy the equation µq = rankA0 (ExtqA (A0 , M )). By
Theorem 3.10 we know that M ∈ D(Mod A)bm-cof if and only if µq < ∞ for all
q. On the other hand, from (3.16) we see that an m-torsion module M has finite
Bass numbers if and only if it is cofinite. We conclude that cofinite modules are
cohomologically cofinite, and the inclusion
Db (Modcof A) → D(Mod A)bm-cof
is an equivalence.
Note that the module J(m) is a t-dualizing complex over A.
References
[AJL1]

L. Alonso, A. Jeremias and J. Lipman, Local homology and cohomology on schemes,
Ann. Sci. ENS 30 (1997), 1-39. Correction, availabe online at
http://www.math.purdue.edu/~lipman/papers/homologyfix.pdf
[AJL2]
L. Alonso, A. Jeremias and J. Lipman, Duality and flat base change on formal schemes.
in: “Studies in duality on Noetherian formal schemes and non-Noetherian ordinary
schemes”, Contemporary Mathematics, 244 pp. 3-90. AMS, 1999. Correction: Proc.
AMS 131, No. 2 (2003), pp. 351-357
[CA]
Bourbaki, “Commutative Algebra”, Chapters 1-7, Springer, 1989.
[EGA IV] A. Grothendieck and J. Dieudonné, “Éléments de Géometrie Algébrique IV”, part one,
Publ. Math. IHES 20 (1964).
[Ha1]
R. Hartshorne, Algebraic Geometry, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1977.
[Ha2]
R. Hartshorne, Affine Duality and Cofiniteness.
[Ke]
B. Keller, Deriving DG categories, Ann. Sci. Ecole Norm. Sup. 27, (1994) 63-102.
[KS]
M. Kashiwara and P. Schapira, Deformation quantization modules, Astérisque 345
(2012).
[Li]
J. Lipman, Lectures on local cohomology and duality, in “Local cohomology and its
applications”, Lect. Notes Pure Appl. Math. 226, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York,
(2002), 39-89.
[Ma]
E. Matlis, Injective modules over noetherian rings, Pacific J. Math. 8 (1958), 511-528.
[PSY1]
M. Porta, L. Shaul and A. Yekutieli, On the Homology of Completion and Torsion,
Algebr. Represent. Theor. (published online 2012, DOI 10.1007/s10468-012-9385-8).
[PSY2]
M. Porta, L. Shaul and A. Yekutieli, Completion by Derived Double Centralizer, Algebr.
Represent. Theor. (published online 2013, DOI 10.1007/s10468-013-9405-3).
[RD]
R. Hartshorne, “Residues and Duality,” Lecture Notes in Math. 20, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, 1966.
[Sp]
N. Spaltenstein, Resolutions of unbounded complexes, Compositio Math. 65 (1988),
no. 2, 121-154.
[We]
C. Weibel, “An introduction to homological algebra”, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1994.
[Ye1]
A. Yekutieli, Smooth formal embeddings and the residue complex, Can. J. Math. 50
(1998), 863-896.
[Ye2]
A. Yekutieli, On Flatness and Completion for Infinitely Generated Modules over Noetherian Rings, Comm. Algebra 39, Issue 11 (2011), 4221-4245.
Porta: Department of Mathematics, Ben Gurion University, Be’er Sheva 84105, Israel
E-mail address: marcoporta1@libero.it
Shaul: Department of Mathematics, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot
76100, Israel
E-mail address: liran.shaul@weizmann.ac.il
Yekutieli: Department of Mathematics, Ben Gurion University, Be’er Sheva 84105,
Israel
E-mail address: amyekut@math.bgu.ac.il

