On Ln -Injective Modules and Ln -Injective Dimensions

arXiv:1509.07235v1 [math.RA] 24 Sep 2015

Tao Xiong1 , Fanggui Wang2 , Lei Qiao3 , Shiqi Xing4 , Qing Li5
1,2,3,4: College of Mathematics and software science, Sichuan Normal University, Chengdu,
610068 P. R. China;
5: College of Computer Science and Technology, Southwest University for Nationalities, Chengdu,
610041 P. R. China
1: xiangqian2004@163.com; 2: wangfg2004@163.com; 3: qiaolei5@yeah.net;
4: sqxing@yeah.net; 5: lqop80@163.com

Keywords: flat dimension; Ln -injective module; Ln -injective dimension, Ln -global dimension,
Ln -hereditary ring.
MSC (2010): 16E05, 16E10

1. Introduction
Throughout this paper, R is an associative ring with identity and all modules are left R-modules
unless otherwise stated. We also use R M to denote the category of left R-modules, w.gl.dim(R)
(resp. gl.dim(R)) to denote the weak global (resp. global) dimension of R, Fn to denote the class
of all R-modules with flat dimension at most n. For an R-module M , pdR M (resp. fdR M ) stands
for the projective (resp. flat) dimension of M , idR M (resp. cdR M ) stands for the injective (resp.
cotorsion) dimension of M .
Cotorsion modules have being received a lot of attension in many articles, see [2, 4, 21]. As in
[4], an R-module C is called cotorsion if Ext1R (F, C) = 0 for all flat module F . A celebrated result
that was proved by Bican et al. in [2] is the Flat Cover Conjecture (FCC): Over any ring, every
module has a flat cover and hence every module has a cotorsion envelope.
On the further development on the idea of cotorsion module notion, in [13], the weak-injective
modules have been studied by Lee. Recall from [13] that An R-module W is called weak-injective
if Ext1R (M, W ) = 0 for all modules M with fdR M ≤ 1 and from [3] that a domain R is called
almost perfect (APD shortly) if all its proper homomorphic image are perfect. It was proved in [8,
Corollary 6.4.8] that a domain R is an APD if and only if every module of flat dimension ≤ 1 has
projective dimension ≤ 1; if and only if every divisible module is weak-injective; if and only if every
epic image of a weak-injective module is weak-injective.
In 2012 the notion of n-cotorsion modules was introduced in [6] by Enochs and Huang. An Rmodule N is called n-cotorsion in [6] if Ext1R (M, N ) = 0 for all R-module M with fdR M ≤ n. But
the name of the n-cotorsion module has been used by Mao and Ding. In [15] the n-cotorsion module
N means Extn+1
R (F, N ) = 0 for any flat R-module F . The two notions of n-cotorsion modules are
not coincident, see Example 2.2.
1

2

In this paper, the n-cotorsion modules which are defined in [6], following Lee’s idea, are said to
be Ln -injective modules. Thus weak-injective modules are exactly L1 -injective modules. Denote Fn
and Ln the classes of modules of flat dimension ≤ n and of Ln -injective modules, respectively.
In Section 2, we prove in Corollary 2.7 that the n-th cosyzygy of a cotorsion R-module M
is Ln -injective, and in Theorem 2.8 that an R-module M has flat dimension ≤ n if and only if
ExtiR (M, N ) = 0 for any Ln -injective module N and any i ≥ 1,
Given two classes A and B of R-modules, set A⊥ = {B | Ext1R (A, B) = 0 for all A ∈ A} and
⊥
B = {A | Ext1R (A, B) = 0 for all B ∈ B}, which are called the right orthogonal class of A and the
left orthogonal class of B, respectively. A pair (A, B) of R-modules is called a cotorsion theory (or
cotorsion pair) [5] if A⊥ = B and A =⊥ B. A cotorsion theory (A, B) is said to be complete [19]
if every R-module has a special A-precover. It is shown in [2] that the pair (F , C) is a complete
cotorsion theory, where F and C are the classes of flat R-modules and cotorsion modules, respectively.
In 2006, it is shown in [13] that the pair (F1 , W) is a cotorsion theory when R is a domains, where F1
and W denote the classes of R-modules with flat dimension at most 1 and weak-injective modules,
respectively. In Section 3, for the further examination, in Theorem 3.7, we prove that the pair
(Fn , Ln ) is a complete cotorsion theory, where Fn and Ln are the classes of R-modules with flat
dimension at most n and Ln -injective modules, respectively.
In Sections 4 and 5, we are going to introduce the Ln -injective dimension of modules and the
Ln -global dimension of rings. In Section 6, we start by discussing when Ln -injective modules
are injective. It is shown in Theorem 6.1 that Ln -injective modules are injective if and only if
w.gl.dim(R) ≤ n. Then we discuss, for n ≥ 1, when every R-module is Ln -injective.
It was shown in [21] that every module is cotorsion if and only if R is left perfect. In Theorem
6.5, we show that every module is Ln -injective if and only if R is left perfect with l.FFD(R) = 0,
where l.FFD(R) is the left finitistic weak dimension of R defined in [1]. We introduce also the notion
of Ln -hereditary rings and give a series of consideration on them. Compared the notions of almost
perfect rings and L1 -hereditary rings, we point out that all almost perfect rings are L1 -hereditary
and a domain R is an APD if and only if R is L1 -hereditary, and in Example 7.4, we give an example
that some L1 -hereditary ring is not perfect.
2. Ln -Injective modules
We start this section with the following difinition.
Definition 2.1. (see [6, Definition 2.7(1)]) An R-module W is called Ln -injective (L means Lee) if
Ext1R (M, W ) = 0 for all R-modules M ∈ Fn .
Naturally, L0 -injective modules are exactly cotortion modules and L1 -injective modules are exactly weak-injective modules.
We denote the class of all Ln -injective R-modules by Ln .
Example 2.2. It is easy to see that Ln -injective modules are n-cotorsion modules under the definition of Mao et al. But n-cotorsion modules are not necessarily Ln -injective modules. For example,
take n = 1 and let R = Z and M = R/(2). Then R is a 1-cotorsion module since idR R = 1. It

3

is clear that fdR M = 1 and Ext1R (M, R) ∼
= R/2R 6= 0 by [17, Theorem 7.17]. Hence then R is not
L1 -injective.
Example 2.3. The following facts are true.
(1) Injective modules are Ln -injective modules for all integer n ≥ 0.
(2) If m ≤ n, then Ln -injective R-modules are Lm -injective, and hence Lm ⊇ Ln .
Q
Wi is Ln -injective if and only if each Wi is
(3) Let {Wi } be a family of R-modules. Then
i

Ln -injective modules.
(4) Let n ≥ 1 and let R be a domain. Suppose W is an Ln -injective module. For a ∈ R and
a 6= 0, since Ext1R (R/Ra, W ) = 0, we have that W is divisible.
Proposition 2.4. The following statements are equivalent for an R-module W :
(1) W is Ln -injective.
(2) For any R-module M ∈ Fn and any integer k ≥ 1, then ExtkR (M, W ) = 0.
(3) Any exact sequence 0 → W → B → C → 0 with C ∈ Fn is split.
(4) For any exact sequence 0 → A → B → C → 0 with C ∈ Fn , then the sequence 0 →
Hom(C, W ) → Hom(B, W ) → Hom(A, W ) → 0 is exact.
Proof. (1) ⇔ (3) ⇔ (4) and (2) ⇒ (1) are clear.
(1) ⇒ (2). From the definition we have Ext1R (M, W ) = 0, that is, the assertion is true for the
case k = 1.
Assume k > 1. Let 0 → A → F → M → 0 be exact, where F is projective. Thus ExtkR (M, W ) ∼
=
k−1
ExtR
(A, W ). Note that A ∈ Fn . Hence ExtkR (M, W ) = 0 by induction on k.

Proposition 2.5. Let 0 → A → B → C → 0 be an exact sequence. Then:
(1) If A ∈ Ln , then B ∈ Ln if and only if C ∈ Ln .
(2) If C ∈ Fn , then A ∈ Fn if and only if B ∈ Fn .
Proof. These are straightforward.
Let C be a class of R-modules and M a R-module. For a C-resolution of M
· · · → Cn → · · · → C1 → C0 → M → 0,



(resp. 0 → M → C 0 → C 1 →→ C n → · · · , )

set K0 = M , K1 = ker(C0 → M ), Ki = ker(Ci−1 → Ci−2 ) (resp. Q0 = M , Q1 = cok(M → C 0 ),
Qi = cok(Ci−2 → Ci−1 )) for i ≥ 2. The n-th kernel Kn (resp. cokernel Qn ) (n ≥ 0) is called the
n-th C-syzygy (resp. C-cosyzygy) of M . In particular, if C is the class of projective modules (resp.
flat modules), then Kn is simply called the n-th syzygy (resp. n-york) of M ; and if C is the class of
injective modules, then Qn is simply called the n-th cosyzygy of M .
Theorem 2.6. Let n and m be two given nonnegative integers and let W be an Ln -injective module.
Then the m-th cosyzygy of W is Ln+m -injective.
Proof. The case m = 0 is clear. Now assume m > 0. Let W ′ be an m-th cosyzygy of W and
let M ∈ Fn+m . Let B be an (m − 1)-th syzygy of M . Then fdR B ≤ n. Hence Ext1R (M, W ′ ) ∼
=
1
′
∼
Ext
(B,
W
)
=
0.
Therefore,
W
∈
L
.

Extm+1
(M,
W
)
=
n+m
R
R
Corollary 2.7. Let C be a cotorsion module. then the n-th cosyzygy of C is Ln -injective.

4

Corresponding with the consideration of flat dimension at most n, Fuchs and Lee have proved that
if R is an integral domain, then an R-module M satisfies fdR M ≤ n if and only if ExtnR (M, W ) = 0
for any L1 -injective module W (See [14, Theorem 2.2] and [9, Lemma 5.5]). The following is the
further discussion on the modules with flat dimension ≤ n.
Theorem 2.8. Let R be any ring and M be an R-module and n ≥ 1. Then the following are
equivalent:
(1) fdR M ≤ n.
(2) Ext1R (M, N ) = 0 for any Ln -injective module N .
(3) ExtiR (M, N ) = 0 for any Ln -injective module N and any i ≥ 1.
(4) If 0 ≤ m ≤ n, then Extn−m+1
(M, N ) = 0 for any Lm -injective module N .
R
n−m+i
(5) If 0 ≤ m ≤ n, then ExtR
(M, N ) = 0 for any Lm -injective module N and any i ≥ 1.
(6) ExtnR (M, W ) = 0 for any weak-injective (L1 -injective) module W .
(7) ExtiR (M, W ) = 0 for any weak-injective module W and any i ≥ n.
(8) Extn+1
R (M, C) = 0 for any cotorsion module C.
(9) Extn+i
R (M, C) = 0 for any cotorsion module C and any i ≥ 1.
Proof. (3) ⇒ (2) and (9) ⇒ (8) and (7) ⇒ (6) are clear.
(1)⇒(3). It follows by Proposition 2.4.
(5)⇒(9). It follows by picking m = 0.
(5)⇒(7). It follows by picking m = 1.
(4)⇒(6). It follows by picking m = 1.
(5)⇒(3). It follows by picking m = n.
(2)⇒(4). Let 0 → N → E0 → E1 → · · · → En−m−1 → W → 0 be exact, where E0 , E1 , · · · , En−m−1
be injective. Thus W is an (n − m)-cosyzygy of N . By Theorem 2.6, W is Ln -injective. Thus
(M, N ) ∼
Extn−m+1
= Ext1R (M, W ) = 0.
R
(3)⇒(5). It is simillar to the proof of (2) ⇒ (4).
(6)⇒(8). Let 0 → C → E → W → 0 be exact, where E is injective. By Corollary 2.7, W is
n
∼
weak-injective. Hence Extn+1
R (M, C) = ExtR (M, W ) = 0.
(8)⇒(1). Let K be an n-syzygy of M . Then, for any cotorsion module C, Ext1R (K, C) ∼
=
n+1
ExtR (M, C) = 0. Hence K is flat by [21, Lemma 3.4.1]. Therefore, fdR M ≤ n.

Let R be a ring. Bass defined in [1] the left weak finitistic dimension of R as follow:
l.FFD(R) = sup{ fdR M | M is an R-module with fdR M < ∞ }.
Theorem 2.9. Let n < m be two given integers. Then the following statements are equivalent for
a ring R:
(1) l.FFD(R) ≤ n.
(2) Fm = Fn .
(3) Lm = Ln .
(4) Every Ln -injective module is Lm -injective.
Proof. (1) ⇒ (2). It is clear.
⊥
(2) ⇒ (3). It follows from the facts Lm = Fm
and Ln = Fn⊥ .

5

(3) ⇒ (4). It is trivial.
(4) ⇒ (1). It is enough that we assume m = n + 1. Let M be an R-module with fdR M = s < ∞.
If s > n, without loss of generality, we can assume s = n + 1. Hence we have Ext1R (M, W ) = 0
for any Ln -injective module W by hypothesis. And so fdR M ≤ n by Theorem 2.8, a contradiction.
Therefore, fdR M ≤ n, and hence l.FFD(R) ≤ n.

Corollary 2.10. Let n ≥ 1. Then every cotorsion R-module is Ln -injective if and only if l.FFD(R) =
0.
Proof. Pick m = 0 in Theorem 2.9.



3. The Cotorsion Theory (Fn , Ln )
The goal of this section is to show (Fn , Ln ) is a complete cotorsion theory for an arbitrary ring
R.
Definition 3.1. A right R-module D is called Ln -flat (L means Lee) if TorR
1 (D, M ) = 0 for all left
R-modules M ∈ Fn .
Clearly, flat modules are Ln -flat. In [6] Ln -flat modules are called n-torsionfree. In the following
we denote Dn the class of Ln -flat modules.
For a right R-module D, write D+ = HomZ (D, Q/Z), which is called the character module of D.
Lemma 3.2. (1) M + is pure injective for every R-module M .
(2) An R-module M is flat if and only if M + is injective.
(3) Every pure injective R-module is cotorsion.
(4) M + is cotorsion for every R-module M .
Proof. (1) and (2) by [13, Lemma 2.2].
(3) See [5, Lemma 5.3.23].
(4) It follows by (1) and (3).



Proposition 3.3. A right R-module D is Ln -flat if and only if D+ is Ln -injective.
Proof. It follows by the following standard isomorphism
1
+
+ ∼
(TorR
1 (D, M )) = ExtR (M, D ),

where M ∈ Fn .



Lemma 3.4. Let X be a right R-module. Then any n-york of X is Ln -flat.
Proof. Let 0 → D → Dn−1 → · · · → D1 → D0 → X → 0 be exact, where D0 , D1 , · · · , Dn−1
are flat. Thus (D0 )+ , (D1 )+ , · · · , (Dn−1 )+ are injective and X + is cotorsion by lemma 3.2 and
0 → X + → (D0 )+ → (D1 )+ → · · · → (Dn−1 )+ → D+ → 0 is exact. By Corollary 2.7, D+ is
Ln -injective. By Proposition 3.3, D is Ln -flat.
Theorem 3.5. Let M be an R-module. Then fdR M ≤ n if and only if TorR
1 (D, M ) = 0 for any
D ∈ Dn .

6

Proof. Suppose fdR M ≤ n. Then it is clear that TorR
1 (D, M ) = 0 for any D ∈ Dn . For the
converse, let X be a right R-module and let D be the n-th york of X. Then D is Ln -flat by Lemma
R
∼
3.4. Therefore, TorR

n+1 (X, M ) = Tor1 (Y, M ) = 0 by hypothesis. Hence fdR M ≤ n.
Let (A, B) be a cotorsion theory. Recall that (A, B) is called hereditary if whenever 0 → A →
B → C → 0 is an exact sequence with B, C ∈ A, then A is also in A; equivalently, whenever
0 → A → B → C → 0 is an exact sequence with A, B ∈ B, then C is also in B. Recall that (A, B)
is said to be complete [19] if every R-module has a special A-precover. By [19, Lemma 1.13], a
cotorsion theory (A, B) is complete if and only if every R-module has a special B-preenvelope.
Let A be a class of left R-modules and let B be a class of right R-modules. Write
⊤

A = {D ∈ MR | TorR
1 (D, M ) = 0 for any M ∈ A},

and
B ⊤ = {Y ∈ R M | TorR
1 (D, Y ) = 0 for any D ∈ B}.
If B = ⊤ A and A = B ⊤ , then the pair (A, B) is called a Tor-torsion theory.
For a class C of modules, set
SC = (⊥ C, (⊥ C)⊥ ).
Lemma 3.6. (1) If (A, B) be a Tor-torsion theory, then C := (A, A⊥ ) is a cotorsion theory.
Moreover, if we write C = {B + | B ∈ B}, then C is a subclass of the class of pure-injective modules
and SC = C.
(2) Let SC = (A, B) be a cotorsion theory. If C is a subclass of the class of pure-injective modules,
the SC is a complete cotorsion theory. Moreover, every R-module has an A-cover and a B-envelope.
Proof. See [19, Lemma 1.11& Theorem 2.8].



Theorem 3.7. (1) (Fn , Dn ) is a Tor-torsion theory.
(2) (Fn , Ln ) is a complete cotorsion theory.
(3) Every R-module has a special Fn -cover and a special Ln -envelope. Further, for any Rmodulea M and N , there are exact sequences
0→A→F →M →0

and

0 → N → W → B → 0,

(3.1)

where F is the Fn -cover, W is the Ln -envelope, B ∈ Fn , and A ∈ Ln .
Proof. (1) Clearly, Dn = ⊤ Fn . By Theorem 3.5, Fn = Dn⊤ .
(2) Clearly, Ln = Fn⊥ . Hence (Fn , Ln ) is a cotorsion theory by Lemma 3.6 (1). Moreover,
(Fn , Ln ) is a complete cotorsion theory by Lemma 3.6 (2).
(3) By Lemma 3.6 (2), M has the Fn -cover φ : F → M and N has the Ln -envelope ϕ : N → W .
Since M has a a special Fn -precover, φ is epic. Because Fn is closed under extension, A := ker(φ) ∈
Ln by [21, Lemma 2.1.1]. Hence φ : F → M is also special.
The other statement is dual to the argument above, but we need to apply [21, Lemma 2.1.2]. 
In the following we denote Fn (M ) the Fn -cover of an R-module M and Ln (N ) the Ln -envelope
of an R-module N .

7

Theorem 3.8. Let M and N be R-modules. Then the following statements are true:
(1) M is Ln -injective if and only if Fn (M ) is Ln -injective.
(2) fdR N ≤ n if and only if fdR Ln (N ) ≤ n.
Proof. It follows directly from the exact sequences in (3.1)



Corollary 3.9. Let M and N be R-modules. Then the following statements are true:
(1) M is cotorsion if and only if so is its flat cover.
(2) N is flat if and only if so is its cotorsion envelope.
Theorem 3.10. Let N ⊆ C be an extension of R-modules and C be Ln -injective. Then the following
statements are equivalent:
(1) C is an Ln -envelope of N .
T
(2) C/N ∈ Fn , and there is no submodule 0 6= A ⊆ C such that N A = 0 and C/(N + A) ∈ Fn .
Proof. (1)⇒(2). Let C be an Ln -envelope of N and i : N → C be an inclusion homomorphism.
T
C/N ∈ Fn holds by Theorem 3.7. Now, let A be a submodule of C such that A N = 0 and
B := C/(N + A) ∈ Fn . Then the natural homomorphism φ : N → C/A is monic and cok(φ) =
C/(N + A). Let L be an Ln -envelope of C/A. Then we get the following commutative diagram
with exact rows
0
0
0

/N

0

/N

φ


/ C/A


/B

/0

φ


/L


/X

/0


Y


Y



0
0
X ∈ Fn since Y, B ∈ Fn . Let π : C → C/A be a natural homomorphism and λ : C/A → L an
inclusion homomorphism. Let f : L → C be a homomorphism such that f φ = i. Then f λπ is an
isomorphism and π is monic. Hence A = 0.
(2)⇒(1). Let E be an Ln -envelope of N and λ : N → E an inclusion homomorphism. Then
D := E/N ∈ Fn . So there exist homomorphisms f : E → C, g : C → E such that f λ = i, gi = λ.
Thus (gf )λ = λ, where gf : E → E. So f g is an isomorphism and there exist homomorphism
L
T
h : E → E such that hgf = 1E . Thus C = Im(f ) ker(hg). Set A = ker(hg). Then N A = 0
and C/(N + A) ∼

= E/N ∈ Fn . By hypothesis, A = 0. Hen f : E → C is an isomorphism.
Theorem 3.11. Let n < m be two given integers. Then the following statements are equivalent for
a ring R:
(1) l.FFD(R) ≤ n.
(2) Dm = Dn .
(3) Every Ln -flat module is Lm -flat.

8

Proof. (1)⇒(2). By Theorem 2.9, Fm = Fn . Hence, by Theorem 3.7,
Dm = ⊤ Fm = ⊤ Fn = Dn .
⊤
(2)⇒(1). Fm = Dm
= Dn⊤ = Fn by applying Theorem 3.7 again.
(2)⇔(3). Clearly.



4. Ln -Injective dimensions of modules
In this section, we study the Ln -injective modules over an arbitrary ring R.
Let M be an R-module. If there exsits an exact sequence
0 → M → W0 → W1 → · · · → Wm−1 → Wm → · · ·

(4.1)

in which each Wi is Ln -injective, then this exact sequence is called an Ln -injective resolution of M .
Certainly, every R-module M has an Ln -injective resolution. If the following homomorphisms
M → W0 ,

cok(M → W0 ) → W1 ,

··· ,

cok(Wi−2 → Wi−1 ) → Wi , · · · .

(4.2)

are Ln -envelopes, then the sequence (4.1) is called a minimal Ln -injective resolution of M .
Proposition 4.1. Every R-module M has a minimal Ln -injective resolution.
Proof. By Theorem 3.7, M has an Ln -envelope W0 . Note C0 = cok(M → W0 ). Then C0 also has
an Ln -envelope W1 with C1 = cok(C0 → W1 ) also by Theorem 3.7. The resuit holds by repeating
this process.

Definition 4.2. Let M be an R-module. By the Ln -injective dimension Ln idR M of M is defined
to be the smallest integer m ≥ 0 such that the sequence 0 → M → W0 → W1 → · · · → Wm−1 →
Wm → 0 in which each Wi is Ln -injective for 0 ≤ i ≤ m is exact. If there is no such integer m, set
Ln idR M = ∞.
Example 4.3. Let M be an R-module.
(1) M is Ln -injective if and only if Ln idR M = 0.
(2) Ln idR M ≤ idR M .
(3) If m ≤ n, then Lm idR M ≤ Ln idR M since every Ln -injective module is Lm -injective.
Theorem 4.4. Let m be a nonnegative integer. The following statements are equivalent for an
R-module N :
(1) Ln idR N ≤ m.
(2) Extm+1
(M, N ) = 0 for any M ∈ Fn .
R
m+i
(3) ExtR (M, N ) = 0 for any M ∈ Fn and any i ≥ 1.
(4) If 0 → N → W0 → W1 → · · · → Wm−1 → Wm → 0 is exact, where W0 , W1 , · · · , Wm−1 are
Ln -injective, then Wm is Ln -injective.
(5) If 0 → N → W0 → W1 → · · · → Wm−1 → Wm → 0 is exact, where W0 , W1 , · · · , Wm−1 is
injective, then Wm is Ln -injective.
(6) The m-cosyzygy of N in its minimal Ln -injective resolution is Ln -injective.

9

Proof. (3)⇒(4)⇒(5)⇒(6). Trivially.
(1)⇒(2). Since Ln idR N ≤ m, there is an exact sequence 0 → N → W0 → W1 → · · · →
Wm−1 → Wm → 0 in which each Wi is Ln -injective. Therefore, for M ∈ Fn , Extm+1
(M, N ) ∼
=
R
1
ExtR (M, Wm ) = 0.
(2)⇒(3). For M ∈ Fn , there is an exact sequence 0 → K → P → M → 0 with P projective.
k−1
Then ExtkR (M, N ) ∼
(K, N ). Thus it follows by induction.
= ExtR
(6)⇒(1). Take any minimal Ln -injective resolution of M : 0 → M → E0 → E1 → · · · → Em−1 →
Lm−1 → 0 with each Ei be Ln -injective and Lm−1 be the m-th cosyzygy of M . Then the result
follows since Lm−1 is Ln -injective by hypothesis.

Proposition 4.5. Let 0 → A → W → C → 0 be an exact sequence, where W is Ln -injective.
(1) If A is Ln -injective, then so is C.
(2) If Ln idR A > 0, then Ln idR C = Ln idR A − 1.
Proof. (1) It follows by Theorem 2.6.
m+1
∼
(2) It follows from the isomorphism Extm
(M, A), where M ∈ Fn .
R (M, C) = ExtR



Proposition 4.6. Let 0 → A → B → C → 0 be an exact sequence.
(1) If two of Ln idR A, Ln idR B, and Ln idR C are finite, so is the third.
(2) If A is Ln -injective, then Ln idR B = Ln idR C.
(3) Ln idR B ≤ max{Ln idR A, Ln idR C}.
(4) Ln idR C ≤ max{Ln idR A − 1, Ln idR B}.
(5) Ln idR A ≤ max{Ln idR B, Ln idR C + 1}.
Proof. These results follow easily from the exact sequence
m+1
Extm
(M, A) → Extm+1
(M, B) → Extm+1
(M, C) → Extm+2
(M, A)
R (M, C) → ExtR
R
R
R

and applying Theorem 4.4, where M ∈ Fn .



Proposition 4.7. Let {Mi | i ∈ Γ } be a family of R-modules. Then
Q
Ln idR ( Mi ) = sup{Ln idR Mi | i ∈ Γ }.
i∈Γ

Proof. It is straightforward.



Theorem 4.8. Let N be an R-module. Then Ln idR Fn (N ) = Ln idR N .
Proof. This follows from the first exact sequence in Theorem 3.7 (3) and Proposition 4.6.



Proposition 4.9. Let N be an R-module. If idR N < ∞ and every injective R-module has the flat
dimension at most n, then Ln idR N = idR N .
Proof. Write idR N = m. Then Ln idR N ≤ m. Pick an injective R-module E such that
Extm

R (E, N ) 6= 0. As E ∈ Fn we get Ln idR N ≥ m. Hence Ln idR N = m.
Theorem 4.10. Let N be an R-module with Ln idR N = m < ∞. Then there exsits an Ln -injective
module W ∈ Fn such that Extm
R (W, N ) 6= 0.

10

Proof. Since Ln idR N = m, we pick an R-module M ∈ Fn such that Extm
R (M, N ) 6= 0. Let
0 → M → W → B → 0 be exact, where W is the Ln -injective envelope. By Theorem 3.7 B ∈ Fn .
m
m+1
By Theorem 3.8, W ∈ Fn . Since the sequence Extm
(B, N ) = 0
R (W, N ) → ExtR (M, N ) → ExtR
m
is exact, we obtain ExtR (W, N ) 6= 0.

5. Ln -Global dimensions of a ring
To characterize propoties of rings by using Ln -injectivity, we are in the position to define the
Ln -global dimension of a ring.
Definition 5.1. For a ring R, its left Ln -global dimension l.Ln dim(R) is defined by
l.Ln dim(R) = sup{Ln idR M | M is an R-module.}.
Example 5.2. For a ring R, we have:
(1) l.Ln dim(R) ≤ l.gl.dim(R).
(2) If m ≤ n, then l.Lm dim(R) ≤ l.Ln dim(R).
Example 5.3. By [13, Lemma 3.6] and [8, Corollary 6.4], a domain R is APD if and only if
L1 dim(R) ≤ 1.
Theorem 5.4. Let m be a nonnegative integer. Then the following statements are equivalent for a
ring R:
(1) l.Ln dim(R) ≤ m.
(2) Extm+i
R (M, N ) = 0 for any M ∈ Fn and N ∈ R M and for any i ≥ 1.
(3) Extm+1
(M, N ) = 0 for any M ∈ Fn and N ∈ R M.
R
m+i
(4) ExtR (M, N ) = 0 for any M, N ∈ Fn and any i ≥ 1.
(5) Extm+1
(M, N ) = 0 for any M, N ∈ Fn .
R
(6) sup{Ln idR N | N ∈ Fn } ≤ m.
(7) sup{pdR M | M ∈ Fn } ≤ m.
Proof. (2)⇒(4)⇒(5) and (3)⇒(7) are trivial.
(1)⇔(2)⇔(3). It follows from Theorem 4.4.
(5)⇒(6). Let N ∈ Fn . Then Ln idR N ≤ m by applying Theorem 4.4 again. Therefore,
sup{Ln idR N | N ∈ Fn } ≤ m.
(6)⇒(1). Let N ∈ R M. Then we have the exact sequence 0 → A → Fn (N ) → N → 0 by Theorem
3.7, where A ∈ Ln . By Proposition 4.6, Ln idR N = Ln idR Fn (N ) ≤ m. Therefore, l.Ln dim(R) ≤ m.
(7)⇒(3). Let M ∈ Fn and N ∈ R M. Since pdR M ≤ m, we have Extm+1
(M, N ) = 0.

R
Corollary 5.5. For any ring R, the following are identical:
(1) l.Ln dim(R).
(2) sup{Ln idR N | N ∈ Fn }.
(3) sup{pdR M | M ∈ Fn }.
Theorem 5.6. Let m be a nonnegative integer. If l.Ln dim(R) < ∞, then the following statements
are equivalent:

11

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

l.Ln dim(R) ≤ m.
T
sup{pdR M | M ∈ Fn Ln } ≤ m.
sup{pdR Ln (M ) | M ∈ Fn } ≤ m.
sup{pdR Fn (M ) | M ∈ Ln } ≤ m.
sup{pdR Fn (M ) | M ∈ R M} ≤ m.
sup{Ln idR M | M is projective} ≤ m.

Proof. (1)⇒(5). It follows from Theorem 5.4.
(5)⇒(4). It is trivial.
T
(4)⇒(2). For any M ∈ Fn Ln , Fn (M ) = M , and hence pdR M 6 m by hypothesis.
(2)⇒(1). Let M ∈ Fn . Because l.Ln dim(R) < ∞, by Proposition 4.7 and Theorem 3.7 there is
an exact sequence
0 → M → W0 → W1 → · · · → Wk−1 → Wk → 0

(5.1)

such that W0 , W1 , · · · , Wk−1 are Ln -envelopes of some modules with the flat dimension at most n,
T
and every Ln -cosyzygy in (5.1) is in Fn . Thus Wk ∈ Fn Ln . By hypothesis and Theorem 3.8,
pdR Wi ≤ m for i = 0, 1, · · · , k. These imply that pdR M ≤ m. Consequently, l.Ln dim(R) ≤ m by
Theorem 5.4.
T
(2)⇒(3). By Theorem 3.8, Ln (M ) ∈ Fn Ln .
T
(3)⇒(2). For any M ∈ Fn Ln , Ln (M ) = M , and hence pdR M 6 m by hypothesis.
(1)⇒(6). It is clear because every projective module is in Fn .
(6)⇒(1). Let N ∈ Fn . Since l.Ln dim(R) < ∞, pdR N < ∞ by applying Theorem 5.4. Then we
can pick a projective resolution of
0 → Pk → Pk−1 → · · · → P1 → P0 → N → 0.

(5.2)

Because Ln idR Pi ≤ m by hypothesis for i = 0, 1, · · · , k, Ln idR N ≤ m by applying repeatedly
Proposition 4.6. So l.Ln dim(R) ≤ m by Theorem 5.4.

Corollary 5.7. Let n ≤ m. The following statements are equivalent for any ring R:
(1) l.Ln dim(R) ≤ m.
(2) If fdR M ≤ n, then pdR M ≤ m.
(3) If M is a submodule of a projective module P with M ∈ Fn−1 , then pdR M ≤ m − 1.
Proof. It is easy by Theorem 5.4.



Corollary 5.8. l.Ln dim(R) ≤ n if and only if pdR M ≤ n for any M ∈ Fn .
Proof. It follows by taking m = n in Corollary 5.7.

Recall that a ring R is called left m-perfect if the projective dimension of every flat module is at
most m (see [7]). By the left global cotorsion dimension (l.cot.D(R)) introduced by Mao and Ding
[16] we have:
Corollary 5.9. [16, Corollary 19.27] A ring R is left m-perfect if and only if l.cot.D(R) ≤ m.
Proof. It follows by taking n = 0 in Corollary 5.7.



12

Theorem 5.10. Let m and k be nonnegative integers with n ≤ k and let l.Ln dim(R) ≤ m. If
M ∈ Fk , then pdR M ≤ m + k − n.
Proof. Let K be the (k − n)-th syzygy of M and let N be any R-module. Then fdR (K) ≤ n.
m+k−n+1
Hence ExtR
(M, N ) ∼
(K, N ) = 0 by Theorem 5.4. So pdR (M ) ≤ m + k − n.

= Extm+1
R
Corollary 5.11. Let k ≥ n. If w.gl.dim(R) ≤ k and l.Ln dim(R) ≤ m, then gl.dim(R) ≤ m + k − n.

6. The characterizations of rings
In this section we decide first when every Ln -injective module is injective.
Theorem 6.1. The following statements are equivalent for a ring R:
(1) w.gl.dim(R) ≤ n.
(2) Every Ln -injective module is injective.
(3) If N ∈ Ln , then fdR N ≤ n.
(4) Ext1R (M, W ) = 0 for any M, W ∈ Ln .
(5) ExtiR (M, W ) = 0 for any M, W ∈ Ln and any i ≥ 1.
(6) fdR Ln (M ) ≤ n for any M ∈ R M.
Proof. (2)⇒(5)⇒(4) and (1)⇒(6) are trivial.
(4)⇒(3). By Theorem 2.8.
(6)⇒(1). By Theorem 3.8, fdR M ≤ n. Hence w.gl.dim(R) ≤ n.
(1)⇒(2). Let M be any R-module and let W be an Ln -injective module. Then fdR M ≤ n by
hypothesis. Hence we have Ext1R (M, W ) = 0. Consequently, W is injective.
(2)⇒(1). Let M be any R-module and let W be any Ln -injective module. Because W is injective by hypothesis, Ext1R (M, W ) = 0. Therefore, fdR M ≤ n follows by Theorem 3.7, and hence
w.gl.dim(R) ≤ n.
(3)⇒(2). Let W be an Ln -injective module and let 0 → W → E → C → 0 is an exact sequence,
where E is injective. Then C is also Ln -injective. By hypothesis, fdR C ≤ n. Thus the exact
sequence is split. Consequently, W is injective.

Theorem 6.2. Let w.gl.dim(R) < ∞. Then the following statements are equivalent:
(1) w.gl.dim(R) ≤ n.
(2) Fn (W ) is injective for any W ∈ Ln .
T
(3) If W ∈ Ln Fn , then W is injective.
(4) Ln (N ) is injective for any N ∈ Fn .
Proof. (1)⇒(2). By Theorem 3.8, Fn (W ) is Ln -injective. By Theorem 6.1, Fn (W ) is injective.
(2)⇒(3). It is trival as Fn (W ) = W .
(3)⇒(1). If there is an R-module with the flat dimension large than n, then there is an R-module
M with fdR M = n + 1. Take the exact 0 → A → Fn (M ) → M → 0 as in (3.1). Then A is
Ln -injective with fdR A = n. Hence A is injective by hypothesis. Therefore, the given sequence is
split. Hence fdR M = n, a contradiction. Consequently, w.gl.dim(R) ≤ n.

13

(3)⇒(4). By Theorem 3.8, Ln (N ) ∈ Ln
(4)⇒(3). It is trival as Ln (W ) = W .

T

Fn . Hence Ln (N ) is injective by hypothesis. If k > n,


Corollary 6.3. The following statements are equivalent for a ring R:
(1) R is a Von Neumann Regular ring.
(2) Every cotorsion module N is injective.
(3) Every cotorsion module N is flat.
(4) Ext1R (M, N ) = 0 for any cotorsion modules M, N .
(5) ExtiR (M, N ) = 0 for any any cotorsion modules M, N and any i ≥ 1.
(6) The flat covers of any cotorsion module M are injective.
Proof. Take n = 0 in Theorem 6.1.

Let R be a ring. Bass defined in [1] the left finitistic projective dimension and left finitistic flat
dimension of R as follow:
l.FPD(R) = sup{pdR M | pdR M < ∞}.
l.FFD(R) = sup{fdR M | fdR M < ∞}.
Theorem 6.4. For any ring R, l.Ln dim(R) ≤ l.FPD(R). Moreover, if m = l.FPD(R) < ∞, then
l.FPD(R) = l.Ln dim(R) for ang n > m.
Proof. Let l.FPD(R) = k < ∞ and let M ∈ Fn . By [11, Proposition 6], pdR M ≤ k, and hence
Extk+1
R (M, N ) = 0. Therefore, l.Ln dim(R) ≤ k.
If m = l.FPD(R) < ∞, there exist an R-module M with m = pdR M < n. Then there exist an
R-module N such that ExtiR (M, N ) 6= 0. Hence Ln idR N ≥ m since M ∈ Fn , and l.Ln dim(R) ≥ m.
That is, l.Ln dim(R) = l.FPD(R).

A ring R is called left perfect if every R-module has projective cover, equivaently. every flat
R-module is projective. If R is commutative ring, then R is perfect if and only FPD(R) = 0 (see
[20]). By using the notion of Ln -injective modules, we can characterize left perfect rings.
Theorem 6.5. Let n ≥ 1. The following statementes are equivalent for a ring R:
(1) l.Ln dim(R) = 0, that is, every module is Ln -injective.
(2) M is projective for any M ∈ Fn .
(3) M is Ln -injective for any M ∈ Fn .
(4) Ext1R (M, N ) = 0 for any M, N ∈ Fn .
(5) ExtiR (M, N ) = 0 for any M, N ∈ Fn and i ≥ 1.
(6) Ln (M ) is projective for any M ∈ Fn .
(7) Fn (M ) is projective for any M ∈ Ln .
(8) Fn (M ) is Ln -injective for any M ∈ R M.
(9) R is left perfect and l.FFD(R) = 0.
(10) l.FPD(R) = 0.
Proof. (1) ⇔ (2) ⇔ (3) ⇔ (4) ⇔ (5) ⇔ (6) ⇔ (7). By Theorem 5.4.
(1)⇒(8) and (9) ⇔ (10). Trivial.

14

(8)⇒(1). By Theorem 4.8.
(1)⇒(9). Since every Ln -injective is cotorsion, we have that R is left perfect assertion is true by
[21, Proposition 3.3.1]. By Corollory 2.10, l.FFD(R) = 0.
(9)⇒(1). By Applying [21, Proposition 3.3.1] and Corollary 2.10 again.

Corollary 6.6. Let n ≥ 1.
(1) If l.FPD(R) = 0, then every R-module is Ln -injective.
(2) A commutative R is perfect if and only if every R-module is Ln -injective.
Proof. (1) It follows by Theorem 6.4.
(2) It is immediate from (1).



Definition 6.7. A ring R is called left Ln -hereditary if every quotient module of an Ln -injective
module is Ln -injective. In other words, l.Ln dim(R) ≤ 1.
Example 6.8. (1) Left hereditary rings are certainly Ln -hereditary for all n ≥ 0.
(2) Recall that a commtaive ring R is called almost perfect if its proper epic images are perfect.
An almost perfect domain is said simply an APD. In [18] it is shown that if R is almost perfect, then
R is either perfect or APD. By [13, Lemma 3.6] and [8, Corollary 6.4], A domain R is L1 -hereditary
if and only if R is an APD.
(3) Let R be a Noetherian domain. Then R is an APD if and only if dim(R) 6 1 by [12, Theorem
90].
(4) Let R = R1 × · · · × Rn . Then R is Ln -hereditary if and only if each Ri is Ln -hereditary.
Theorem 6.9. Let n ≥ 1. Then the following statements are equivalent for a ring R:
(1) R is Ln -hereditary.
(2) pdR M ≤ 1 for any M ∈ Fn .
(3) Ln idR M ≤ 1 for any M ∈ Fn .
(4) Every quotient module of an injective module is Ln -injective.
(5) E(M )/M is Ln -injective for any R-module M , where E(M ) is an injective envelope of M .
(6) E(M )/M is Ln -injective for any R-module M , where E(M ) is an Ln -injective envelope of
M.
(7) Every submodule N ∈ Fn−1 of a projective R-module P is projective.
Proof. (1) ⇔ (2) ⇔ (3). By Theorem 5.4.
(1)⇒(4). It is trivial.
(4)⇒(1). Let 0 → N → W0 → W1 → 0 be exact, where W0 is Ln -injective. Let E is the injective
hull of W0 and write W = E/N . Then the following is a commutative diagram with exact rows
0

/N

/ W0

/ W1

/0

0
L

/N


/E


/W

/0

Therefore, 0 → W0 → E
W1 → W → 0 is exact. By hypothesis, W is Ln -injective. By
Proposition 2.5 and Example 2.3, W1 is Ln -injective.
(1)⇒(6)⇒(5). It is trivial.

15

(5)⇒(4). Let 0 → K → E → C → 0 be exact, where E is injective. Set E(K) ⊆ E is
L
the injective envelope of K. Then there exist an R-module E0 such that E = E(K) E0 . So
L
L
C ∼
= E/K ∼
= (E(K) E0 )/K ∼
= (E(K)/K) E0 . Hence C is Ln -injective since E(K)/K is
Ln -injective by hypothesis.
(4)⇒(7). Let P be a projective R-module and N ∈ Fn−1 be a submodule of P and X be
any R-module. Then there exist exact sequences 0 → N → P → P/N → 0 with P/N ∈ Fn and
0 → X → E → C → 0 with E injective. By hypothesis, C is Ln -injective. For any α ∈ HomR (N, C),
consider the following commutative diagram with exact rows
0
0

g
/ P/N
/ N ❙❙ f / P
❋❋ ❙❙❙❙ ■■■
❋❋ ❙❙α❙ ■■
❋❋ γ❙❙❙ ■■
■$
θf ′ ❋# 
βg❙′❙❙❙
)/
/X
/E
C

/0
/0

Then there exist β ∈ HomR (P, C) such that α = βf by Proposition 2.4. So there exist γ ∈
HomR (P, E) such that γ = g ′ β since P is projective. There exist θ = γf ∈ HomR (N, E) such
that α = g ′ θ. Then HomR (N, E) → HomR (N, C) → 0 is exact. Hence N is projective since
Ext1R (N, X) = 0.
(7)⇒(1). Let W be an Ln -injective R-module and N be its submodule and A ∈ Fn . Then there
exist an sequence 0 → K → P → A → 0 with P projective and K ∈ Fn−1 . By hypothesis, K is
projective. For any α ∈ HomR (K, W/N ), consider the following commutative diagram with exact
rows
g
/A
/0
/ K ❚❚ f / P
0
●● ❚❚❚❚
●● ❚❚❚α
●●
γ❚❚❚
❚❚′ ❚)
βf ′ ●# 
g
/
/
/ W/N
/0
0
N
W
Then there exist β ∈ HomR (K, W ) such that α = g ′ β. By hypothesis, W is Ln -injective and
A ∈ Fn , then exist γ ∈ HomR (P, W ) such that β = γf by Proposition 2.4. Then HomR (P, W/N ) →
HomR (K, W/N ) → 0 is exact. Hence W/N is Ln -injective since Ext1R (A, W/N ) = 0.

Corollary 6.10. Let n ≥ 1. Let R be a commutative ring and let S be a multiplicatively closed
subset of R. If R is an Ln -hereditary ring, then so is RS .
Proof. Let M be an RS -module with fdRS M ≤ n. Then fdR M ≤ n. By Theorem 6.9, pdR M ≤ 1.

Certainly, pdRS M ≤ 1. Consequently, RS is Ln -hereditary.
Corollary 6.11. Then the following statements are equivalent for a ring R:
(1) l.L1 dim(R) ≤ 1.
(2) Every quotient module of an injective module is L1 -injective.
(3) Every flat submodule of a projective module is projective.
(4) If fdR M ≤ 1, then pdR M ≤ 1.
Theorem 6.12. Let n > 1. Then the following statements are equivalent for a ring R:
(1) l.Ln dim(R) ≤ 1.
(2) l.L2 dim(R) ≤ 1.
(3) l.FPD(R) ≤ 1.

16

(4) l.L1 dim(R) ≤ 1 and l.FFD(R) ≤ 1.
Proof. (1) ⇒ (2). It is trivial.
(2)⇒(3). Let M be an R-module with k := pdR M < ∞. If k > 1, then it is certain that there
is an R-module N with pdR N = 2. By hypothesis pdR N ≤ 1, a contradiction. So we obtain k ≤ 1,
whence l.FPD(R) ≤ 1.
(3)⇒(1). If M ∈ Fn , then pdR M < ∞ by [11, Proposition 6]. Thus pdR M ≤ 1 by hypothesis.
Hence l.Ln dim(R) ≤ 1.
(1) ⇒ (4). Certainly, l.L1 dim(R) ≤ l.Ln dim(R) ≤ 1. For any M ∈ Fn , we have fdR M ≤
pdR M ≤ 1 by Theorem 6.9. Hence F1 = Fn . By Theorem 2.9, FFD(R) ≤ 1.
(4)⇒(1). Since l.FFD(R) ≤ 1, L1 = Ln by using Theorem 2.9 again. Hence we have l.Ln dim(R) =
l.L1 dim(R) ≤ 1.

By [11, Proposition 6] and [8, Corollary 6.4], we have the following corollary:
Corollary 6.13. A domain R is an APD if and only if FPD(R) ≤ 1.
Theorem 6.14. Let n ≥ 1. Then the following statements are equivalent for a ring R:
(1) R is left hereditary.
(2) R is Ln -hereditary and w.gl.dim(R) ≤ 1.
(3) R is L1 -hereditary and w.gl.dim(R) ≤ 1.
(4) R is Ln -hereditary and w.gl.dim(R) < ∞.
(5) R is Ln -hereditary and w.gl.dim(R) ≤ n.
Proof. (1) ⇒ (2) ⇒ (3) and (2) ⇒ (4) are trival.
(3)⇒(1). By Theorem 6.1, every L1 -injective module is injective. Hence R is hereditary.
(5)⇒(1). Be similar to (3)⇒(1).
(4) ⇒ (5). It is clear for the case n = 1 by the argument above. Now we let n > 1. If
k := w.gl.dim(R) > n, then there is an M ∈ Fk . Let B be the (k − n)-syzygy of M , then fdR B 6 n.
By Theorem 6.9, fdR B ≤ pdR B ≤ 1. Hence k = fdR M ≤ k − n + 1. Thus n ≤ 1, a contradiction.
So k ≤ n, which implies w.gl.dim(R) ≤ n.

Theorem 6.15. Let R be a Noetherian domain with dim(R) ≤ 1. Then R is L2 -hereditary.
Proof. By [10], FPD(R) = dim(R) ≤ 1. Hence R is L2 -hereditary by Theorem 6.12.



7. Examples
Let M be an R-module. We say that M is torsion-free if ux = 0 implies x = 0, where u is a
non-zero-divisor of R and x ∈ M . It is well-known that a flat R-module is certainly torsion-free.
Lemma 7.1. Let R be a commutative ring and let u ∈ R be neither a zero divisor nor a unit. Set
R = R/Ru. If A be a nonzero R-module with pdR A < ∞, then pdR A = pdR A + 1.
Proof. Let k = pdR A. Because of pdR R = 1, we get pdR A 6 pdR A + 1 = k + 1 by chang Theorem
of rings. If k = 0, then we have pdR A = 1 since A is not torsion-free. Hence the assertion holds for
k = 0.

17
k
Let k > 0. By [17, Exercise 9.6] there is a free R-module F such that ExtR
(A, F/aF ) 6= 0. By
k+1
Rees Theorem (see [17, Theorem 9.37], we have ExtR (A, F ) 6= 0. Hence pdR A > k + 1. Thus we
get pdR A = k + 1.


Lemma 7.2. Let R be a domain and let J be an ideal of R generated by a regular sequence
u1 , · · · , un . Then we have:
(1) If M is a nonzero R/J-module with pdR/J M < ∞, then pdR M = pdR/J M + n.
(2) pdR R/J = n.
(3) For all k < n, ExtkR (R/J, R) = 0.
(4) For all R/J-modules M and any k < n, ExtkR (M, R) = 0.
(5) Let R be coherent and set T = ExtnR (R/J, R). Then ExtnR (T, R) ∼
= R/J. Therefore, T 6= 0.
By the way, pdR T = n.
(6) If C is a (n − 1)-cosyzygy of R, then Ext1R (R/J, Ln−1 (C)) 6= 0.
Proof. (1) Set R1 = R/(u1 ). If n = 1, the assertion holds by Lemma 7.1. Now we assume
n > 1. Then a2 , · · · , an is a regular sequence in R1 . Thus we may assume by induction that
pdR1 M = pdR/J M + (n − 1). Using Lemma 7.1 again we get pdR M = pdR1 M + 1 = pdR/J M + n.
(2) This is direct from (1) by taking M = R/J.
(3) Since R/J is a torsion module, Ext0R (R/J, R) = HomR (R/J, R) = 0 for n ≥ 1. Let n > 1.
Then Ext1R (R/J, R) = HomR1 (R/J, R1 ) = 0 by Ress Theorem. Therefore, the assertions for n = 1
and n = 2 hold. Let n > 2 and assume by induction ExtkR1 (R/J, R1 ) = 0 for k < n − 1. By Rees
k
Theorem we obtain Extk+1
R (R/J, R) = ExtR1 (R/J, R1 ) = 0.
(4) Let 0 → A → F → M → 0 be an exact sequence, where F is a free R/J-module, that is,
L
Q
F =
R/J. Thus we have ExtkR (F, R) = ExtkR (R/J, R) = 0 by (1). By induction we assume
k−1
k−1
ExtR
(A, R) = 0. From the exact sequence ExtR
(A, R) → ExtkR (M, R) = ExtkR (F, R) = 0 we
k
have ExtR (M, R) = 0.
(5) Let
0 → Pn → Pn−1 → · · · → P1 → R → R/J → 0

(7.1)

be a projective resolution of R/J in which each Pi is finitely generated. By taking the dual and
using the facts ExtkR (R/J, R) = 0 for k < n we obtain the following resolution
∗
→ Pn∗ → T → 0.
0 → R∗ → P1∗ → · · · → Pn−1

(7.2)

Note that T is an R/J-module. From (1) we have ExtkR (T, R) = 0 for k < n. By double dual we
have the following exact sequence
0 → Pn → Pn−1 → · · · → P1 → R → ExtnR (T, R) → 0.
It follows that ExtnR (T, R) ∼
= R/J.
From the resolution (7.2) and the fact ExtnR (T, R) ∼
= R/J we obtain pdR T = n.
1
n
∼
(6) Note that ExtR (R/J, C) = ExtR (R/J, R) 6= 0. Consider the exact sequence 0 → C →
Ln−1 (C) → B → 0 in (3.1). Then we have the following exact sequence
ExtnR (R/J, Ln (C)) → ExtnR (R/J, C) → Extn+1
R (R/J, B) = 0.
Hence Ext1R (R/J, Ln−1 (C)) 6= 0.



18

Example 7.3. Now we exhibit a ring R in which L0 ⊃ L1 ⊃ L2 ⊃ · · · ⊃ Ln ⊃ · · · . To do this, we
take F be a field and set R = F [x1 , x2 , · · · , xn , · · · ], where x1 , x2 , · · · , xn , · · · are indeterminates over
F . Then R is a coherent domain. For any n ≥ 1, set J = (x1 , x2 , · · · , xn ). Then ExtnR (R/J, R) 6= 0
by Lemma 7.2. Let Cn−1 be a (n − 1)-cosyzygy of R. By using Lemma 7.2 again, Ln−1 (Cn−1 ) is an
Ln−1 -injective module but not Ln -injective. Thus we are done.
Example 7.4. There is a ring R that is L1 -hereditary but not almost perfect. In fect, let D be
an APD but not a field. Then D is not perfect. Thus R = D × D is an L1 -hereditary ring and
I = (D, 0) is a nonzero ideal of R. Then D ∼
= R/I is a proper epic image of R but not perfect.
Hence R is not almost perfect.
Acknowledgements
The second author was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant
No. 11171240) and by the Research Foundation for Doctor Programme (Grant No. 20125134110001).
The fifth author was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.
11401493).

References
[1] Bass, H. (1960). Finitistic dimension and a homological generalization of semi-primary rings. Trans. Amer. Math.
Soc. 95:466–488.
[2] Bican, L., El Bashir, R., Enochs, E. E. (2001). All modules have flat covers. Bull. London Math. Soc. 33(4):385–
390.
[3] Bazzoni, S., Salce, L. (2003). Almost perfect domains. Colloq. Math. 95(2):285–301.
[4] Enochs, E. E. (1984). Flat covers and flat cotorsion modules. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 92(2):179–184.
[5] Enochs, E. E., Jenda, O. M. G. (2000). Relative homological algebra. de Gruyter Exp. Math., Vol. 30. Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter.
[6] Enochs, E. E., Huang, Z. (2012). Injective envelopes and (Gorenstein) flat covers. Algebr. Represent. Theory
15(6):1131–1145.
[7] Enochs, E. E., Jenda, O. M. G., López-Ramos, J. A. (2005). Dualizing modules and n-perfect rings. Proc. Edinb.
Math. Soc. (2) 48(1):75–90.
[8] Fuchs, L., Lee, S. B. (2009). Weak-injectivity and almost perfect domains. J. Algebra 321(1):18–27.
[9] Fuchs, L., Lee, S. B. (2010). On weak-injective modules over integral domains. J. Algebra 323(7):1872–1878.
[10] Raynaud, M., Gruson, L. (1971). Critères de platitude et de projectivité. Techniques de “platification” d’un
module. (French) Invent. Math. 13:1–89.
[11] Jensen, C. U. (1970). On the vanishing of lim(i) . J. Algebra 15:151–166.
←−
[12] Kaplansky, I. (1974). Commutative Rings (Revised edition). Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press.
[13] Lee, S. B. (2006). Weak-injective modules. Comm. Algebra 34(1):361–370.
[14] Lee, S. B. (2011). h-divisible modules over integral domains. J. Algebra 330:76–85.
[15] Mao, L., Ding, N. (2006). Relative cotorsion modules and relative flat modules. Comm. Algebra 34(6):2303–2317.
[16] Mao, L., Ding, N. (2006). The cotorsion dimension of modules and rings. Abelian groups, rings, modules, and
homological algebra, pp. 217–233. Lect. Notes Pure Appl. Math., Vol. 249. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
[17] Rotman, J. J. (1979). An introduction to homological algebra. Pure Appl. Math., Vol. 85. New York-London:
Academic Press, Inc.
[18] Salce, L. (2011). Almost perfect domains and their modules. Commutative algebra-Noetherian and nonNoetherian perspectives, pp. 363–386. New York: Springer.

References

19

[19] Trlifaj, J. (2000). Covers, Envelopes and Cotorsion Theories. Lecture Notes for the Workshop Homological
Methods in Module Theory. Cortona.
[20] Vasconcelos, W. V. (1976). The rings of dimension two. Lect. Notes Pure Appl. Math., Vol. 22. New York-Basel:
Marcel Dekker, Inc.
[21] Xu, J. (1996). Flat covers of modules. Lecture Notes in Math., Vol. 1634. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

