arXiv:1512.01120v3 [] 12 May 2016

GORENSTEIN DIMENSIONS OF UNBOUNDED COMPLEXES
AND CHANGE OF BASE (WITH AN APPENDIX
BY DRISS BENNIS)
LARS WINTHER CHRISTENSEN, FATIH KÖKSAL, AND LI LIANG
Abstract. For a commutative ring R and a faithfully flat R-algebra S we
prove, under mild extra assumptions, that an R-module M is Gorenstein flat if
and only if the left S-module S ⊗R M is Gorenstein flat, and that an R-module
N is Gorenstein injective if and only if it is cotorsion and the left S-module
HomR (S, N ) is Gorenstein injective. We apply these results to the study of
Gorenstein homological dimensions of unbounded complexes. In particular,
we prove two theorems on stability of these dimensions under faithfully flat
(co-)base change.

1. Introduction
Auslander and Bridger’s [2] notion of G-dimension for finitely generated modules
over noetherian rings was generalized and dualized by Enochs and collaborators,
who introduced the Gorenstein projective, Gorenstein injective, and Gorenstein
flat dimension of modules over associative rings. In the treatment by Christensen,
Frankild, and Holm [6], these invariants were considered for complexes with bounded
homology. It is, however, possible to define Gorenstein projective dimension for unbounded complexes: This was done by Veliche [21], and the dual case of Gorenstein
injective dimension was treated by Asadollahi and Salarian [1].
Inspired by [21], we propose a definition of Gorenstein flat dimension for unbounded complexes; it coincides with the one introduced by Iacob [15] whenever
the latter is defined. Our main results are two theorems on stability of Gorenstein
homological dimensions of complexes under faithfully flat change of base.
1.1 Theorem. Let R be a commutative coherent ring and let S be a faithfully flat
R-algebra that is left GF-closed. For every R-complex M there is an equality
GfdR M = GfdS (S ⊗L
R M) .
In particular, an R-module M is Gorenstein flat if and only if the S-module S ⊗R M
is Gorenstein flat.
This result is part of Theorem 6.7; the condition that S is left GF-closed is discussed
in 5.10; it is satisfied if S is right coherent.
Date: 12 May 2016.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 13D05; 13D02.
Key words and phrases. Gorenstein injective dimension, faithfully flat co-base change, Gorenstein flat dimension, faithfully flat base change.
This research was partly supported by NSA grant H98230-14-0140 (L.W.C.), by NSFC grant
11301240 and SRF for ROCS, SEM (L.L.). Part of the work was done in the summer of 2015 when
L.W.C. and L.L. visited Nanjing University supported by NSFC grant 11371187 (PI N.Q. Ding).

2

LARS WINTHER CHRISTENSEN, FATIH KÖKSAL, AND LI LIANG

1.2 Theorem. Let R be a commutative noetherian ring with splf R < ∞, i.e.
every flat R-module has finite projective dimension, and let S be a faithfully flat
R-algebra. For every R-complex N with Hi (N ) = 0 for all i ≫ 0 there is an equality
GidR N = GidS RHomR (S, N ) .
In particular, an R-module N is Gorenstein injective if and only if the S-module
HomR (S, N ) is Gorenstein injective and ExtiR (S, N ) = 0 holds for all i > 0.
This result is part of Theorem 4.12. The condition splf R < ∞ is discussed in 4.9; it
is satisfied if R has finite Krull dimension or cardinality at most ℵn for some integer
n > 0. We notice that the condition implies vanishing of ExtiR (S, N ) for i ≫ 0.
’
A recent result of Štovı́ček
[20] implies that every Gorenstein injective module
is cotorsion. It allows us to prove the next result, which appears as Theorem 4.5.
1.3 Theorem. Let R be commutative noetherian and let S be a faithfully flat
R-algebra. An R-module N is Gorenstein injective if and only if it is cotorsion and
the S-module HomR (S, N ) is Gorenstein injective.
This result compares to the statement about modules in Theorem 1.2.
By significantly relaxing the conditions on the rings, the results of this paper
improve results obtained by Christensen and Holm [7], by Christensen and SatherWagstaff [11], and by Liu and Ren [22]. Details pertaining to Theorems 1.1 and
1.2 are given in Remarks 4.13 and 6.8; the trend is that the rings in [11, 22] are
assumed to be commutative noetherian and, more often than not, of finite Krull
dimension.
The paper is organized as follows: In section 2 we set the notation and recall some
background material. Sections 3–4 focus on the Gorenstein injective dimension, and
Sections 5–6 deal with the Gorenstein flat dimension. Section 7 has some closing
remarks and, finally, an appendix by Bennis answers a question raised in an earlier
version of this paper.
2. Complexes
Let R be a ring with identity. We consider only unitary R-modules, and we employ
the convention that R acts on the left. That is, an R-module is a left R-module,
and right R-modules are treated as modules over the opposite ring, denoted R◦ .
2.1 Complexes. Complexes of R-modules, R-complexes for short, is our object of
study. Let M be an R-complex. With homological grading, M has the form
M
∂i+1

∂M

· · · −→ Mi+1 −−−−→ Mi −−i−→ Mi−1 −→ · · · ;
i
M
to get
one switches to cohomological grading by setting M i = M−i and ∂M
= ∂−i
∂ i−1

∂i

M
−→ M i+1 −→ · · · .
· · · −→ M i−1 −−−
−→ M i −−M

For n ∈ Z the symbol M>n denotes the quotient complex of M with (M>n )i =
Mi for i > n and (M>n )i = 0 for i < n.
The subcomplexes B(M ) and Z(M ) of boundaries and cycles, the quotient complex C(M ) of cokernels, and the subquotient complex H(M ) of homology all have

GORENSTEIN DIMENSIONS OF UNBOUNDED COMPLEXES AND CHANGE OF BASE

3

zero differentials; their modules are given by
M
Bi (M ) = Im ∂i+1

=

−i−1
Im ∂M
= B−i (M )

Zi (M ) = Ker ∂iM

=

−i
Ker ∂M
= Z−i (M )

Ci (M ) = Mi / Bi (M )

=

M −i / B−i (M ) = C−i (M )

Hi (M ) = Zi (M )/ Bi (M ) = Z−i (M )/ B−i (M ) = H−i (M )
The complex M is called acyclic if H(M ) = 0, i.e. Hi (M ) = 0 holds for all i ∈ Z.
2.2 Morphisms. A morphism α : M → N of R-complexes is a family of R-linear
maps {αi : Mi → Ni }i∈Z that commute with the differentials. That is, for all i ∈ Z
one has αi−1 ∂iM = ∂iN αi . A morphism α : M → N maps boundaries to boundaries
and cycles to cycles, so it induces a morphism H(α) : H(M ) → H(N ). If the induced
morphism H(α) is bijective, then α is called a quasi-isomorphism. Such morphisms
are marked by the symbol ‘≃’.
2.3 Resolutions. An R-complex I is called semi-injective if each module I i is
injective, and the functor HomR (−, I) preserves quasi-isomorphisms. Dually, an Rcomplex P is called semi-projective if each module Pi is projective, and the functor
HomR (P, −) preserves quasi-isomorphisms. An R-complex F is called semi-flat
if each module Fi is flat, and the functor − ⊗R F preserves quasi-isomorphisms.
Every semi-projective complex is semi-flat. For the following facts see Avramov
and Foxby [3].
• Every R-complex M has a semi-projective resolution in the following sense:
There is a quasi-isomorphism π : P → M , where P is a semi-projective complex; moreover, π can be chosen surjective.
• Every R-complex M has a semi-injective resolution in the following sense:
There is a quasi-isomorphism ι : M → I, where I is semi-injective; moreover, ι
can be chosen injective.
2.4 The derived category. In the derived category over R, the objects are R≃
complexes, and the morphisms are equivalence classes of diagrams • ←−− • −→ • of
morphisms of R-complexes. The isomorphisms in the derived category are classes
represented by diagrams with two quasi-isomorphisms; and they are also marked
by the symbol ‘≃’.
The derived tensor product, − ⊗L
R −, and the derived Hom, RHomR (−, −), are
functors on the derived category; their values on given R-complexes are computed
by means of the resolutions described above. As for modules one sets
ExtiR (M, N ) = Hi (RHomR (M, N ))
for R-complexes M and N and i ∈ Z.
3. Gorenstein injective modules and cotorsion
For definitions and standard results on Gorenstein homological dimensions our references are Holm’s [14] and the monograph [12] by Enochs and Jenda. We start by
recalling the definition [12, def. 10.1.1] of a Gorenstein injective module.
3.1. A complex U of injective R-modules is called totally acyclic if it is acyclic and
the complex HomR (I, U ) is acyclic for every injective R-module I.

4

LARS WINTHER CHRISTENSEN, FATIH KÖKSAL, AND LI LIANG

An R-module G is called Gorenstein injective (for short, G-injective) if there
exists a totally acyclic complex U of injective R-modules with Z0 (U ) ∼
= G.
3.2. Every R-module has an injective resolution, so to prove that a module N is
Gorenstein injective it suffices to verify the following:
(1) ExtiR (I, N ) = 0 holds for all i > 0 and every injective R-module I.
(2) N has a proper left injective resolution. That is, there exists an acyclic complex
of R-modules U + = · · · → U −2 → U −1 → N → 0 with each U i injective, such
that HomR (I, U + ) is acyclic for every injective R-module I.
3.3. An R-module X is called cotorsion if one has Ext1R (F, X) = 0 (equivalently,
Ext>0
R (F, X) = 0) for every flat R-module F .
’
Štovı́ček
[20, cor. 5,9] shows that for every module N that has a left injective
resolution, one has ExtiR (F, N ) = 0 for all i > 0 and every R-module F of finite
flat dimension. In particular, every Gorenstein injective module is cotorsion.
This provides for the following improvement of [7, Ascent table II.(h)]
3.4 Lemma. Let R → S be a ring homomorphism such that fdR S and fdR◦ S
are finite. For a Gorenstein injective R-module G, the S-module HomR (S, G) is
Gorenstein injective.
Proof. Let U be a totally acyclic complex of injective R-modules with Z0 (U ) ∼
= G.
The complex HomR (S, U ) consists of injective S-modules, and it is acyclic as fdR S
is finite; see 3.3. One has Z0 (HomR (S, U )) ∼
= HomR (S, G), so it remains to show
that the complex
∼ HomR (J, U )
HomS (J, HomR (S, U )) =
is acyclic for every injective S-module J. As fdR◦ S is finite, an injective S-module
has finite injective dimension over R; see [3, cor. 4.2]. Acyclicity of HomR (J, U )
now follows from [6, lem. 2.2].

3.5. Let N be an R-complex. A complete injective resolution of N is a diagram
ι

υ

N −→ I −−→ U
where ι is a semi-injective resolution, υ i is bijective for all i ≫ 0, and U is a totally
acyclic complex of injective R-modules.
The Gorenstein injective dimension of an R-complex N is defined [1, def. 2.2] as


ι
υ
N −→ I −−→ U


GidR N = inf g ∈ Z is a complete injective resolution with
.


υ i : I i → U i bijective for all i > g
The next result is dual to (parts of) [21, thm. 3.4], and the proof is omitted.1

1 The statement [1, thm. 2.3] is also meant to be the dual of [21, thm. 3.4], but it has an
unfortunate typographical error, reproduced in [22, lem. 1]: In parts (ii) and (iii) the kernel has
been replaced by the cokernel in the same degree.

GORENSTEIN DIMENSIONS OF UNBOUNDED COMPLEXES AND CHANGE OF BASE

5

3.6 Proposition. Let N be an R-complex and g be an integer. The following
conditions are equivalent.
(i) GidR N 6 g.
(ii) Hi (N ) = 0 holds for all i > g, and there exists a semi-injective resolution
≃
N −−→ I such that the module Zg (I) is Gorenstein injective.
≃

(iii) Hi (N ) = 0 holds for all i > g, and for every semi-injective resolution N −−→ I
the module Zg (I) is Gorenstein injective.

The next result improves [22, cor. 9] by removing assumptions that R and S
should be commutative noetherian with dim R < ∞.
3.7 Proposition. Let R → S be a ring homomorphism such that fdR S and fdR◦ S
are finite. For every R-complex N one has GidS RHomR (S, N ) 6 GidR N .
Proof. We may assume that H(N ) is non-zero, otherwise there is nothing to prove.
≃
Let N −−→ I be a semi-injective resolution; the S-complex HomR (S, I) is semiinjective and isomorphic to RHomR (S, N ) in the derived category. If GidR N is
finite, say g, then by Proposition 3.6 one has Hi (I) = 0 for i > g and Z = Zg (I) is a
G-injective R-module. Now 3.3 yields Hg+n (HomR (S, I)) = ExtnR (S, Z) = 0 for all
n > 0. Moreover, the S-module Zg (HomR (S, I)) ∼
= HomR (S, Zg (I)) is G-injective
by Lemma 3.4, so GidS RHomR (S, N ) 6 g holds by Proposition 3.6.

4. Faithfully flat co-base change
Throughout this section, R is a commutative ring and S is an R-algebra. We are
primarily concerned with the following setup.
4.1. Let S be a faithfully flat R-algebra; there is then a pure exact sequence
(4.1.1)

0 −→ R −→ S −→ S/R −→ 0 ;

that is, S/R is a flat R-module.
Let I be an injective R-module. The induced sequences
0 −→ I −→ S ⊗R I −→ S/R ⊗R I −→ 0 and
0 −→ HomR (S/R, I) −→ HomR (S, I) −→ I −→ 0
are split exact so, as an R-module, I is a direct summand of S ⊗R I and of
HomR (S, I).
4.2 Lemma. Let S be a faithfully flat R-algebra and let N be an R-module. If
ExtiR (S, N ) = 0 holds for all i > 0, then the following conditions are equivalent.
(i) ExtiR (I, N ) = 0 holds for all i > 0 and every injective R-module I.
(ii) ExtiS (J, HomR (S, N )) = 0 holds for all i > 0 and every injective S-module J.
Proof. Let X be an S-module; for every i > 0 there are isomorphisms
ExtiS (X, HomR (S, N )) = Hi (RHomS (X, HomR (S, N )))
∼
= Hi (RHomS (X, RHomR (S, N )))
∼
= Hi (RHomR (S ⊗L X, N ))
S

∼
= Hi (RHomR (X, N ))
= ExtiR (X, N ) ;

6

LARS WINTHER CHRISTENSEN, FATIH KÖKSAL, AND LI LIANG

>0
the first isomorphism follows by the vanishing of ExtR
(S, N ), and the second
is Hom-tensor adjointness in the derived category. Under the assumptions, every
injective S-module is injective as an R-module, so it is evident from the computation
that (i) implies (ii). For the converse, let I be an injective R-module and recall
from 4.1 that it is a direct summand of the injective S-module HomR (S, I).


For later application, we recall a fact about cotorsion modules.
4.3. Let X be a cotorsion R-module. For every flat R-module F it follows by
Hom-tensor adjointness that HomR (F, X) is cotorsion.
We recall the notion of an injective precover, also known as an injective right
approximation.
4.4. Let M be an R-module. A homomorphism ϕ : E → M is an injective precover
of M , if E is an injective R-module and every homomorphism from an injective
R-module to M factors through ϕ. Every R-module has an injective precover if
and only if R is noetherian; see [12, thm. 2.5.1].
In the proof of the next theorem, the noetherian hypothesis on R is used to
ensure the existence of injective precovers.
4.5 Theorem. Let R be commutative noetherian and let S be a faithfully flat
R-algebra. An R-module N is Gorenstein injective if and only if it is cotorsion and
the S-module HomR (S, N ) is Gorenstein injective.
Proof. The “only if” part of the statement follows from 3.3 and Lemma 3.4. For
the converse, note that Lemma 4.2 yields
(1)

Ext>0
R (I, N ) = 0 holds for every injective R-module I.

To prove that N is G-injective, it is now sufficient to show that N has a proper left
injective resolution; see 3.2.
As N is cotorsion, application of HomR (−, N ) to (4.1.1) yields an exact sequence
0 → HomR (S/R, N ) → HomR (S, N ) → HomR (R, N ) → 0. There is also an exact
sequence of S-modules 0 → G → U → HomR (S, N ) → 0 where U is injective and
G is G-injective. The composite U → HomR (S, N ) → N is surjective. Since R is
noetherian, there exists an injective precover ϕ : E → N . The module U is injective
over R, so a surjective homomorphism factors through ϕ, whence ϕ is surjective.
Now consider the commutative diagram
0

HomR (S/R, N )
(2)

0

// G

// U

0


// K


// E


// HomR (S, N )

// 0


// N

// 0

ϕ


0

GORENSTEIN DIMENSIONS OF UNBOUNDED COMPLEXES AND CHANGE OF BASE

7

To construct a proper left injective resolution of N , it suffices to show that K has
the same properties as N , including (1); that is, K is cotorsion, HomR (S, K) is
G-injective over S, and Ext>0
R (I, K) = 0 holds for every injective R-module I.
Injective S-modules are injective over R, so by 3.3 the G-injective S-module G is
cotorsion over R. Further, HomR (S/R, N ) is cotorsion as S/R is flat; see 4.3. Let F
be a flat R-module; application of HomR (F, −) to (2) yields a commutative diagram
HomR (F, HomR (S, N ))

// 0


HomR (F, N )


// Ext1R (F, K)

// 0


0,
from which one concludes Ext1R (F, K) = 0. That is, K is cotorsion.
>0
Let I be an injective R-module. One has Ext>0
R (I, E) = 0 and ExtR (I, N ) = 0
by (1), so the exact sequence in cohomology associated to 0 → K → E → N → 0,
yields Ext>1
R (I, K) = 0. Finally, HomR (I, −) leaves the sequence exact, because
E → N is an injective precover, and Ext1R (I, K) = 0 follows.
The exact sequence 0 → HomR (S, K) → HomR (S, E) → HomR (S, N ) → 0
shows that HomR (S, K) has finite Gorenstein injective dimension over S, at most 1.
Lemma 4.2 yields Ext>0
R (J, HomR (S, K)) = 0 for every injective S-module J, so
HomR (S, K) is G-injective by [14, thm. 2.22].

4.6 Lemma. Let R be commutative noetherian. Let 0 → L → Q → C → 0 be
a pure exact sequence of R-modules with L 6= 0 free and Q faithfully flat. For an
R-module N with ExtiR (Q, N ) = 0 for all i > 0 the next conditions are equivalent.
(i) ExtiR (I, N ) = 0 holds for all i > 0 and every injective R-module I.
(ii) ExtiR (I, HomR (Q, N )) = 0 holds for all i > 0 and every injective R-module I.
Moreover, if N is cotorsion, then these conditions are equivalent to
(iii) ExtiR (I, HomR (F, N )) = 0 holds for all i > 0, every injective R-module I, and
every flat R-module F .
Proof. Let F be a flat R-module with Ext>0
R (F, N ) = 0. For each integer i > 0
and R-module X one has
ExtiR (X, HomR (F, N )) = Hi (RHomR (X, HomR (F, N )))
∼
= Hi (RHomR (X, RHomR (F, N )))
∼
= Hi (RHomR (F ⊗L X, N ))
R

∼
= Hi (RHomR (F ⊗R X, N ))
= ExtiR (F ⊗R X, N ) ;
the first isomorphism holds by the assumption on F , the second by Hom-tensor
adjointness in the derived category, and the third by flatness of F .
Let I be an injective R-module. Since R is noetherian, the module F ⊗R I is
injective, so it is immediate from the computation above that (i) implies (ii) and,
if N is cotorsion, also the stronger statement (iii).

8

LARS WINTHER CHRISTENSEN, FATIH KÖKSAL, AND LI LIANG

To show that (ii) implies (i), let I be an injective R-module and consider the
exact sequence
0 → L ⊗R I → Q ⊗R I → C ⊗R I → 0.
As R is noetherian, the module L ⊗R I is injective; thus the sequence splits, whence
I is isomorphic to a direct summand of Q ⊗R I. The computation above yields
>0
Ext>0
R (Q ⊗R I, N ) = 0, and ExtR (I, N ) = 0 follows as Ext functors are additive.


The next result improves [7, Ascent table I.(d)]. Part (iii) applies, in particular,
to the setting where Q is a faithfully flat R-algebra; cf. (4.1.1).
4.7 Proposition. Let R be commutative noetherian. For an R-module N the
following conditions are equivalent.
(i) N is Gorenstein injective.
(ii) HomR (F, N ) is Gorenstein injective for every flat R-module F .
(iii) N is cotorsion and HomR (Q, N ) is Gorenstein injective for some faithfully flat
R-module Q that contains a non-zero free R-module as a pure submodule.
Proof. Assume first that N is G-injective and let U be a totally acyclic complex
of injective modules with Z0 (U ) ∼
= N . Let F be a flat module. G-injective modules
are cotorsion, see 3.3, so the complex HomR (F, U ) is acyclic. Moreover, it is a
complex of injective modules, and for every injective module I the complex
HomR (I, HomR (F, U )) ∼
= HomR (F ⊗R I, U )
is acyclic, as F ⊗R I is injective by the assumption that R is noetherian. This
proves the implication (i) =⇒ (ii).
That (ii) implies (iii) is trivial, just take F = R = Q and recall 3.3. To
prove that (iii) implies (i), let Q be a faithfully flat R-module with a free pure
submodule L 6= 0, and assume that HomR (Q, N ) is G-injective. In particular,
Ext>0
R (I, HomR (Q, N )) = 0 holds for every injective R-module I, so by Lemma 4.6
(1)

Ext>0
R (I, N ) = 0 holds for every injective R-module I.

To prove that N is G-injective, it is now sufficient to show that it has a proper left
injective resolution; see 3.2. To this end, consider the pure exact sequence
(2)

0 −→ L −→ Q −→ C −→ 0 ,

and notice that the module C is flat as Q is flat. Since HomR (Q, N ) is G-injective,
there is an exact sequence of R-modules 0 → G → E → HomR (Q, N ) → 0, where
E is injective and G is G-injective. As N is cotorsion, applying HomR (−, N ) to (2)

GORENSTEIN DIMENSIONS OF UNBOUNDED COMPLEXES AND CHANGE OF BASE

9

yields another exact sequence, and the two meet in the commutative diagram,
0

HomR (C, N )
(3)

0

// G

// E


// HomR (Q, N )

// 0

0


// H

// E


// HomR (L, N )

// 0


0.
The first step towards construction of a proper left injective resolution of N is to
show that H has the same properties as N , including (1).
Claim 1: The module H is cotorsion, HomR (Q, H) is G-injective, and one has
>0
ExtR
(I, H) = 0 for every injective R-module I.
Proof: Since the module G is G-injective, it is also cotorsion, and so is the
module HomR (C, N ) as C is flat; see 3.3 and 4.3. Let F be a flat R-module and
apply HomR (F, −) to (3) to get the commutative diagram
HomR (F, HomR (Q, N ))

// 0


HomR (F, HomR (L, N ))


// Ext1R (F, H)

// 0


0,
which shows that Ext1R (F, H) vanishes, whence H is cotorsion.
Notice that one has HomR (L, N ) ∼
= N Λ for some index set Λ. Let I be an injec>0
tive module; by (1) one has ExtR (I, N Λ ) = 0, so the exact sequence in cohomology
induced by the last non-zero row of (3) yields Ext>1
R (I, H) = 0. Now we argue that
1
also ExtR (I, H) vanishes. As G is G-injective, one has Ext>0
R (I, G) = 0; by the
assumptions on N and (1), Lemma 4.6 applies to yield Ext>0
R (I, HomR (C, N )) = 0.
Applying HomR (I, −) to (3) one thus gets the commutative diagram

(4)

HomR (I, HomR (Q, N ))

// 0


HomR (I, HomR (L, N ))


// Ext1R (I, H)

// 0


0,
which yields Ext1R (I, H) = 0.
It now follows from Lemma 4.6 that Ext>0
R (I, HomR (Q, H)) = 0 holds for every
injective R-module I. To prove that the module HomR (Q, H) is G-injective it is
thus, by [14, thm. 2.22], enough to show that it has finite Gorenstein injective

10

LARS WINTHER CHRISTENSEN, FATIH KÖKSAL, AND LI LIANG

dimension. However, that is immediate as application of HomR (Q, −) to last nonzero row of (3) yields the exact sequence
0 −→ HomR (Q, H) −→ HomR (Q, E) −→ HomR (Q, N Λ ) −→ 0 ,
where HomR (Q, E) is injective, and HomR (Q, N Λ ) ∼
= HomR (Q, N )Λ is G-injective;
see [14, thm. 2.6]. This finishes the proof of Claim 1.
In the commutative diagram below, the second non-zero row is the last non-zero
row from (3), and π is a canonical projection.
0

′
NΛ
(5)

0

// H

// E


// N Λ

0


// K

// E


// N

// 0

π

// 0


0
To construct a proper left injective resolution of N , it is sufficient to prove that K
has the same properties as N , including (1).
Claim 2: The module K is cotorsion, HomR (Q, K) is G-injective, and one has
>0
ExtR
(I, K) = 0 for every injective R-module I.
Proof: Apply the Snake Lemma to the diagram (5) to get the exact sequence
′
0 → H → K → N Λ → 0. By assumption N is cotorsion, and H is cotorsion by
Claim 1; it follows that K is cotorsion. Moreover, by (1) and Claim 1 one has
>0
>0
(I, H) = 0 = Ext>0
ExtR
R (I, N ) and hence ExtR (I, K) = 0 for every injective
module I. The induced sequence
′

0 −→ HomR (Q, H) −→ HomR (Q, K) −→ HomR (Q, N )Λ −→ 0
′

is exact, as H is cotorsion. The modules HomR (Q, N )Λ and HomR (Q, H) are
G-injective by assumption and Claim 1, so by [14, thm. 2.6] also HomR (Q, K) is
G-injective. That finishes the proof of Claim 2.

4.8 Corollary. Let R be commutative noetherian. For every flat R-module F and
for every R-complex N there is an inequality GidR RHomR (F, N ) 6 GidR N .
Proof. We may assume that H(N ) is non-zero, otherwise there is nothing to prove.
≃
Let N −−→ I be a semi-injective resolution and assume that GidR N = g is finite. By
Proposition 3.6 the module Z = Zg (I) is G-injective, and arguing as in the proof
of 3.7 one gets Hi (RHomR (F, N )) = 0 for all i > g. The complex, HomR (F, I)
is semi-injective and isomorphic to RHomR (F, N ) in the derived category. From
Proposition 4.7 it follows that the module Zg (HomR (F, I)) ∼
= HomR (F, Zg (I)) is
G-injective, and then Proposition 3.6 yields GidR RHomR (F, N ) 6 g.

4.9. For the statement of the next corollary we recall the invariant
splf R = sup{proj.dimR F | F is a flat R-module} .

GORENSTEIN DIMENSIONS OF UNBOUNDED COMPLEXES AND CHANGE OF BASE 11

If R is noetherian of finite Krull dimension d, then one has splf R 6 d by works
of Jensen [16, prop. 6], and Gruson and Raynaud [19, thm. II.(3.2.6)]. If R has
cardinality at most ℵn for some integer n, then a theorem of Gruson and Jensen
[13, thm. 7.10] yields splf R 6 n + 1. Osofsky [18, 3.1] gives examples of rings for
which the splf invariant is infinite.
Since an arbitrary direct sum of flat R-modules is flat, the invariant splf R is
finite if and only if every flat R-module has finite projective dimension.
4.10 Proposition. Let R be commutative noetherian with splf R < ∞. Let S be
a faithfully flat R-algebra and N be an R-module with ExtiR (S, N ) = 0 for all i > 0.
If HomR (S, N ) is Gorenstein injective as an R-module or as an S-module, then N
is Gorenstein injective.
≃

Proof. Set n = splf R. Let N −−→ E be an injective resolution. As every flat
R-module has projective dimension at most n, it follows by dimension shifting
that the cosyzygy Z = Zn (E) is cotorsion. Vanishing of Ext>0
R (S, N ) implies that
HomR (S, −) leaves the sequence 0 → N → E 0 → · · · → E n−1 → Z → 0 exact.
The class of G-injective modules is injectively resolving; see [14, thm. 2.6]. If
HomR (S, N ) is G-injective over R, it thus follows that HomR (S, Z) is G-injective
over R. From Proposition 4.7 it follows that Z is G-injective over R, so N has
finite Gorenstein injective dimension. Finally, Lemma 4.6 yields Ext>0
R (I, N ) = 0
for every injective R-module I, so N is G-injective by [14, thm. 2.22].
If HomR (S, N ) is G-injective over S, then it follows as above that HomR (S, Z) is
G-injective over S. From Theorem 4.5 it follows that Z is G-injective over R, so N
has finite Gorenstein injective dimension. Finally, it follows from Lemma 4.2 that

Ext>0
R (I, N ) = 0 holds for every injective R-module I, so N is G-injective.
4.11 Lemma. Let R be commutative noetherian and let S be a faithfully flat
R-algebra. For every R-complex N of finite Gorenstein injective dimension one has
GidS RHomR (S, N ) = GidR N = GidR RHomR (S, N ) .
Proof. We may assume that H(N ) is non-zero, otherwise there is nothing to prove.
Set g = GidR N ; Proposition 3.7 and Corollary 4.8 yield GidS RHomR (S, N ) 6 g
≃
and GidR RHomR (S, N ) 6 g. Let N −−→ I be a semi-injective resolution; the
complex HomR (S, I) is isomorphic to RHomR (S, N ) in the derived category, and
it is semi-injective as an R-complex and as an S-complex. By [1, thm. 2.4] there
exists an injective R-module E with ExtgR (E, N ) 6= 0.
As an R-module, E is a direct summand of the injective S-module HomR (S, E),
see 4.1, so one gets
Extg (HomR (S, E), RHomR (S, N )) ∼
= Hg (HomS (HomR (S, E), HomR (S, I)))
S

∼
= Hg (HomR (HomR (S, E), I))
∼ Extg (HomR (S, E), N ) 6= 0 ,
=
R

and hence GidS RHomR (S, N ) > g by [1, thm. 2.4]; i.e. equality holds.
As an R-module, E is a direct summand of S ⊗R E, see 4.1, so one gets
Extg (E, RHomR (S, N )) ∼
= Hg (HomR (E, HomR (S, I)))
R

∼
= Hg (HomR (S ⊗R E, I))
∼ Extg (S ⊗R E, N ) 6= 0 ,
=
R

and hence GidR RHomR (S, N ) > g by [1, thm. 2.4]; i.e. equality holds.



12

LARS WINTHER CHRISTENSEN, FATIH KÖKSAL, AND LI LIANG

4.12 Theorem. Let R be commutative noetherian with splf R < ∞ and let S be
a faithfully flat R-algebra. For every R-complex N with Hi (N ) = 0 for all i ≫ 0
there are equalities
GidS RHomR (S, N ) = GidR N = GidR RHomR (S, N ) .
Proof. In view of Lemma 4.11 it is sufficient to prove that GidR N is finite if
RHomR (S, N ) has finite Gorenstein injective dimension as an R-complex or as an
S-complex. Assume, without loss of generality, that Hi (N ) = 0 holds for i > 0, and
≃
let N −−→ I be a semi-injective resolution. The complex HomR (S, I) is isomorphic
to RHomR (S, N ) in the derived category, and it is semi-injective as an R-complex
and as an S-complex.
If GidS RHomR (S, N ) is finite, then one has GidS RHomR (S, N ) 6 g for some
g > 0. By Proposition 3.6 the S-module Zg (HomR (S, I)) ∼
= HomR (S, Zg (I)) is Gn
g
g+n
injective and one has ExtR (S, Z (I)) = H
(HomR (S, I)) = 0 for all n > 0. Now
follows from Proposition 4.10 that Zg (I) is G-injective, so GidR N 6 g holds.
The same argument applies if GidR RHomR (S, N ) is finite.

The equivalent of this theorem in absolute homological algebra is [10, thm. 2.2]
about injective dimension of a complex N . In that statement, the a priori assumption of vanishing of Hi (N ) for i ≫ 0 is missing, though it is applied in the proof
in the same manner as above. However, [10, thm. 2.2] is correct as stated, and an
even stronger result is proved in [9, cor. 3.1].
4.13 Remark. Theorem 4.5 improves [11, lem. 1.3.(a)] by removing assumptions
that S should be commutative and noetherian with dim S < ∞.
The first equality in Theorem 4.12 compares to the equality in [11, thm. 1.7]
as follows: There is no assumption of finite Krull dimension of R, and S is not
assumed to be commutative nor noetherian. The inequality in [11, thm. 1.7] is
subsumed by [22, cor. 9] and compares to Proposition 3.7 as discussed there.
In [22, thm. 11] the first equality in Theorem 4.12 is proved without conditions
on the homology of N but under the assumption that S is finitely generated as an
R-module. Note that this assumption implies that R is an algebra retract of S.
5. Gorenstein flat dimension
Recall the definition [12, def. 10.3.1] of a Gorenstein flat module.
5.1. A complex T of flat R-modules is called totally acyclic if it is acyclic and the
complex I ⊗R T is acyclic for every injective R◦ -module I.
An R-module G is called Gorenstein flat (for short, G-flat) if there exists a
totally acyclic complex T of flat R-modules with C0 (T ) ∼
= G.
5.2. Every module has a projective resolution, so to prove that an R-module M is
Gorenstein flat it suffices to verify the following:
◦
(1) TorR
i (I, M ) = 0 holds for all i > 0 and every injective R -module I.
(2) There exists an acyclic complex T + = 0 → M → T−1 → T−2 → · · · of Rmodules with each Ti flat, such that I ⊗R T + is acyclic for every injective
R◦ -module I.

The next result is a non-commutative version of [7, Ascent table I.(a)].

GORENSTEIN DIMENSIONS OF UNBOUNDED COMPLEXES AND CHANGE OF BASE 13

5.3 Lemma. Let R → S be a ring homomorphism such that fdR S and fdR◦ S are
finite. For a Gorenstein flat R-module G, the S-module S ⊗R G is Gorenstein flat.
Proof. Let T be a totally acyclic complex of flat R-modules with C0 (T ) ∼
= G.
The complex S ⊗R T consists of flat S-modules, and it is acyclic as fdR◦ S is finite;
see [6, lem. 2.3]. One has C0 (S ⊗R T ) ∼
= S ⊗R G, so it suffices to show that the
complex J ⊗S (S ⊗R T ) ∼
= J ⊗R T is acyclic for every injective S ◦ -module J. As
fdR S is finite, every injective S ◦ -module has finite injective dimension over R◦ ; see
[3, cor. 4.2]. Acyclicity of J ⊗R T hence follows from [6, lem. 2.3].

In standard homological algebra, the study of flat modules and flat dimension
is propelled by flat–injective duality: An R-module F is flat if and only if the R◦ module HomZ (F, Q/Z) is injective. A similar Gorenstein flat–injective duality is
only known hold if R is right coherent, so that is a convenient setting for studies of
Gorenstein flat dimension; see for example [14, thm. 3.14].
As Bennis demonstrates [4, thm. 2.8], one can do a little better and get a wellbehaved theory of Gorenstein flat dimension, as long as the class of Gorenstein flat
modules is projectively resolving. Rings with that property have become known as
left GF-closed; we recall the definition in 5.10.
Iacob [15] defined a notion of Gorenstein flat dimension for unbounded complexes, but only for complexes over left GF-closed rings. Here we give a definition,
inspired by Veliche’s [21, def. 3.1]; it applies to complexes over any ring and coincides with Iacob’s for left GF-closed rings.
To get started we recall some terminology from Liang [17].
5.4. Let M be an R-complex; a semi-flat replacement of M is a semi-flat R-complex
F such that there is an isomorphism F ≃ M in the derived category. Every complex
has a semi-projective resolution and hence a semi-flat replacement; see 2.3. A Tate
flat resolution of M is a pair (T, F ) where T a totally acyclic complex of flat Rmodules and F ≃ M a semi-flat replacement with T>g ∼
= F>g for some g ∈ Z.
5.5 Definition. Let M be an R-complex. The Gorenstein flat dimension of M is
given by
GfdR M = inf{g ∈ Z | (T, F ) is a Tate flat resolution of M with T>g ∼
= F>g } .
5.6. Let M be an R-complex; the following facts are evident from the definition.
(a) One has GfdR M < ∞ if and only if M admits a Tate flat resolution.
(b) M is acyclic if and only if one has GfdR M = −∞.
(c) GfdR (Σn M ) = GfdR M + n holds for every n ∈ Z.2
A Gorenstein flat R-module M 6= 0 clearly has has GfdR M = 0 per Definition 5.5. In Remark 5.13 we compare 5.5 to competing definitions in the literature.
5.7 Proposition. Let M be an R-complexes and g ∈ Z. The following conditions
are equivalent.
(i) GfdR M 6 g.
(ii) Hi (M ) = 0 holds for all i > g, and there exists a semi-flat replacement F ≃ M
such that Ci (F ) is Gorenstein flat for every i > g.
2 Here Σn M is the complex with (Σn M ) = M
Σn M = (−1)n ∂ M for all i ∈ Z.
i
i−n and ∂i
i−n

14

LARS WINTHER CHRISTENSEN, FATIH KÖKSAL, AND LI LIANG

(iii) Hi (M ) = 0 holds for all i > g, and there exists a semi-flat replacement F ≃ M
such that Cg (F ) is Gorenstein flat.
Proof. If GfdR M 6 g holds, then there exists a Tate flat resolution (T, F ) of M
with T>g ∼
= F>g . As T is acyclic and F ≃ M one has Hi (M ) ∼
= Hi (F ) ∼
= Hi (T ) = 0
∼
for all i > g, and Ci (F ) = Ci (T ) is G-flat for every i > g. Thus (i) implies (ii).
Clearly, (ii) implies (iii); to finish the proof assume that Hi (M ) = 0 holds for
all i > g and that there exists a semi-flat replacement F ≃ M such that Cg (F ) is
G-flat. As one has H(F ) ∼
= H(M ) it follows that the complex
F ′ = · · · −→ Fg+1 −→ Fg −→ Cg (F ) −→ 0
is acyclic; i.e. it is an augmented flat resolution of Cg (F ). For every injective
′
R◦ -module I one has TorR
>0 (I, Cg (F )) = 0, so the complex I ⊗R F is acyclic.
Moreover, there exists an acyclic complex of R-modules
T ′ = 0 −→ Cg (F ) −→ Tg−1 −→ Tg−2 −→ · · ·
with each Ti flat, such that I ⊗R T ′ is acyclic for every injective R◦ -module I. Now
let T be the complex obtained by splicing together F ′ and T ′ at Cg (F ); that is
T = · · · −→ Fg+1 −→ Fg −→ Tg−1 −→ Tg−2 −→ · · · .
It is a totally acyclic complex of flat R-modules, so (T, F ) is a Tate flat resolution

of M with T>g ∼
= F>g , and so one has GfdR M 6 g.
In the next statement ‘fd’ means flat dimension as defined in [3, sec. 2.F].
5.8 Proposition. Let M be an R-complex; the following assertions hold.
(a) One has GfdR M 6 fdR M ; equality holds if fdR M < ∞.
(b) One has GidR◦ HomZ (M, Q/Z) 6 GfdR M ; equality holds if R is right coherent.
Proof. (a): For an acyclic R-complex M one has GfdR M = −∞ = fdR M , and
the inequality is trivial if fdR M = ∞. Now assume that H(M ) 6= 0 and fdR M = g
holds for some g ∈ Z. It follows from [3, thm. 2.4.F] that Hi (M ) = 0 holds for all
i > g, and that there exists a semi-flat replacement F ≃ M such that Cg (F ) is flat,
in particular G-flat. Thus one has GfdR M 6 g by Proposition 5.7. To prove that
equality holds, assume towards a contradiction that GfdR M 6 g − 1 holds. One
then has Hi (M ) = 0 for all i > g −1 and there exists a semi-flat replacement F ≃ M
such that Cg−1 (F ) is G-flat; see Proposition 5.7. Consider the exact sequence
0 −→ Cg (F ) −→ Fg−1 −→ Cg−1 (F ) −→ 0 .
The module Cg (F ) is flat, so one has fdR (Cg−1 (F )) ≤ 1, and then Cg−1 (F ) is flat;
see Bennis [5, thm. 2.2]. Thus one has fdR M ≤ g − 1, which is a contradiction.
(b): For an acyclic R-complex M one has GidR◦ HomZ (M, Q/Z) = −∞ =
GfdR M , and the inequality is trivial if GfdR M = ∞. Now assume that H(M ) 6= 0
and GfdR M = g holds for some g ∈ Z. By Proposition 5.7 one has Hi (M ) = 0
for all i > g, and there exists a semi-flat replacement F ≃ M such that Cg (F ) is
G-flat. The R◦ -complex HomZ (F, Q/Z) is semi-injective and yields a semi-injective
≃
resolution HomZ (M, Q/Z) −−→ HomZ (F, Q/Z); see [3, 1.4.I]. For all i > g one has
Hi (HomZ (M, Q/Z)) ∼
= HomZ (Hi (M ), Q/Z) = 0 ,
and by [14, prop. 3.11] the R◦ -module Zg (HomZ (F, Q/Z)) ∼
= HomZ (Cg (F ), Q/Z) is
G-injective, so one gets GidR◦ HomZ (M, Q/Z) 6 g from Proposition 3.6.

GORENSTEIN DIMENSIONS OF UNBOUNDED COMPLEXES AND CHANGE OF BASE 15

Assume now that g = GidR◦ HomZ (M, Q/Z) is finite. Let F ≃ M be a semi-flat
replacement; as above it yields a semi-injective resolution
≃

HomZ (M, Q/Z) −−→ HomZ (F, Q/Z) .
By Proposition 3.6 one has HomZ (Hi (M ), Q/Z) ∼
= Hi (HomZ (M, Q/Z)) = 0 for all
g
∼
i > g and the module HomZ (Cg (F ), Q/Z) = Z (HomZ (F, Q/Z)) is G-injective. It
follows that Hi (M ) = 0 holds for all i > g, and under the assumption that R is
right coherent it follows from [14, prop. 3.11] that Cg (F ) is G-flat. Thus one has

GfdR M 6 g by Proposition 5.7, and GidR◦ HomZ (M, Q/Z) = GfdR M holds.
The next result is proved by standard applications of the Snake Lemma.
5.9 Lemma. Let 0 → X → Y → Z → 0 be an exact sequence of R-complexes and
let n ∈ Z. The following assertions hold.
(a) If
is
(b) If
is

Hn (Z) = 0, then the sequence 0 → Cn−1 (X) → Cn−1 (Y ) → Cn−1 (Z) → 0
exact. Moreover if Hn (Y ) = 0, then the converse holds.
Hn (X) = 0, then the sequence 0 → Zn+1 (X) → Zn+1 (Y ) → Zn+1 (Z) → 0
exact. Moreover if Hn (Y ) = 0, then the converse holds.


5.10. Recall from [4] that R is called left GF-closed if the class of Gorenstein flat
R-modules is closed under extensions (equivalently, it is projectively resolving).
The class of left GF-closed rings strictly contains the class of right coherent rings.
The next result appears as [15, lem. 3.2] with the additional hypothesis that R
is left GF-closed; that hypothesis is, however, not needed.
5.11 Lemma. Let 0 → F → G → H → 0 be an exact sequence of R-modules. If
F is flat, G is Gorenstein flat, and HomZ (H, Q/Z) is Gorenstein injective, then H
is Gorenstein flat.
Proof. It is argued in the proof of [15, lem. 3.2] that there is an exact sequence
0 → H → X → Y → 0 with X flat and Y G-flat, so H is G-flat by [4, lem. 2.4]. 
5.12 Proposition. Let M be an R-complex and g ∈ Z. Conditions (i) and (ii)
below are equivalent and imply (iii). Moreover, if R is left GF-closed, then all three
conditions are equivalent.
(i) Hi (M ) = 0 holds for all i > g, and for every semi-flat replacement F ≃ M the
cokernel Cg (F ) is Gorenstein flat.
(ii) Hi (M ) = 0 holds for all i > g, and there exists a semi-projective resolution
≃
P −−→ M such that the cokernel Cg (P ) is Gorenstein flat.
(iii) GfdR M 6 g.
Proof. Clearly (i) implies (ii), and (ii) implies (iii) by Proposition 5.7.
≃
(ii) =⇒ (i): Let P −−→ M be a semi-projective resolution such that Cg (P ) is
G-flat. Let F ≃ M be a semi-flat replacement. There is by [3, 1.4.P] a quasi≃
isomorphism ϕ : P −−→ F , and after adding to P a projective precover of F , we may
assume that ϕ is surjective. One then has an exact sequence 0 → K → P → F → 0.
The kernel K is semi-flat and acyclic, so the module Ci (K) is flat for every i ∈ Z;
see Christensen and Holm [8, thm. 7.3]. The sequence
(1)

0 −→ Cg (K) −→ Cg (P ) −→ Cg (F ) −→ 0

16

LARS WINTHER CHRISTENSEN, FATIH KÖKSAL, AND LI LIANG

is exact by Lemma 5.9(a). The module Cg (P ) is G-flat, so to prove that Cg (F )
is G-flat, it is by Lemma 5.11 enough to prove that HomZ (Cg (F ), Q/Z) is Ginjective. By Propositions 5.7 and 5.8(b) one has GidR◦ HomZ (M, Q/Z) 6 g. The
R◦ -complex HomZ (F, Q/Z) is semi-injective and yields a semi-injective resolution
≃
HomZ (M, Q/Z) −−→ HomZ (F, Q/Z); see [3, 1.4.I]. It now follows from Proposition 3.6 that the module HomZ (Cg (F ), Q/Z) ∼
= Zg (HomZ (F, Q/Z)) is G-injective.
Thus, the conditions (i) and (ii) are equivalent. We now assume that R is
left GF-closed and verify the implication (iii) =⇒ (ii). By Proposition 5.7 one has
Hi (M ) = 0 for all i > g, and there exists a semi-flat replacement F ≃ M with
≃
Cg (F ) G-flat. Choose a surjective semi-projective resolution P −−→ F ; it yields by
≃
[3, 1.4.P] a semi-projective resolution P −−→ M . As above one gets an sequence
(1), where now Cg (K) is flat and Cg (F ) is G-flat; it follows that Cg (P ) is G-flat as
R is left GF-closed.

For commentary on the proof, see Remark 5.16 at the end of the section.
5.13 Remark. From Proposition 5.12 and [15, thm. 1] it is clear that for complexes over a left GF-closed ring, Definition 5.5 agrees with Iacob’s definition [15,
def. 3.2]. In this setting, it thus extends the definitions in [14, def. 3.9] and [6,
1.9] of Gorenstein flat dimension for modules and complexes with bounded below
homology; see [15, rmk. 3].
Though they potentially differ over rings that are not GF-closed, we use the same
symbol, ‘Gfd’, for our notion and the one from [6, 1.9]. It causes no ambiguity, as
the results we prove in the remainder of this paper are valid for either notion. When
needed, we make remarks to that effect.
The next result improves [22, thm. 12] by removing assumptions that R and S
should be commutative noetherian.
5.14 Proposition. Let R → S be a ring homomorphism such that fdR S and
fdR◦ S are finite. For every R-complex M one has GfdS (S ⊗L
R M ) 6 GfdR M .
Proof. We may assume that H(M ) is non-zero, otherwise there is nothing to prove.
Assume that GfdR M = g holds for some g ∈ Z. By Proposition 5.7 one has
Hi (M ) = 0 for all i > g, and there exists a semi-flat replacement F ≃ M with
Cg (F ) G-flat. The S-complex S ⊗R F is semi-flat and isomorphic to S ⊗L
R M in
the derived category. For n > 0 one has
Hg+n (S ⊗L M ) ∼
= TorR (S, Cg (F )) = 0 ,
= Hg+n (S ⊗R F ) ∼
R

n

where vanishing follows from [6, lem. 2.3] as fdR◦ S is finite. Finally, the module
Cg (S ⊗R F ) ∼
= S ⊗R Cg (F ) is G-flat by Lemma 5.3, so GfdS (S ⊗L
R M ) 6 g holds
by Proposition 5.7.

5.15 Remark. For an R-complex M with Hi (M ) = 0 for i ≪ 0 the inequality in
Proposition 5.14 is also valid with the definition of Gorenstein flat dimension from
[6, 1.9]. Indeed, the argument for [7, (4.4)] also applies when R is not commutative.
5.16 Remark. From the proof of (iii) =⇒ (ii) in Proposition 5.12, consider the
exact sequence
(5.16.1)

0 −→ Cg (K) −→ Cg (P ) −→ Cg (F ) −→ 0

GORENSTEIN DIMENSIONS OF UNBOUNDED COMPLEXES AND CHANGE OF BASE 17

where the module Cg (K) is flat and Cg (F ) is Gorenstein flat. Under the assumption
that R is left GF-closed, the module in the middle, Cg (P ), is Gorenstein flat.
Without that assumption, the best we know is to consider the pull-back diagram
0

0


G


G

0

// Cg (K)


// X


// T

// 0

0

// Cg (K)


// Cg (P )


// Cg (F )

// 0


0


0

where T is flat and G is Gorenstein flat. It follows that X is flat, so Cg (P ) has
Gorenstein flat dimension at most 1, per Definition 5.5 as well as per [14, def. 3.9].
Notice that the module Cg (K) in (5.16.1) is not just Gorenstein flat but flat.
In an earlier version of this paper we asked if a ring is GF-closed provided that
in every exact sequence of R-modules 0 → F → M → G → 0 with F flat and
G Gorenstein flat also M is Gorenstein flat. A positive answer to this question is
provided in the Appendix by Driss Bennis.
6. Faithfully flat base change
In this section, R is commutative and S is an R-algebra.
6.1 Lemma. Let S be a faithfully flat R-algebra. For an R-module M the following
conditions are equivalent.
(i) TorR
i (I, M ) = 0 holds for all i > 0 and every injective R-module I.
(ii) TorSi (J, S ⊗R M ) = 0 holds for all i > 0 and every injective S ◦ -module J.
Proof. For every S ◦ -module X and every i > 0 one has
R
L
L
∼
∼
TorSi (X, S ⊗R M ) ∼
= Hi (X ⊗L
S (S ⊗R M )) = Hi (X ⊗R M ) = Tori (X, M ) .
As S is flat over R, every injective S ◦ -module is an injective R-module, so (i)
implies (ii). Let I be an R-module and recall from 4.1 that it is a direct summand
of the injective S ◦ -module HomR (S, I); now (i) follows from (ii).

For use in the next proof, we recall the notion of a flat preenvelope, also known
as a flat left approximation.
6.2. Let M be an R-module. A homomorphism ϕ : M → F is a flat preenvelope of
M , if F is a flat R-module and every homomorphism from M to a flat R-module
factors through ϕ. Every R-module has a flat preenvelope if and only if R is
coherent; see [12, thm. 5.4.1].
6.3 Lemma. Let R be coherent and let S be a faithfully flat R-algebra that is left
GF-closed. An R-module M is Gorenstein flat if and only if the S-module S ⊗R M
is Gorenstein flat.

18

LARS WINTHER CHRISTENSEN, FATIH KÖKSAL, AND LI LIANG

Proof. The “only if” part is a special case of Lemma 5.3. To prove “if”, assume
that S ⊗R M is a G-flat S-module. Now TorS>0 (J, S ⊗R M ) = 0 holds for every
injective S ◦ -module J, so by Lemma 6.1 one has
(1)

TorR
>0 (I, M ) = 0 for every injective R-module I.

Thus, 5.2.(1) holds and we proceed to verify 5.2.(2).
Let ϕ : M → F be a flat preenvelope; it exists because R is coherent. The Gflat module S ⊗R M embeds into a flat S-module, and M embeds into S ⊗R M
as S is faithfully flat; cf. (4.1.1). A flat S-module is also flat as an R-module, so
M embeds into a flat R-module, and it follows that ϕ is injective. Consider the
associated exact sequence
ϕ

η = 0 −→ M −−→ F −→ C −→ 0 .
Let I be an injective R-module. The induced sequence I ⊗R η is exact if and
only if HomZ (I ⊗R η, Q/Z) ∼
= HomR (η, HomZ (I, Q/Z)) is exact. The R-module
HomZ (I, Q/Z) is flat, as R is coherent, so exactness of HomR (η, HomZ (I, Q/Z))
holds because ϕ is a flat preenvelope. Notice that exactness of I ⊗R η and (1) yield
(2)

TorR
>0 (I, C) = 0 for every injective R-module I.

To construct the complex in 5.2.(2), it is now sufficient to show that S ⊗R C is Gflat over S. Consider the following push-out diagram in the category of S-modules
where H is flat and G is G-flat.
0

0

0


// S ⊗R M


// S ⊗R F

// S ⊗R C

// 0

0


// H


// X

// S ⊗R C

// 0


G


G


0


0

Since S is left GF-closed, the module X is G-flat. To conclude from Lemma 5.11,
applied to the diagram’s second non-zero row, that S ⊗R C is G-flat, we need
to verify that the S ◦ -module HomZ (S ⊗R C, Q/Z) is G-injective. Application of
HomZ (−, Q/Z) to the second row shows that the module has finite Gorenstein
injective dimension (at most 1). Let J be an injective S ◦ -module and i > 0 be an
integer. The isomorphism below is Hom-tensor adjointness, and vanishing follows
from Lemma 6.1 in view of (2)
ExtiS ◦(J, HomZ (S ⊗R C, Q/Z)) ∼
= HomZ (TorSi (J, S ⊗R C), Q/Z) = 0 .
It follows that HomZ (S ⊗R C, Q/Z) is G-injective; see [14, thm. 2.22].



It is straightforward to verify that for a flat R-module F and a Gorenstein flat
R-module G, the module F ⊗R G is Gorenstein flat; see [7, Ascent table I.(a)].
The next lemma provides a partial converse; it applies, in particular, to the setting
where Q is a faithfully flat R-algebra; cf. (4.1.1).

GORENSTEIN DIMENSIONS OF UNBOUNDED COMPLEXES AND CHANGE OF BASE 19

6.4 Proposition. Let R be coherent and M be an R-module. If Q ⊗R M is Gorenstein flat for some faithfully flat R-module Q that contains a non-zero free R-module
as a pure submodule, then M is Gorenstein flat.
Proof. As Q is faithfully flat, vanishing of TorR
i (I, Q ⊗R M ) implies vanishing of
R
TorR
i (I, M ), so one has Tor>0 (I, M ) = 0 for every injective R-module I. Thus
5.2.(1) is satisfied and we proceed to construct the complex in 5.2.(2).
Let L 6= 0 be a free pure submodule of Q; application of − ⊗R M to the associated pure embedding yields an embedding L ⊗R M → Q ⊗R M . By assumption,
the module Q ⊗R M embeds into a flat R-module, whence L ⊗R M , and therefore
M , embeds into a flat R-module. Since R is coherent, there exists a flat preenvelope, ϕ : M → F , and it is necessarily injective. Consider the associated exact
sequence 0 → M → F → C → 0. As in the proof of Lemma 6.3 one gets
(1)

TorR
>0 (I, C) = 0 for every injective R-module I.

To construct the complex in 5.2.(2) it is now sufficient to show that Q ⊗R C is
G-flat. It is immediate from the induced exact sequence
0 −→ Q ⊗R M −→ Q ⊗R F −→ Q ⊗R C −→ 0
that Q ⊗R C has finite Gorenstein flat dimension. For every injective R-module I
one gets
TorR
>0 (I, Q ⊗R C) = 0
from (1), so Q ⊗R C is G-flat by [14, thm. 3.14].

6.5 Proposition. For every flat R-module F and for every R-complex M there is
an inequality
GfdR (F ⊗R M ) 6 GfdR M.
Proof. We may assume that H(M ) is non-zero, otherwise there is nothing to prove.
Assume that GfdR M = g holds for some g ∈ Z. By Proposition 5.7 one has
Hi (M ) = 0 for all i > g, and there exists a semi-flat replacement P ≃ M with
Cg (P ) G-flat. The complex F ⊗R P is semi-flat and isomorphic to F ⊗R M in
the derived category. For i > g one has Hi (F ⊗R M ) ∼
= F ⊗R Hi (M ) = 0, and
the module Cg (F ⊗R P ) ∼
F
⊗
C
(P
)
is
G-flat
by
[7,
Ascent table I.(a)], so
=
R g
GfdR (F ⊗R M ) 6 g holds by Proposition 5.7.

6.6 Remark. For an R-complex M with Hi (M ) = 0 for i ≪ 0 the inequality in
Proposition 6.5 is by [7, (4.4)] valid for Gorenstein flat dimension defined in [6, 1.9].
6.7 Theorem. Let R be commutative coherent, let S be a faithfully flat R-algebra,
and let M be an R-complex. There is an equality
GfdR M = GfdR (S ⊗R M ) ,
and if S is left GF-closed also an equality
GfdS (S ⊗R M ) = GfdR M .
Proof. We may assume that H(M ) is non-zero, otherwise there is nothing to prove.
Consider the first equality. The inequality “>” is a special case of Proposition 6.5.
For the opposite inequality, assume GfdR (S ⊗R M ) = g holds for some g ∈ Z.
≃
Choose a semi-projective resolution P −−→ M ; the induced quasi-isomorphism
S ⊗R P → S ⊗R M is a semi-flat replacement. From Proposition 5.12 it follows

20

LARS WINTHER CHRISTENSEN, FATIH KÖKSAL, AND LI LIANG

that S ⊗R Hi (M ) ∼
= Hi (S ⊗R M ) = 0 holds for all i > g and that the module
S ⊗R Cg (P ) ∼
= Cg (S ⊗R P ) is G-flat. Since S is faithfully flat, it follows that
Hi (M ) = 0 holds for all i > g, and by Proposition 6.4 the module Cg (P ) is G-flat.
By Proposition 5.12 one now has GfdR M 6 g, and this proves the first equality.
A parallel argument applies to establish the second equality; only one has to
invoke Proposition 5.14 instead of 6.5 and Lemma 6.3 instead of 6.4.

6.8 Remark. The first equality in Theorem 6.7 improves the second equality in [11,
prop. 1.9] by removing the requirements that R be semi-local and S be commutative
noetherian. The equality in [11, thm. 1.8] are subsumed by [22, thm. 15], and the
second equality in Theorem 6.7 improves [22, thm. 15] by removing the assumption
that S is commutative and by relaxing the conditions on R and S from noetherian
to coherent/left GF-closed.
7. Closing remarks
Research on Gorenstein homological dimensions continues to be guided by the idea
that every result about absolute homological dimensions should have a counterpart
in Gorenstein homological algebra. In a curious departure from this principle, the
behavior of Gorenstein injective dimension under faithfully flat base change was
understood [11, thm. 1.7] years before the absolute case [10, thm. 2.2]. The main
results of the present paper have brought the (co-)basechange results for Gorenstein
dimensions in closer alignment with the results for absolute homological dimensions
by relaxing the conditions on rings and complexes. It would still be interesting to
remove the a priori assumption of homological boundedness from Theorem 4.12 to
align it even closer with [9, cor. 3.1].
Acknowledgments
This paper was written during visits by L.L. to Texas Tech University—while F.K.
was a student there—and by L.W.C. and L.L. to Nanjing University; we gratefully
acknowledge the hospitality of both institutions. In particular, we thank Nanqing
Ding, our host at Nanjing, for inviting and supporting us.
Appendix. GF closed rings by Driss Bennis
Recall that a ring R is said to be left GF-closed if in every exact sequence of Rmodules 0 → G → M → G′ → 0 with G and G′ Gorenstein flat, also the middle
module is Gorenstein flat. No example is known of a ring that is not GF-closed.
From [4, lem. 2.5] it is known that the middle module is Gorenstein flat in every
exact sequence 0 → G → M → F → 0 with F flat and G Gorenstein flat.
A.1 Theorem. For a ring R the following conditions are equivalent.
(i) R is left GF-closed.
(ii) In every exact sequence of R-modules 0 → F → M → G → 0 with F flat and
G Gorenstein flat, the module M is Gorenstein flat.
Proof. The implication (i) =⇒ (ii) is trivial. To prove that (ii) implies (i), let
0 −→ A −→ B −→ C −→ 0

GORENSTEIN DIMENSIONS OF UNBOUNDED COMPLEXES AND CHANGE OF BASE 21

be an exact sequence of R-modules where A and C are G-flat. The goal is to prove
that B is G-flat. For every injective R◦ -module I one evidently has TorR
>0 (I, B) = 0.
Thus, 5.2.(1) holds and we proceed to verify 5.2.(2).
Since A is G-flat, there is an exact sequence
0 −→ A −→ F ′ −→ G′ −→ 0
with F ′ flat and G′ G-flat. From the push-out diagram
0

0

0


// A


// B

// C

// 0

0


// F ′


// X

// C

// 0


G′


G′


0


0

one gets by (ii) that X is G-flat, and so there exists an exact sequence
0 −→ X −→ F −→ G −→ 0
with F flat and G G-flat. Consider the second non-zero row in the push-out diagram
0

0

0

// B


// X


// G′

// 0

0

// B


// F


// B ′

// 0


G


G


0


0.

The module B ′ has the same properties as B; indeed G and G′ are G-flat, and hence
′
◦
one has TorR
>0 (I, B ) = 0 for every injective R -module I. Thus, by repeating the
above process one can construct the complex in 5.2.(2).

References
[1] Javad Asadollahi and Shokrollah Salarian, Gorenstein injective dimension for complexes and
Iwanaga-Gorenstein rings, Comm. Algebra 34 (2006), no. 8, 3009–3022. MR2250584
[2] Maurice Auslander and Mark Bridger, Stable module theory, Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society, No. 94, American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I., 1969. MR0269685
[3] Luchezar L. Avramov and Hans-Bjørn Foxby, Homological dimensions of unbounded complexes, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 71 (1991), no. 2-3, 129–155. MR1117631
[4] Driss Bennis, Rings over which the class of Gorenstein flat modules is closed under extensions, Comm. Algebra 37 (2009), no. 3, 855–868. MR2503181
[5] Driss Bennis, A note on Gorenstein flat dimension, Algebra Colloq. 18 (2011), no. 1, 155–161.
MR2753665

22

LARS WINTHER CHRISTENSEN, FATIH KÖKSAL, AND LI LIANG

[6] Lars Winther Christensen, Anders Frankild, and Henrik Holm, On Gorenstein projective,
injective and flat dimensions—A functorial description with applications, J. Algebra 302
(2006), no. 1, 231–279. MR2236602
[7] Lars Winther Christensen and Henrik Holm, Ascent properties of Auslander categories,
Canad. J. Math. 61 (2009), no. 1, 76–108. MR2488450
[8] Lars Winther Christensen and Henrik Holm, The direct limit closure of perfect complexes, J.
Pure Appl. Algebra 219 (2015), no. 3, 449–463. MR3279365
[9] Lars Winther Christensen and Srikanth B. Iyengar, Tests for injectivity of modules over
commutative rings, preprint arXiv:1508.04639 []; 8 pp.
[10] Lars Winther Christensen and Fatih Köksal, Injective modules under faithfully flat ring extensions, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 144 (2016), no. 3, 1015–1020. MR3447655
[11] Lars Winther Christensen and Sean Sather-Wagstaff, Transfer of Gorenstein dimensions
along ring homomorphisms, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 214 (2010), no. 6, 982–989. MR2580673
[12] Edgar E. Enochs and Overtoun M. G. Jenda, Relative homological algebra, de Gruyter Expositions in Mathematics, vol. 30, Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, 2000. MR1753146
[13] Laurent Gruson and Christian U. Jensen, Dimensions cohomologiques reliées aux foncteurs
lim(i) , Paul Dubreil and Marie-Paule Malliavin Algebra Seminar, 33rd Year (Paris, 1980),
←−
Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 867, Springer, Berlin, 1981, pp. 234–294. MR0633523
[14] Henrik Holm, Gorenstein homological dimensions, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 189 (2004), no. 1-3,
167–193. MR2038564
[15] Alina Iacob, Gorenstein flat dimension of complexes, J. Math. Kyoto Univ. 49 (2009), no. 4,
817–842. MR2591118
[16] Christian U. Jensen, On the vanishing of lim(i) , J. Algebra 15 (1970), 151–166. MR0260839
←−

[17] Li Liang, Tate homology of modules of finite Gorenstein flat dimension, Algebr. Represent.
Theory 16 (2013), no. 6, 1541–1560. MR3127346
[18] Barbara L. Osofsky, Homological dimension and cardinality, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 151
(1970), 641–649. MR0265411
[19] Michel Raynaud and Laurent Gruson, Critères de platitude et de projectivité. Techniques de
“platification” d’un module, Invent. Math. 13 (1971), 1–89. MR0308104
’
[20] Jan Štovı́ček,
On purity and applications to coderived and singularity categories, preprint,
arXiv:1412.1601v1 [math.CT].
[21] Oana Veliche, Gorenstein projective dimension for complexes, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 358
(2006), no. 3, 1257–1283. MR2187653
[22] Liu Zhongkui and Ren Wei, Transfer of Gorenstein dimensions of unbounded complexes along
ring homomorphisms, Comm. Algebra 42 (2014), no. 8, 3325–3338. MR3196047
L.W.C. Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, U.S.A.
E-mail address: lars.w.christensen@ttu.edu
URL: http://www.math.ttu.edu/~ lchriste
F.K. Lewis University, Romeoville, IL 60446, U.S.A.
E-mail address: koksalfa@lewisu.edu
L.L. Lanzhou Jiaotong University, Lanzhou 730070, China
E-mail address: lliangnju@gmail.com

