arXiv:1010.4386v5 [math.AC] 16 Oct 2012

ON THE HOMOLOGY OF COMPLETION AND TORSION
MARCO PORTA, LIRAN SHAUL AND AMNON YEKUTIELI
Abstract. Let A be a commutative ring, and a a weakly proregular ideal
in A. This includes the noetherian case: if A is noetherian then any ideal
in it is weakly proregular; but there are other interesting examples. In this
paper we prove the MGM equivalence, which is an equivalence between the
category of cohomologically a-adically complete complexes and the category of
cohomologically a-torsion complexes. These are triangulated subcategories of
the derived category of A-modules. Our work extends earlier work by AlonsoJeremias-Lipman, Schenzel and Dwyer-Greenlees.

Contents
0. Introduction
1. Preliminaries on Homological Algebra
2. The Derived Completion and Torsion Functors
3. Koszul Complexes and Weak Proregularity
4. The Telescope Complex
5. Permanence of Weak Proregularity
6. MGM Equivalence
7. Derived Localization
References

1
4
7
10
16
22
24
28
32

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

An element m ∈ M is called an a-torsion element if ai m = 0 for i ≫ 0. The
a-torsion elements form the a-torsion submodule Γa (M ) of M .
Let us denote by Mod A the category of A-modules. So we have additive functors
Λa , Γa : Mod A → Mod A.
Date: 31 August 2012.
Key words and phrases. Adic completion, torsion, derived functors.
Mathematics Subject Classification 2010. Primary: 13D07; Secondary: 13B35, 13C12, 13D09,
18E30.
This research was supported by the Israel Science Foundation and the Center for Advanced
Studies at BGU.
1

2

MARCO PORTA, LIRAN SHAUL AND AMNON YEKUTIELI

The functor Γa is left exact; whereas Λa is neither left exact nor right exact. (Of
course when A is noetherian, the completion functor Λa is exact on the subcategory
Modf A of ﬁnitely generated modules.) In this paper we study several questions of
homological nature about these two functors.
The derived category of Mod A is denoted by D(Mod A). As explained in Section
1, the derived functors
LΛa , RΓa : D(Mod A) → D(Mod A)

exist. The left derived functor LΛa is constructed using K-projective resolutions,
and the right derived functor RΓa is constructed using K-injective resolutions.
The functor RΓa has been studied in great length already in the 1950’s, by
Grothendieck and others (in the context of local cohomology).
The left derived functors Li Λa were studied by Matlis [Ma2] and GreenleesMay [GM]. The ﬁrst treatment of the total left derived functor LΛa was in the
paper [AJL1] by Alonso-Jeremias-Lipman from 1997. In this paper the authors
established the Greenlees-May Duality, which we ﬁnd deep and remarkable. The
setting in [AJL1] is geometric: the completion of a non-noetherian scheme along
a proregularly embedded closed subset. However, certain aspects of the theory
remained unclear (see Remarks 4.28 and 6.14). One of our aims in this paper is to
clarify the foundations of the theory in the algebraic setting. We also extend the
scope of the existing results.
Two other, much more recent papers also inﬂuenced our work. In the paper [KS2]
of Kashiwara-Schapira there is a part devoted to what they call cohomologically
complete complexes. We wondered what might be the relation between this notion
and the derived completion functor LΛa . The answer we discovered is Theorem 0.4
below.
The paper [Ef] by Eﬁmov describes an operation of completion by derived double
centralizer. This idea is attributed to Kontsevich. A similar results was obtained in
[DGI]. Our interpretation of this completion operation is in the companion paper
[PSY1], and it relies on the work in this paper.
Let us turn to the results in our paper. We work in the following context: A
is a commutative ring, and a is a weakly proregular ideal in it. By deﬁnition an
ideal is weakly proregular if it can be generated by a weakly proregular sequence
a = (a1 , . . . , an ) of elements of A. The deﬁnition of proregularity for sequences is
a bit technical (see Deﬁnition 3.21).
It is important to know that if a is a weakly proregular ideal in A, then any ﬁnite
sequence that generates a is weakly proregular. If A is noetherian then every ﬁnite
sequence in A is weakly proregular, so that every ideal in A is weakly proregular.
These results were already proved in [AJL1] and [Sc]. We provide short proofs for
the beneﬁt of the reader (see Corollary 5.3 and Theorem 3.34 in the body of the
paper). We also give a fairly natural example of a weakly proregular sequence in a
non-noetherian ring (Example 3.35).
A complex M ∈ D(Mod A) is called a cohomologically a-torsion complex if
the canonical morphism RΓa (M ) → M is an isomorphism. The complex M is
called a cohomologically a-adically complete complex if the canonical morphism
M → LΛa (M ) is an isomorphism. We denote by D(Mod A)a-tor and D(Mod A)a-com
the full subcategories of D(Mod A) consisting of cohomologically a-torsion complexes and cohomologically a-adically complete complexes, respectively. These are
triangulated subcategories.

ON THE HOMOLOGY OF COMPLETION AND TORSION

3

Here is the main result of our paper.
Theorem 0.1 (MGM Equivalence). Let A be a commutative ring, and a a weakly
proregular ideal in it.
(1) For any M ∈ D(Mod A) one has RΓa (M ) ∈ D(Mod A)a-tor and LΛa (M ) ∈
D(Mod A)a-com .
(2) The functor
RΓa : D(Mod A)a-com → D(Mod A)a-tor

is an equivalence, with quasi-inverse LΛa .

This is repeated as Theorem 6.11 in the body of the paper. The letters “MGM”
stand for Matlis, Greenlees and May.
Similar results can be found in [AJL1, Sc, DG], and possibly some weaker version
of Theorem 0.1 can be deduced from these results. But as far as we can tell, Theorem 0.1 is new. See Remarks 4.28 and 6.14 for a discussion. The main ingredient
in the proof of the MGM equivalence is Theorem 0.2 below.
Given a ﬁnite sequence a that generates a, we construct explicitly a complex
Tel(A; a), called the telescope complex. It is a bounded complex of countable rank
free A-modules. There is a functorial homomorphism of complexes (also with explicit formula)

tela,M : HomA Tel(A; a), M → Λa (M )
for any M ∈ Mod A. By totalization we get a homomorphism tela,M for any
M ∈ C(Mod A). See Deﬁnitions 4.1 and 4.16.
Theorem 0.2. Let A be a commutative ring, let a be a weakly proregular sequence
in A, and let a be the ideal generated by a. If P is a K-flat complex of A-modules,
then the homomorphism

tela,P : HomA Tel(A; a), P → Λa (P )
is a quasi-isomorphism.

This is Corollary 4.23 in the body of the paper. The concept of telescope complex
is not new of course, but our treatment appears to be quite diﬀerent from anything
we saw in the literature.
Along the way we also prove that the functors RΓa and LΛa have ﬁnite cohomological dimensions. (An upper bound is the minimal length of a sequence that
generates the ideal a.) This implies that
(0.3)

D(Mod A)a-tor = Da-tor (Mod A),

the latter being the subcategory of D(Mod A) consisting of complexes with atorsion cohomology modules (see Corollary 3.32). Note that such a statement for
D(Mod A)a-com is false: in Example 3.33 we exhibit a cohomologically a-adically
complete complex P such that Hi (P ) = 0 for all i 6= 0, and the module H0 (P ) is
not a-adically complete.
Let a = (a1 , . . . , an ) be a generating sequence for the ideal a. In Section 7
we construct a noncommutative DG A-algebra C(A; a), which we call the derived
localization of A with respect to a. When n = 1 (we refer to this as the principal
case, since the ideal a is principal) then C(A; a) = A[a−1
1 ], the usual localization.
For n > 1 the construction uses the Čech cosimplicial algebra and the AlexanderWhitney multiplication.

4

MARCO PORTA, LIRAN SHAUL AND AMNON YEKUTIELI

Theorem 0.4. Let A be a commutative ring, a a weakly proregular sequence in
A, and a the ideal generated by a. The following conditions are equivalent for
M ∈ D(Mod A):
(i) M is cohomologically a-adically complete.
(ii) RHomA C(A; a), M = 0.

This is Theorem 7.8 in the body of the paper. The principal regular case (n = 1
and a1 a non-zero-divisor) was considered by Kashiwara-Schapira in [KS2]. Indeed,
in [KS2] condition (ii) was used as the deﬁnition of cohomologically complete complexes. After hearing about the results of [KS2], we wondered whether they hold
in greater generality (for n > 1 and no regularity assumption on the sequence a).
More in this direction can be found in the companion paper [PSY2].
Acknowledgments. We wish to thank Bernhard Keller, John Greenlees, Joseph
Lipman, Ana Jeremias, Leo Alonso and Peter Schenzel for helpful discussions.
Thanks also to the referee for his/her comments on improving the paper.
1. Preliminaries on Homological Algebra
This paper relies on delicate work with derived functors. Therefore we begin
with a review of some facts on homological algebra. There are also a few new
results. By default all rings considered in the paper are commutative.
Let M be an abelian category. As in [RD] we denote by C(M) the category of
complexes of objects of M, by K(M) its homotopy category, and by D(M) the derived
category. There are full subcategories D− (M), D+ (M) and Db (M) of D(M), whose
objects are the bounded above, bounded below and bounded complexes respectively.
β
α
Our notation for distinguished triangles in K(M) or D(M) is either L −
→M −
→
γ
△
N −
→ L[1], or simply L → M → N −
→ if the names of the morphisms are not
important.
A complex P ∈ C(M) is called K-projective if for any acyclic complex N ∈ C(M)
the complex HomM (P, N ) is also acyclic. A complex I ∈ C(M) is called K-injective
if for any acyclic complex N ∈ C(M) the complex HomM (N, I) is also acyclic.
These deﬁnitions were introduced in [Sp]; in [Ke, Section 3] it is shown that “Kprojective” is the same as “having property (P)”, and “K-injective” is the same as
“having property (I)”.
A K-projective resolution of M ∈ C(M) is a quasi-isomorphism P → M in C(M)
with P a K-projective complex. If every M ∈ C(M) admits some K-projective
resolution, then we say that C(M) has enough K-projectives. Similarly for Kinjectives.
Now we specialize to the case M := Mod A, where A is a ring. A complex
P ∈ C(Mod A) is called K-flat if for any acyclic complex N ∈ C(Mod A) the complex
N ⊗A P is also acyclic. Note that a K-projective complex P is K-ﬂat.
Here is a useful existence result.
Proposition 1.1. Let A be a ring, and let M ∈ C(Mod A).

(1) The complex M admits a quasi-isomorphism P → M , where P is a Kprojective complex, and moreover each component P i is a free A-module.
(2) The complex M admits a quasi-isomorphism P → M , where P is a K-flat
complex, and moreover each component P i is a flat A-module.

ON THE HOMOLOGY OF COMPLETION AND TORSION

5

(3) The complex M admits a quasi-isomorphism M → I, where I is a Kinjective complex, and moreover each component I i is an injective
A-module.
Proof. (1) This is proved in [Ke, Subsection 3.1], when discussing the existence of
P-resolutions. Cf. [Sp, Corollary 3.5].
(2) This follows from (1), since any K-projective complex is also K-ﬂat.
(3) See [Ke, Subsection 3.2]. Cf. [Sp, Proposition 3.11].



In particular, the proposition says that C(Mod A) has enough K-projectives, Kﬂats and K-injectives.
Remark 1.2. Let (X, A) be a ringed space, and let Mod A be the category of
sheaves of A-modules. It is known that C(Mod A) has enough K-injectives and
enough K-ﬂats; but their structure is more complicated than in the case of
C(Mod A), and Proposition 1.1 might not hold.
Here are a few facts about K-projective and K-injective resolutions, compiled
from [Sp, BN, Ke]. The ﬁrst are: a bounded above complex of projectives is Kprojective, a bounded above complex of ﬂats is K-ﬂat, and a bounded below complex
of injectives is K-injective.
Once again M is an abelian category. Let E be some triangulated category, and
let F : K(M) → E be a triangulated functor. If C(M) has enough K-projectives,
then the left derived functor (LF, ξ) : D(M) → E exists, and it is calculated by
K-projective resolutions. Likewise, if K(M) has enough K-injectives, then the right
derived functor (RF, ξ) : D(M) → E exists, and it is calculated by K-injective
resolutions.
Let M = {M i }i∈Z be a graded object of M. We deﬁne
inf(M ) := inf {i | M i 6= 0} ∈ Z ∪ {±∞}

(1.3)
and

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

(1.4)

The amplitude of M is
(1.5)

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

(For M = 0 this reads inf(M ) = ∞, sup(M ) = −∞ and amp(M ) = −∞.) Thus
M is bounded iﬀ amp(M ) < ∞.
For M ∈ D(M) we write H(M ) := {Hi (M )}i∈Z .

Definition 1.6. Let M and M′ be abelian categories, and let F : D(M) → D(M′ ) be
a triangulated functor. Let E ⊂ D(M) be a full additive subcategory (not necessarily
triangulated), and consider the restricted functor F |E : E → D(M′ ).
(1) We say that F |E has finite cohomological dimension if there exist some
n ∈ N and s ∈ Z such that for every complex M ∈ E one has


sup H(F (M )) ≤ sup H(M ) + s
and



inf H(F (M )) ≥ inf H(M ) + s − n.

The smallest such number n is called the cohomological dimension of F |E .

6

MARCO PORTA, LIRAN SHAUL AND AMNON YEKUTIELI

(2) If no such n and s exist then we say F |E has infinite cohomological dimension.
The number s appearing in the deﬁnition represents the shift. (An easy calculation shows that if F |E is nonzero and has ﬁnite cohomological dimension n, then
the shift s in the deﬁnition is unique.)
If the functor F has ﬁnite cohomological dimension, then it is a way-out functor
in both directions, in the sense of [RD, Section I.7]. We will use this fact several
times.
Example 1.7. Take a nonzero ring A, and let P := A[1] ⊕ A[2], a complex with
zero diﬀerential concentrated in degrees −1 and −2. The functor F := P ⊗A − has
cohomological dimension n = 1, with shift s = −1.
Proposition 1.8. Let M, M′ and M′′ be abelian categories, and let F : D(M) →
D(M′ ) and F ′ : D(M′ ) → D(M′′ ) be triangulated functors. Assume the cohomological dimensions of F and F ′ are n and n′ respectively. Then the cohomological
dimension of F ′ ◦ F is at most n + n′ .

We leave out the easy proof.
Here is a useful criterion for quasi-isomorphisms (a variant of the way-out argument). For i, j ∈ Z let C[i,j] (M) be the full subcategory of C(M) whose objects are
the complexes concentrated in the degree range [i, j] := {i, i + 1, . . . , j}.
Proposition 1.9. Let M and M′ be abelian categories, let F, G : M → C(M′ ) be
additive functors, and let η : F → G be a natural transformation. Assume M′ has
countable direct sums, and consider the extensions F, G : C(M) → C(M′ ) by the
direct sum totalization. Suppose M ∈ C(M) satisfies these two conditions:

(i) There are j0 , j1 ∈ Z such that F (M i ), G(M i ) ∈ C[j0 ,j1 ] (M′ ) for every i ∈ Z.
(ii) The homomorphism ηM i : F (M i ) → G(M i ) is a quasi-isomorphism for
every i ∈ Z.
Then ηM : F (M ) → G(M ) is a quasi-isomorphism.
Proof. Step 1. Assume that M is bounded. We prove that ηM is a quasi-isomorphism by induction on amp(M ). If amp(M ) = 0 then this is given. The
inductive step is done using the stupid truncation functors
(1.10)

stt>i (M ), stt≤i (M ) : C(M) → C(M),

and the related short exact sequences. See [RD, pages 69-70], where the truncations
stt>i (M ) and stt≤i (M ) are denoted by τ>i (M ) and τ≤i (M ) respectively.
Step 2. Now M is arbitrary. We have to prove that Hi (ηM ) : Hi (F (M )) →
Hi (G(M )) is an isomorphism for every i ∈ Z. For any i ≤ j there is the double
truncation functor stt[i,j] := stt≤j ◦ stt>i . So let us ﬁx i. The homomorphism
Hi (ηM ) in M′ only depends on the homomorphism of complexes
stt[i−1,i+1] (ηM ) : stt[i−1,i+1] (F (M )) → stt[i−1,i+1] (G(M )).

Therefore we can replace ηM with ηM ′ : F (M ′ ) → G(M ′ ), where
M ′ := stt[j0 +i−1,j1 +i+1] (M ).

But M ′ is bounded, so by part (1) the homomorphism ηM ′ is a quasi-isomorphism.


ON THE HOMOLOGY OF COMPLETION AND TORSION

7

To end this section, here is a basic result we need, that we could not locate in
the literature (but that was used implicitly in [Sc]).
Proposition 1.11. Let M and N be abelian categories, let F : M → N be an exact
additive covariant functor, and let G : M → N be an exact additive contravariant
functor. Then for any M ∈ C(M) there are isomorphisms Hk (F (M )) ∼
= F (Hk (M ))
k
G(H
(M
))
in
N.
Moreover,
these
isomorphisms
are
functorial
and H−k (G(M )) ∼
=
in M , F and G.
Proof. These are very degenerate cases of Grothendieck spectral sequences. Here
is a direct proof. We use the notation Zk (M ) := Ker(d : M k → M k+1 ), which is
the object of k-cocycles of M , and Yk (M ) := Coker(d : M k−1 → M k ), which does
not have a name. There are functorial isomorphisms


Hk (M ) ∼
= Coker d : M k−1 → Zk (M ) ∼
= Ker d : Yk (M ) → M k+1 .

For any additive functor F : M → N (not necessarily exact) there is an obvious morphism α : F (Zk (M )) → Zk (F (M )), and it induces a morphism ᾱ :
F (Hk (M )) → Hk (F (M )). An easy calculation shows that when F is exact, the
morphisms α and ᾱ are isomorphisms.
Given a contravariant additive functor G : M → N, there is a morphism (slightly
less obvious than α, because of the change in direction) β : G(Yk (M )) →
Z−k (G(M )). This induces a morphism β̄ : G(Hk (M )) → H−k (G(M )). When
G is exact, the morphisms β and β̄ are isomorphisms.

Corollary 1.12. Let A be a ring, M a complex of A-modules, P a flat A-module,
and I and injective A-module. There are isomorphisms
Hk (M ⊗A P ) ∼
= Hk (M ) ⊗A P
and

H−k (HomA (M, I)) ∼
= HomA (Hk (M ), I),
functorial in M, P and I.
Proof. Take F (M ) := M ⊗A P and G(M ) := HomA (M, I), and use the proposition
above. (These are degenerate cases of the Künneth Theorems.)

2. The Derived Completion and Torsion Functors
In this section A is a commutative ring, and a is an ideal in it. We do not assume
that a is ﬁnitely generated or that A is a-adically complete.
For any i ∈ N let Ai := A/ai+1 . The collection of rings {Ai }i∈N forms an inverse
system. Following [GM, AJL1], for an A-module M we write
(2.1)

Λa (M ) := lim (Ai ⊗A M )
←i

for the a-adic completion of M , although we sometimes use the more conventional
c. We get an additive functor Λa : Mod A →
(yet possibly ambiguous) notation M
Mod A. Recall that there is a functorial homomorphism
(2.2)

τM : M → Λa (M )

for M ∈ Mod A, coming from the homomorphisms M → Ai ⊗A M . The module
M is called a-adically complete if τM is an isomorphism. (Some texts, such as [Bo],
would say that M is separated and complete). As customary, when M is complete
we usually identify M with Λa (M ) via τM .

8

MARCO PORTA, LIRAN SHAUL AND AMNON YEKUTIELI

If the ideal a is ﬁnitely generated, then the functor Λa is idempotent, in the sense
that the homomorphism
τΛa (M) : Λa (M ) → Λa (Λa (M ))

is an isomorphism for every module M (see [Ye2, Corollary 3.6]).
b := Λa (A). Then A
b is a ring, and τA : A → A
b is a ring homomorphism.
Let A
b
If A is noetherian then A is also noetherian, and ﬂat over A. One can view the
b But in this paper we shall usually
completion as a functor Λa : Mod A → Mod A.
ignore this.

Remark 2.3. The full subcategory of Mod A consisting of a-adically complete
modules is additive, but not abelian in general.
It is well known that when A is noetherian, the completion functor Λa is exact
on Modf A, the category of ﬁnitely generated modules. However, on Mod A the
functor Λa is neither left exact nor right exact, even in the noetherian case (see
[Ye2, Examples 3.19 and 3.20]).
b is ﬂat over A. Still, if a is ﬁnitely
When A is not noetherian, we do not know if A
b ⊂ A,
b then A
b is b
generated, and we let b
a := Aa
a-adically complete; this follows from
[Ye2, Corollary 3.6].
If the ideal a is not ﬁnitely generated, things are even worse: the functor Λa can
fail to be idempotent; i.e. the completion Λa (M ) of a module M could fail to be
complete. See [Ye2, Example 1.8].
As for any additive functor, the functor Λa has a left derived functor
(2.4)

LΛa : D(Mod A) → D(Mod A) , ξ : LΛa → Λa

constructed using K-projective resolutions.
The next result was proved in [AJL1]. Since this is so fundamental, we chose to
reproduce the easy proof.
Lemma 2.5 ([AJL1]). Let P be an acyclic K-flat complex of A-modules. Then the
complex Λa (P ) is also acyclic.
Proof. Since P is both acyclic and K-ﬂat, for any i we have an acyclic complex
Ai ⊗A P . The collection of complexes {Ai ⊗A P }i∈N is an inverse system, and
the homomorphism Ai+1 ⊗A P j → Ai ⊗A P j is surjective for every i and j. But
Λa (P j ) = lim←i (Ai ⊗A P j ). By the Mittag-Leﬄer argument (see [KS1, Proposition
1.12.4] or [We, Theorem 3.5.8]) the complex Λa (P ) is acyclic.

Proposition 2.6. If P is a K-flat complex then the morphism ξP : LΛa (P ) →
Λa (P ) in D(Mod A) is an isomorphism. Thus we can calculate LΛa using K-flat
resolutions.
Proof. This is immediate from Lemma 2.5; cf. [RD, Theorem I.5.1].



L
Proposition 2.7 ([AJL1]). Let M ∈ D(Mod A). There is a morphism τM
:M →
L
LΛa (M ) in D(Mod A), functorial in M , such that ξM ◦ τM = τM as morphisms
M → Λa (M ).

Proof. Given M ∈ D(Mod A) let us choose a K-projective resolution φ : P → M .
Since φ and ξP are isomorphisms in D(Mod A), we can deﬁne
L
τM
:= LΛa (φ) ◦ ξP−1 ◦ τP ◦ φ−1 : M → LΛa (M ).

L
This is independent of the the chosen resolution φ, and satisﬁes ξM ◦ τM = τM
. 

ON THE HOMOLOGY OF COMPLETION AND TORSION

9

Definition 2.8.
(1) A complex M ∈ D(Mod A) is called a-adically cohomologL
ically complete if the morphism τM
: M → LΛa (M ) is an isomorphism.
(2) The full subcategory of D(Mod A) consisting of a-adically cohomologically
complete complexes is denoted by D(Mod A)a-com .
It is clear that the subcategory D(Mod A)a-com is triangulated.
The notion of cohomologically complete complex is quite illusive. See Example
3.33 .
For an A-module M and i ∈ N we identify HomA (Ai , M ) with the submodule
{m ∈ M | ai+1 m = 0} ⊂ M.
The a-torsion submodule of M is
Γa (M ) :=

[

i∈N

HomA (Ai , M ) ⊂ M.

The module M is called an a-torsion module if Γa (M ) = M . We denote by
Moda-tor A the full subcategory of Mod A consisting of a-torsion modules.
We get an additive functor Γa : Mod A → Mod A. In fact this is a left exact
functor. There is a functorial homomorphism σM : Γa (M ) → M which is just the
inclusion. The functor Γa is idempotent, in the sense that σΓa (M) : Γa (Γa (M )) →
Γa (M ) is bijective.
Like every additive functor, the functor Γa has a right derived functor
(2.9)

RΓa : D(Mod A) → D(Mod A) , ξ : Γa → RΓa

constructed using K-injective resolutions.
R
Proposition 2.10. There is a functorial morphism σM
: RΓa (M ) → M , such that
R
σM = σM ◦ ξM as morphisms Γa (M ) → M in D(Mod A).

Proof. Choose a K-injective resolution φ : M → I, and deﬁne
R
σM
:= φ−1 ◦ σI ◦ ξI−1 ◦ RΓa (φ).

This is independent of the resolution.



Definition 2.11.
(1) A complex M ∈ D(Mod A) is called cohomologically aR
torsion if the morphism σM
: RΓa (M ) → M is an isomorphism.
(2) The full subcategory of D(Mod A) consisting of cohomologically a-torsion
complexes is denoted by D(Mod A)a-tor .
(3) We denote by Da-tor (Mod A) the full subcategory of D(Mod A) consisting
of the complexes whose cohomology modules are in Moda-tor A.
It is clear that the subcategory D(Mod A)a-tor is triangulated.
Since Moda-tor A is a thick abelian subcategory of Mod A, it follows that
Da-tor (Mod A) is a triangulated category. Note that Γa (I) ∈ Da-tor (Mod A) for
any K-injective complex I. Therefore
(2.12)

D(Mod A)a-tors ⊂ Da-tor (Mod A).

Later (in Corollary 3.32) we shall see that there is equality in (2.12) under some
extra assumption.

10

MARCO PORTA, LIRAN SHAUL AND AMNON YEKUTIELI

3. Koszul Complexes and Weak Proregularity
In this section we deﬁne weakly proregular sequences. We also set up notation to
be used later. The deﬁnitions and most of the results in this section are contained
in [AJL1] and [Sc]. We have included our own short proofs, for the beneﬁt of the
reader. We also give a new motivating example at the end.
Let A be a commutative ring (not necessarily noetherian). Recall that for an
element a ∈ A the Koszul complex K(A; a) is the complex

a·
(3.1)
K(A; a) := · · · → 0 → A −→ A → 0 → · · ·

concentrated in degrees −1 and 0. Now let a = (a1 , . . . , an ) be a sequence of
elements of A. The Koszul complex associated to a is the complex of A-modules
(3.2)

K(A; a) := K(A; a1 ) ⊗A · · · ⊗A K(A; an ).
Observe that K(A; a)0 ∼
= A, and K(A; a)−1 is a free A-module of rank n. Moreover,
K(A; a) is a super-commutative DG algebra: as a graded algebra it is the exterior
algebra over A of the module K(A; a)−1 . There is a DG algebra homomorphism
(3.3)

ea : A → K(A; a).

Let us denote by (a) the ideal generated by the sequence a, so that
A/(a) ∼
= A/(a1 ) ⊗A · · · ⊗A A/(an )

as A-algebras. There is an A-algebra isomorphism
(3.4)
H0 (K(A; a)) ∼
= A/(a).

For any j ≥ i in N there is a homomorphism of complexes
pa,j,i : K(A; aj ) → K(A; ai ),

(3.5)

which is the identity in degree 0, and multiplication by aj−i in degree −1. This
operation makes sense also for sequences: given a sequence a as above, let us write
ai := (ai1 , . . . , ain ). There is a homomorphism of complexes
pa,j,i : K(A; aj ) → K(A; ai ) , pa,j,i := pa1 ,j,i ⊗ · · · ⊗ pan ,j,i .

(3.6)

In fact pa,j,i is a homomorphism of DG algebras, and H0 (pa,j,i ) corresponds via
(3.4) to the canonical surjection A/(aj ) → A/(ai ). The homomorphisms

(3.7)



Hk (pa,j,i ) : Hk (K(A; aj )) → Hk (K(A; ai ))

make Hk (K(A; ai )) i∈N into an inverse system of A-modules.
Let P be a ﬁnite rank free A-module. We shall often write P ∨ := HomA (P, A).
Given any A-module M , there is an isomorphism
(3.8)
HomA (P, M ) ∼
= P ∨ ⊗A M,

functorial in M and P .
The dual Koszul complex associated to the sequence a = (a1 , . . . , an ) is the
complex

(3.9)
K∨ (A; a) := HomA K(A; a), A .

This is complex of ﬁnite rank free A-modules, concentrated in degrees 0, . . . , n.
Indeed, for a single element a there is a canonical isomorphism of complexes

a·
(3.10)
K∨ (A; a) ∼
= · · · → 0 → A −→ A → 0 → · · ·

ON THE HOMOLOGY OF COMPLETION AND TORSION

11

with A sitting in degrees 0 and 1. And for the sequence we have
∼ K∨ (A; a1 ) ⊗A · · · ⊗A K∨ (A; an ).
K∨ (A; a) =

The dual e∨
a := Hom(ea , 1A ) of ea is a homomorphism of complexes
∨
e∨
a : K (A; a) → A.

(3.11)

For any j ≥ i in N there is a homomorphism of complexes
∨
∨
i
j
p∨
a,j,i : K (A; a ) → K (A; a ),

(3.12)

which
from dualizing the homomorphism (3.6). In this way the collection
 ∨ comes
K (A; ai ) i∈N becomes a direct system of complexes. The infinite dual Koszul
complex associated to a sequence a in A is the complex of A-modules
∨
i
K∨
∞ (A; a) := lim K (A; a ).

(3.13)

i→

For a single element a ∈ A the inﬁnite dual Koszul complex looks like this: there
is a canonical isomorphism

(3.14)
K∨ (A; a) ∼
→ A[a−1 ] → 0 → · · ·
= ··· → 0 → A −
∞

where A is in degree 0, A[a−1 ] is in degree 1, and the diﬀerential A → A[a−1 ] is
the ring homomorphism. For a sequence we have
(3.15)
K∨ (A; a) ∼
= K∨ (A; a1 ) ⊗A · · · ⊗A K∨ (A; an ).
∞

∞

∞

Thus K∨
∞ (A; a) is a complex of ﬂat A-modules concentrated in degrees 0, . . . , n.
Let us write
(3.16)

∨
i
∨
∨
e∨
a,i : K (A; a ) → A , ea,i := eai ,

∨
where e∨
ai is from (3.11). The homomorphisms ea,i respect the direct system, and
in the limit we get

(3.17)

∨
∨
∨
e∨
a,∞ : K∞ (A; a) → A , ea,∞ := lim ea,i .
i→

Let a be the ideal in A generated by the sequence a = (a1 , . . . , an ). From
equations (3.14) and (3.15) we see that

∼
(3.18)
H0 K∨
∞ (A; a) ⊗A M = Γa (M )

for any M ∈ Mod A. This gives rise to a functorial homomorphism of complexes
(3.19)

that satisﬁes
(3.20)

va,M : Γa (M ) → K∨
∞ (A; a) ⊗A M
(e∨
a,∞ ⊗ 1M ) ◦ va,M = σM

as homomorphisms Γa (M ) → M .
An inverse system {Mi }i∈N of abelian groups, with transition maps pj,i : Mj →
Mi , is called pro-zero if for every i there exists j ≥ i such that pj,i is zero. (This is
the name used in [Sc].) We shall use the fact that a pro-zero inverse system satisﬁes
the Mittag-Leﬄer condition. See [We, Deﬁnition 3.5.6], where the condition “prozero” is called the “trivial Mittag-Leﬄer” condition.
Definition 3.21.
(1) Let a be a ﬁnite sequence in a ring A. The sequence a
is
called
a
weakly
proregular sequence if for every k < 0 the inverse system
 k
H (K(A; ai )) i∈N (see (3.7)) is pro-zero.

12

MARCO PORTA, LIRAN SHAUL AND AMNON YEKUTIELI

(2) An ideal a in a ring A is called a a weakly proregular ideal if it is generated
by some weakly proregular sequence.
This deﬁnition comes from [AJL1, Correction]. The etymology and history of
related concepts are explained in [AJL1] and [Sc].

Example 3.22. A regular sequence a is weakly proregular, since Hk K(A; ai ) = 0
for all i > 0 and k < 0.
Lemma 3.23. Let {Mi }i∈N be an inverse system of A-modules. The following
conditions are equivalent:
(i) The system {Mi }i∈N is pro-zero.
(ii) For every injective A-module I, limi→ HomA (Mi , I) = 0.
Proof. The implication (i) ⇒ (ii) is trivial. For the other direction, take any i ∈ N,
and choose an embedding φ : Mi ֒→ I for some injective module I. So φ is an
element of HomA (Mi , I). Since the limit is zero, there is some j ≥ i such that
φ ◦ pj,i = 0. Here pj,i : Mj → Mi is the transition map. This implies that
pj,i = 0.

Theorem 3.24. Let a be a finite sequence in a ring A. The following conditions
are equivalent:
(i) The sequence a is weakly proregular.
(ii) For any injective module I and any k > 0 the A-module Hk (K∨
∞ (A; a)⊗A I)
is zero.
Proof. Take any injective A-module I. We get isomorphisms:

 ♦ k
∨
j
∼
Hk K∨
∞ (A; a) ⊗A I = H lim K (A; a ) ⊗A I
j→
 △

∨
♦
k
j
k
j
∼
∼
lim
H
K
(A;
a
)
⊗
=
A I = lim H HomA K(A; a ), I
j→
j→
 
j
−k
♥
∼
K(A; a ) , I .
= lim HomA H
j→

The isomorphisms marked ♦ are because direct limits commute with tensor products and cohomology; the isomorphism △ is by (3.8); and the isomorphism marked
♥ is due to Corollary 1.12. By Lemma 3.23 the vanishing of this last limit for every
k > 0 is equivalent to weak proregularity.

Corollary 3.25. Let a be a weakly proregular sequence in A, a the ideal generated
by a, and I a K-injective complex in C(Mod A). Then the homomorphism
is a quasi-isomorphism.

va,I : Γa (I) → K∨
∞ (A; a) ⊗A I

Proof. By Proposition 1.1(2) we can ﬁnd a quasi-isomorphism I → J, where J is
K-injective and every A-module J i is injective. Consider the commutative diagram
Γa (I)

Γa (J)

va,I

// K∨
∞ (A; a) ⊗A I

va,J


// K∨
∞ (A; a) ⊗A J

in C(Mod A). The vertical arrows are quasi-isomorphisms (for instance because I →
J is a homotopy equivalence). It suﬃces to prove that va,J is a quasi-isomorphism.

ON THE HOMOLOGY OF COMPLETION AND TORSION

13

Let us write F (M ) := Γa (M ) and G(M ) := K∨
∞ (A; a) ⊗A M for M ∈ Mod A.
We need to show that va,J : F (J) → G(J) is a quasi-isomorphism. By Proposition
1.9 we may assume that J is a single injective module. In this case we know that
H0 (va,J ) is bijective; see (3.18). Theorem 3.24 implies that Hk (va,J ) is bijective for
k > 0. And of course


Hk Γa (J) = Hk K∨
∞ (A; a) ⊗A J = 0

for all k < 0. Hence va,J is a quasi-isomorphism.



Corollary 3.26. Let a be a weakly proregular sequence in A, and a the ideal generated by a. For any M ∈ D(Mod A) there is an isomorphism
R
va,M
: RΓa (M ) → K∨
∞ (A; a) ⊗A M

R
in D(Mod A). The isomorphism va,M
is functorial in M , and satisfies
R
R
(e∨
a,∞ ⊗ 1M ) ◦ va,M = σM

as morphisms RΓa (M ) → M .

R
Proof. It is enough to consider a K-injective complex M = I. We deﬁne va,I
:= va,I
R
as in (3.19). Due to equation (3.20) the morphism va,I satisﬁes the parallel derived
R
equation. By Corollary 3.25 the morphism va,I
is an isomorphism in D(Mod A). 

The corollary says that the diagram
R
vM

// K∨
RΓa (M )
∞ (A; a) ⊗A M
◗◗◗
◗◗◗
◗◗◗
e∨
a,∞ ⊗1M
◗◗◗
R
σM
◗◗◗ 
((
M

(3.27)

in D(Mod A) is commutative.
Corollary 3.28. Let a be a weakly proregular ideal in A. Then the functor RΓa has
finite cohomological dimension. More precisely, if a can be generated by a weakly
proregular sequence of length n, then the cohomological dimension of RΓa is at most
n.
Proof. Choose any generating sequence a = (a1 , . . . , an ) for a. By Corollary 3.26
∼ K∨ (A; a) ⊗A M for any M ∈ D(Mod A). But
there is an isomorphism RΓa (M ) =
∞
∨
the amplitude of the complex K∞ (A; a) is n (if A is nonzero).

Lemma 3.29. For a finite sequence a of elements of A, the homomorphisms
∨
∨
∨
∨
e∨
a,∞ ⊗ 1, 1 ⊗ ea,∞ : K∞ (A; a) ⊗A K∞ (A; a) → K∞ (A; a)

are quasi-isomorphisms.
Proof. By symmetry it is enough to look only at
∨
∨
∨
1 ⊗ e∨
a,∞ : K∞ (A; a) ⊗A K∞ (A; a) → K∞ (A; a).

∨
∨
Write a = (a1 , . . . , an ). Since e∨
a,∞ = ea1 ,∞ ⊗ · · · ⊗ ean ,∞ , and since the complexes
∨
K∞ (A; ai ) are K-ﬂat, it is enough to consider the case n = 1 and a = a1 . Here we
have a surjective homomorphism of complexes
∨
∨
∨
1 ⊗ e∨
a,∞ : K∞ (A; a) ⊗A K∞ (A; a) → K∞ (A; a).

14

MARCO PORTA, LIRAN SHAUL AND AMNON YEKUTIELI
d

The kernel is the complex A[a−1 ] −
→ A[a−1 ], concentrated in degrees 1, 2; and it is
acyclic.

Corollary 3.30. Let a be a weakly proregular ideal in a ring A. For any M ∈
D(Mod A) the morphism
R
: RΓa (RΓa (M )) → RΓa (M )
σRΓ
a (M)

is an isomorphism. Thus the functor
is idempotent.

RΓa : D(Mod A) → D(Mod A)

R
Proof. By Corollary 3.26 we can replace σRΓ
with
a (M)
∨
∨
e∨
⊗ 1M : K∨
a,∞ ⊗ 1K∨
∞ (A; a) ⊗A K∞ (A; a) ⊗A M → K∞ (A; a) ⊗A M,
∞

where a is any weakly proregular sequence generating a. Lemma 3.29 says that
this is a quasi-isomorphism.

Corollary 3.31. The subcategory D(Mod A)a-tor is the essential image of the functor
RΓa : D(Mod A) → D(Mod A).

Proof. Clear from Corollary 3.30.



Corollary 3.32. There is equality
D(Mod A)a-tor = Da-tor (Mod A).
In other words, a complex M is cohomologically a-torsion if and only if all its
cohomology modules Hi (M ) are a-torsion.
This result is similar to [AJL2, Proposition 5.2.1(a)].
Proof. One inclusion is clear – see (2.12). For the other direction, we have to show
R
that if M ∈ Da-tor (Mod A) then σM
is an isomorphism. By Corollary 3.26 we can
R
replace σM with
∨
e∨
a,∞ ⊗ 1M : K∞ (A; a) ⊗A M → M,
where a is any weakly proregular sequence generating a. The way-out argument
of [RD, Proposition I.7.1] says we can assume M is a single a-torsion module.
i
∨
But then K∨
∞ (A; a) ⊗A M = 0 for all i > 0, so ea,∞ ⊗ 1M is an isomorphism of
complexes.

Here is an example showing that a similar statement for cohomologically complete complexes is false.
Example 3.33. Let A := K[[t]], the power series ring in the variable t over a ﬁeld
K, and a := (t). As shown in [Ye2, Example 3.20], there is a complex

d
P = · · · → 0 → P −1 −
→ P0 → 0 → ···

in which P −1 and P 0 are a-adically free A-modules (both are a-adic completions
of a countable rank free A-module), H−1 (P ) = 0, and the module H0 (P ) is not
a-adically complete.
On the other hand, the complex P is a-adically cohomologically complete. To see
this, we note that the A-modules P i are ﬂat (see [Ye2, Theorem 3.4]), and hence
by Proposition 2.6 the morphism ξP : LΛa (P ) → Λa (P ) is an isomorphism. On

ON THE HOMOLOGY OF COMPLETION AND TORSION

15

the other hand the modules P i are a-adically complete, so τP : P → Λa (P ) is an
isomorphism. Therefore τPL : P → LΛa (P ) is an isomorphism.
Theorem 3.34. If A is noetherian, then every finite sequence in A is weakly proregular, so that every ideal in A is weakly proregular.

Proof. It is enough to prove that every ﬁnite sequence a = (a1 , . . . , an ) is weakly
proregular. In view of Theorem 3.24, it suﬃces to prove that for any injective
module I and any k > 0 the A-module Hk (K∨
∞ (A; a) ⊗A I) is zero.
We use the structure theory for injective modules over noetherian rings. Because
cohomology and tensor product commute with inﬁnite direct sums, it suﬃces to
consider an indecomposable injective A-module; so assume I is the injective hull of
A/p for some prime ideal p. This is a p-torsion module, and also an Ap -module.
∨
k
If a ⊂ p then each ai ∈ p, so A[a−1
i ]⊗A I = 0. This says that K∞ (A; a) ⊗A I = 0
for all k > 0.
Next assume that a 6⊂ p. Then for at least one index i we have ai ∈
/ p, so that
ai is invertible in Ap . This implies that the homomorphism
∨
0
1
K∨
∞ (A; ai ) ⊗A I → K∞ (A; ai ) ⊗A I

is bijective. So the complex K∨
∞ (A; ai ) ⊗A I is acyclic. Now
∨
K (A; a) ⊗A I ∼
= K∨ (A; b) ⊗A K∨ (A; ai ) ⊗A I,
∞

∞

∞

where b is the subsequence of a obtained by deleting ai . Therefore the complex
K∨

∞ (A; a) ⊗A I is acyclic.
Here is a pretty natural example of a weakly proregular sequence in a nonnoetherian ring. There is a follow-up in Example 5.6.

Example 3.35. Let K be a ﬁeld, and let A and B be adically complete noetherian
K-algebras, with deﬁning ideals a and b respectively. Take C := A ⊗K B. The ring
C is often not noetherian.
This happens for instance if K has characteristic 0, and A = B := K[[t]], the
ring of power series in a variable t. Let d ⊂ C be the kernel of the multiplication
map C = A ⊗K A → A. The ideal d is not ﬁnitely generated. To see why, note
that d/d2 ∼
= Ω1A/K , and L ⊗C Ω1A/K ∼
= Ω1L/K , where L := K((t)). Since L/K is a
separable ﬁeld extension of inﬁnite transcendence degree, it follows that the rank
of Ω1L/K is inﬁnite.
Let’s return to the general situation above. Choose ﬁnite generating sequences
a = (a1 , . . . , am ) and b = (b1 , . . . , bn ) for a and b respectively. By Theorem 3.34
these sequences are weakly proregular. Consider the sequence
c := (a1 ⊗ 1, . . . , am ⊗ 1, 1 ⊗ b1 , . . . , 1 ⊗ bn )

in C. We claim that this sequence is weakly proregular. The reason is that for every
i there is a canonical isomorphism of DG algebras
K(A; ai ) ⊗K K(B; bi ) ∼
= K(C; ci ).
By the Künneth formula we get isomorphisms of C-modules
M
∼
Hk (K(C; ci )) =
Hl (K(A; ai )) ⊗K Hk−l (K(B; bi ))
k≤l≤0

for
 kevery k i ≤ 0, compatible with i. Thus for every k < 0 the inverse system
H (K(C; c )) i∈N is pro-zero.

16

MARCO PORTA, LIRAN SHAUL AND AMNON YEKUTIELI

4. The Telescope Complex
The purpose of this section is to prove Theorem 4.21.
Let A be a commutative ring (not necessarily noetherian). For a set X and an
A-module M we denote by F(X, M ) the set of all functions f : X → M . This is an
A-module in the obvious way. We denote by Ffin (X, M ) the submodule of F(X, M )
consisting of functions with ﬁnite support. Note that Ffin (X, A) is a free A-module
with basis the delta functions δx : X → A. (This notation comes from [Ye2].)

Definition 4.1.
(1) Given an element a ∈ A, the telescope complex Tel(A; a)
is the complex

d
Tel(A; a) := · · · → 0 → Ffin (N, A) −
→ Ffin (N, A) → 0 → · · ·
concentrated in degrees 0 and 1. The diﬀerential d is
(
δ0
if i = 0,
d(δi ) :=
δi−1 − aδi if i ≥ 1.

(2) Given a sequence a = (a1 , . . . , an ) of elements of A, we deﬁne
Tel(A; a) := Tel(A; a1 ) ⊗A · · · ⊗A Tel(A; an ).

Note that Tel(A; a) is a complex of free A-modules, concentrated in degrees
0, . . . , n. This complex has an obvious functoriality in (A; a).
Recall that for j ∈ N we write [0, j] = {0, . . . , j}. We view F([0, j], A) as the free
submodule of Ffin (N, A) with basis {δi }i∈[0,j] .
Let j ∈ N. For any a ∈ A let Telj (A; a) be the subcomplex

d
Telj (A; a) := · · · → 0 → F([0, j], A) −
→ F([0, j], A) → 0 → · · ·

of Tel(A; a). For the sequence a = (a1 , . . . , an ) we deﬁne

Telj (A; a) := Telj (A; a1 ) ⊗A · · · ⊗A Telj (A; an ).

This is a subcomplex of Tel(A; a). It is clear that
[
(4.2)
Tel(A; a) =
Telj (A; a).
j≥0

∨

Recall the dual Koszul complex K (A; a) from formula (3.9). For any j ≥ 0 we
deﬁne a homomorphism of complexes
(4.3)

wa,j : Telj (A; a) → K∨ (A; aj )

as follows, using the presentation (3.10) of K∨ (A; aj ). In degree 0 the homomorphism
0
wa,j
: Telj (A; a)0 = F([0, j], A) → K∨ (A; aj )0 = A
is deﬁned to be
(
1 if i = 0,
0
wa,j (δi ) :=
0 if i ≥ 1.
In degree 1 the homomorphism
1
wa,j
: Telj (A; a)1 = F([0, j], A) → K∨ (A; aj )1 = A

1
(δi ) := aj−i . This makes sense since i ∈ [0, j].
is deﬁned to be wa,j
For a sequence a = (a1 , . . . , an ) we deﬁne

(4.4)

wa,j := wa1 ,j ⊗ · · · ⊗ wan ,j : Telj (A; a) → K∨ (A; aj ).

ON THE HOMOLOGY OF COMPLETION AND TORSION

17

The homomorphisms of complexes wa,j are functorial in j, so in the direct limit we
get a homomorphism of complexes
wa := lim wa,j : Tel(A; a) → K∨
∞ (A; a).

(4.5)

j→

Of course wa = wa1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ wan . Let us also deﬁne

ua : Tel(A; a) → A , ua := e∨
a,∞ ◦ wa ;

(4.6)

cf. (3.17).

Lemma 4.7. The homomorphism wa,j is a homotopy equivalence, and the homomorphism wa is a quasi-isomorphism.
Proof. First consider the case n = 1, A = Z[t], the polynomial ring in the variable
t, and a = t. The fact that wt,j is a quasi-isomorphism is an easy calculation, once
we notice that


H0 Telj (Z[t]; t) = H0 K∨ (Z[t]; tj ) = 0,
and


H1 Telj (Z[t]; t) ∼
= Z[t]/(tj ).
= H1 K∨ (Z[t]; tj ) ∼
Next, for any (A; a) we have a ring homomorphism Z[t] → A sending t 7→ a.
Since wa,j is gotten from wt,j by the base change A ⊗Z[t] −, and since Telj (Z[t]; t)
and K∨ (Z[t]; tj ) are bounded complexes of ﬂat Z[t]-modules, it follows that wa,j is
also a quasi-isomorphism.
The ﬂatness argument, with induction, also proves that for sequence a of length
n ≥ 2 the homomorphism wa,j is a quasi-isomorphism. Because Telj (A; a) and
K∨ (A; aj ) are bounded complexes of free A-modules, it follows that wa,j is a homotopy equivalence.
Finally going to the direct limit preserves exactness, so wa is a quasi-isomorphism.

Warning: the quasi-isomorphism wa is not a homotopy equivalence (except in
trivial cases).
Proposition 4.8. Let a be a weakly proregular sequence in A, and a the ideal
generated by a. For any M ∈ D(Mod A) there is an isomorphism
R
va,M
: RΓa (M ) → Tel(A; a) ⊗A M

R
in D(Mod A). The isomorphism va,M
is functorial in M , and satisfies
R
R
(ua ⊗ 1M ) ◦ va,M
= σM

as morphisms RΓa (M ) → M .

Proof. Combine Lemma 4.7 and Corollary 3.26.



Let us denote by a the ideal of A generated by the sequence a = (a1 , . . . , an ).
Recall that Aj = A/aj+1 . Since ajn ⊂ (aj ) ⊂ aj it follows that the canonical
homomorphism


(4.9)
lim A/(aj+1 ) ⊗A M → lim Aj ⊗A M = Λa (M )
←j

←j

is bijective for any module M .
Let us write

(4.10)


Tel∨
j (A; a) := HomA Telj (A; a), A .

18

MARCO PORTA, LIRAN SHAUL AND AMNON YEKUTIELI

We refer it as the dual telescope complex. Note that Tel∨
j (A; a) is a complex of
ﬁnite rank free A-modules, concentrated in degrees −n, . . . , 0. The dual of the
homomorphism wa,j is
(4.11)

∨
wa,j
: K(A; aj ) → Tel∨
j (A; a).

∨
Since wa,j is a homotopy equivalence, it follows that wa,j
is also a homotopy equivalence. Therefore
∨
0
j
H0 (wa,j
) : H0 (Tel∨
j (A; a)) → H (K(A; a ))

is an isomorphism of A-modules. Deﬁne
(4.12)

j
tela,j : Tel∨
j (A; a) → A/(a )

to be the unique homomorphism of complexes such that
∨ −1
H0 (tela,j ) ◦ H0 (wa,j
) : H0 (K(A; aj )) → A/(aj )

is the canonical A-algebra isomorphism (3.4).
For any M ∈ C(Mod A) and j ∈ N there is a canonical isomorphism of complexes

(4.13)
HomA Telj (A; a), M ∼
= Tel∨
j (A; a) ⊗A M.
There is also a canonical isomorphism of complexes


(4.14)
HomA Tel(A; a), M ∼
= lim HomA Telj (A; a), M
←j

coming from (4.2). We deﬁne a homomorphism of complexes

tela,M,j : HomA Telj (A; a), M → A/(aj ) ⊗A M ,
(4.15)
tela,M,j := tela,j ⊗ 1M ,
using the isomorphism (4.13).
Definition 4.16. For any M ∈ C(Mod A) let


tela,M : HomA Tel(A; a), M → Λa (M )

be the homomorphism of complexes

tela,M := lim tela,M,j = lim (tela,j ⊗ 1M ) .
←j

←j

Here we use the isomorphisms (4.14) and (4.9).
Note that tela,M is functorial in M .
Remark 4.17. For a module M the homomorphism

tela,M : HomA Tel(A; a)0 , M → Λa (M )

can be expressed explicitly as an a-adically
 convergent power series. First we note
that an element f ∈ HomA Tel(A; a)0 , M is the same as a function f : Nn → M .
For a ∈ A and i ∈ N we deﬁne the “modiﬁed i-th power” p(a, i) ∈ A to be
p(a, 0) := 1, p(a, 1) := −1 and p(a, i) := −ai−1 if i ≥ 2. Then
X
p(a1 , i1 ) · · · p(an , in )f (i1 , . . . , in ) ∈ Λa (M ).
(4.18)
tela,M (f ) =
(i1 ,...,in )∈Nn

We shall not require this formula.

ON THE HOMOLOGY OF COMPLETION AND TORSION

19

Consider the homomorphism of complexes

(4.19)
Hom(ua , 1M ) : M ∼
= HomA (A, M ) → HomA Tel(A; a), M
induced by ua : Tel(A; a) → A.

Lemma 4.20. For any M ∈ Mod A there is equality tela,M ◦ Hom(ua , 1M ) = τM ,
as homomorphisms M → Λa (M ).
Proof. It suﬃces to prove that for every j ≥ 0 there is equality
tela,M,j ◦ Hom(ua,j , 1M ) = fj ◦ 1M

as homomorphisms M → A/(aj ), where fj : A → A/(aj ) is the canonical ring
homomorphism, and ua,j := e∨
a,j ◦ wa,j . But everything is functorial in M , so we
can restrict attention to M = A. Thus we have to show that tela,j ◦ u∨
a,j = fj .
Consider the diagram
fj


ea,j
gj
// K(A; aj )
// A/(aj )
A●
●●
99
ss
●●
ss
●●
s
s
wa,j
●●
ss
●●
u∨
a,j
●##  ssss tela,j
Tel∨
j (A; a)
where gj is the DG algebra homomorphism. By deﬁnition the three triangles are
commutative. Hence the whole diagram is commutative.

Theorem 4.21. Let A be any ring, let a be a weakly proregular sequence in A, and
let P be a flat A-module. Then the homomorphism

tela,P : HomA Tel(A; a), P → Λa (P )

is a quasi-isomorphism.

Proof. Given an inverse system {Mj }j∈N of complexes of abelian groups, for every
integer k there is a canonical homomorphism



ψ k : Hk lim Mj → lim Hk (Mj ) .
←j

←j

By deﬁnition of tela,P , for k = 0 there is a commutative diagram


Hk (tela,P )
// Λa (P )
Hk HomA Tel(A; a), P
∼
=

∼
=



Hk lim←j Tel∨
j (A; a) ⊗A P


lim←j



// lim←j (A/(aj )) ⊗A P
3
3
❢❢❢❢❢
❢❢❢❢❢
❢
❢
k
❢
❢
ψ
❢❢
❢❢❢❢❢ lim←j Hk (tela,P,j )

❢❢❢❢❢
Hk Tel∨
j (A; a) ⊗A P
Hk (lim←j tela,P,j )

The left part of the diagram makes sense for every k. We will prove that:

(1) lim←j Hk Tel∨
j (A; a) ⊗A P = 0 for all k 6= 0.

20

MARCO PORTA, LIRAN SHAUL AND AMNON YEKUTIELI

(2) H0 (tela,P,j ) is bijective for every j ≥ 0.
(3) ψ k is bijective for every k.
Together these imply that Hk (tela,P ) is bijective for every k.
There are quasi-isomorphisms
∨
wa,j
: K(A; aj ) → Tel∨
j (A; a)

that are compatible with j. Since P is ﬂat, according to Corollary 1.12 we get
induced isomorphisms



j
j
∼ k
∼ k
(4.22)
Hk Tel∨
j (A; a) ⊗A P = H K(A; a ) ⊗A P = H K(A; a ) ⊗A P

that are compatible with j.

There is a canonical ring isomorphism H0 K(A; aj ) ∼
= A/(aj ). By deﬁnition of
tela,j , the homomorphism

j
H0 (tela,j ) : H0 Tel∨
j (A; a) → A/(a )
is bijective. Hence, using Corollary 1.12 again, we see that H0 (tela,P,j ) is also
bijective. This proves (2).
We are given that a is a weakly proregular sequence, which means that the
homomorphism

′ 
Hk (pa,j ′ ,j ) : Hk K(A; aj ) → Hk K(A; aj )

is zero for k < 0 and j ′ ≫ j. As for k = 0, we know that

′ 
H0 K(A; aj ) → H0 K(A; aj )

is surjective for j ′ ≥ j. Of course Hk K(A; aj ) = 0 for k > 0. Thus for every k
the inverse system of modules



 k
∼
H Tel∨ (A; a) ⊗A P
= Hk K(A; aj ) ⊗A P
j

j∈N

j∈N

satisﬁes the Mittag-Leﬄer condition.

The inverse system of complexes Tel∨
j (A; a) ⊗A P j∈N also satisﬁes the MittagLeﬄer condition, since it has surjective transition maps. (Warning: see Remark
4.24.) Therefore, by [KS1, Proposition 1.1.24] or [We, Theorem 3.5.8], the homomorphisms



→ lim Hk Tel∨
ψ k : Hk lim Tel∨
j (A; a) ⊗A P
j (A; a) ⊗A P
←j

←j

are bijective. Thus (3) is true.
Finally, weak proregularity, with the isomorphisms (4.22), tell us that the homomorphism


∨
k
Hk Tel∨
j ′ (A; a) ⊗A P → H Telj (A; a) ⊗A P
is zero for k < 0 and j ′ ≫ j. And everything is zero for k > 0. This implies (1). 
Corollary 4.23. Assume a is a weakly proregular sequence in A. Then for every
K-flat complex P the homomorphism
tela,P : HomA (Tel(A; a), P ) → Λa (P )

is a quasi-isomorphism.

Proof. By Proposition 1.1 we can assume that P is a complex of ﬂat modules. By
Proposition 1.9 we reduce to the case of a single ﬂat module P . This is the theorem
above.


ON THE HOMOLOGY OF COMPLETION AND TORSION

21


Remark 4.24. The inverse systems of complexes K(A; aj ) ⊗A P j∈N does not
satisfy the ML condition; so we can’t expect to get a quasi-isomorphism in the
inverse limit: the homomorphism


∨
lim (wa,j
⊗ 1P ) : lim K(A; aj ) ⊗A P → lim Tel∨
j (A; a) ⊗A P
←j

←j

←j

will usually not be a quasi-isomorphism.
Indeed, this will even fail for the ring A := K[t], the polynomial algebra over a
ﬁeld K, with sequence a := (t) and ﬂat module P := A. Here we get


∼ H0 HomA Tel(A; a), A ∼
H0 lim Tel∨ (A; a) =
= K[[t]].
= Λa (A) ∼
←j

j

But lim←j K(A; aj )0 ∼
= A and lim←j K(A; aj )−1 = 0, giving

H0 lim K(A; aj ) ∼
= A = K[t].
←j

Corollary 4.25. Assume a is a weakly proregular sequence in A. For any M ∈
D(Mod A) there is an isomorphism
 ≃
→ LΛa (M )
telLa,M : HomA Tel(A; a), M −

in D(Mod A), functorial in M , such that

L
tela,M ◦ Hom(ua , 1M ) = τM
,

as morphisms M → LΛa (M ).

Proof. It is enough to consider a K-ﬂat complex M = P . For this we combine
Theorem 4.21, Proposition 2.6 and Lemma 4.20.

The corollary says that the diagram
(4.26)

M ❙❙❙
❙❙❙
L
❙❙❙ τM
❙❙❙
Hom(ua ,1M )
❙❙❙
❙❙❙

))

// LΛa (M )
HomA Tel(A; a), M
L
tela,M

is commutative.

Corollary 4.27. Let a be a weakly proregular ideal in A. The cohomological dimension of the functor LΛa is finite. Indeed, if a can be generated by a weakly proregular
sequence of length n, then the cohomological dimension of LΛa is at most n.
Proof. This is immediate from Corollary 4.25.



Remark 4.28. The name “telescope complex” is inspired by a standard construction in algebraic topology; see [GM]. However here we are looking at a speciﬁc
complex of A-modules, and we prove that it has the expected homological properties.
The result [Sc, Theorem 4.5], which corresponds to our Theorem 4.21, only
talks about bounded complexes M , and there is an extra assumption that each ai
has bounded torsion. Moreover, Schenzel states that the question for unbounded
complexes is open as far as he knows. We answer this in the aﬃrmative in our
Theorem 4.21: our result holds for unbounded complexes, and there is no further
assumption beyond the weak proregularity of the sequence a.

22

MARCO PORTA, LIRAN SHAUL AND AMNON YEKUTIELI

In [AJL1] there is an assertion similar to Theorem 4.21 (more precisely, it corresponds to Theorem 6.12). This is [AJL1, formula (0.3)aff ], that also refers to unbounded complexes, and makes no assumption except proregularity of the sequence
a. In [AJL1, Correction] there is some elaboration on the speciﬁc conditions needed
for the proofs to be correct. As far as we understand, the correct conditions are
weak proregularity for a, plus bounded torsion for each ai . Hence our Theorem
4.21, and also our Theorem 6.12, appear to be stronger than the aﬃne versions of
the results in [AJL1].
Our proof of Theorem 4.21 does not depend on any of the results in either
[AJL1] or [Sc]. We believe our proof is quite transparent. Note also that we give
an explicit formula for the homomorphism of complexes tela,P , that is not found
in prior papers.
5. Permanence of Weak Proregularity
In this section we show that derived completion and derived torsion are independent of the ring, when the the ideal is weakly proregular (Theorem 5.5).
Theorem 5.1. Let A be a ring, let a and b be finite sequences of elements of A,
and let√a := (a) and b := (b), the ideals generated by these sequences. Assume that
√
a = b. Then the complexes Tel(A; a) and Tel(A; b) are homotopy equivalent.
Note that these sequences are not assumed to be weakly proregular.
Proof. For a suﬃciently large positive integer p we have bpi ∈ a and apj ∈ b for all
P
i, j. Hence there are ﬁnitely many ci,j , dj,i ∈ A such that bpi = j ci,j aj and apj =
P
i,j , vj,i }]
i dj,i bi . Deﬁne Ã to be the quotient of the polynomial
P ring Z[{si , tj , uP
in ﬁnitely many variables, modulo the relations tpi = j ui,j sj and spj = i vj,i ti .
Let ãi ∈ Ã and b̃j ∈ Ã be the images of si and tj respectively. There is a ring
homomorphism f : Ã → A such that f (ãi ) = ai and f (b˜j ) = bj .
Deﬁne the ﬁnite sequences ã := (ã1 , . . .) and b̃ := (b̃1 , . . .). There are corresponding ideals ã := (ã) and b̃ := (b̃) in Ã. Since the ring Ã is noetherian,
√ the
√
sequences ã and b̃ are weakly proregular. By construction we have ã = b̃, and
therefore Γã = Γb̃ as functors. According to Proposition 4.8 there are isomorphisms
Tel(Ã; ã) ∼
= Tel(Ã; b̃)
= RΓ (Ã) ∼
= RΓã (Ã) ∼
b̃

in D(Mod Ã). Now Tel(Ã; ã) and Tel(Ã; b̃) are bounded complexes of free Ãmodules, so there is a homotopy equivalence φ̃ : Tel(Ã; ã) → Tel(Ã; b̃). Applying
base change along f to φ̃ we get a homotopy equivalence φ : Tel(A; a) → Tel(A; b)
over A.

The next result was already proved by Schenzel [Sc, Lemma 3.3].
Corollary 5.2. In the situation of Theorem 5.1, the sequence a is weakly proregular
if and only if the sequence b is weakly proregular.
Proof. By Lemma 4.7 there are quasi-isomorphisms wa : Tel(A; a) → K∨
∞ (A; a)
and wb : Tel(A; b) → K∨
(A;
b).
Now
all
these
complexes
are
K-ﬂat;
therefore
for
∞
any A-module I there is a diagram of quasi-isomorphisms
w ⊗1

a
I
K∨
∞ (A; a) ⊗A I ←−−−− Tel(A; a) ⊗A I

φ⊗1I

w ⊗1

I
K∨
−−−→ Tel(A; b) ⊗A I −−b−−→
∞ (A; b) ⊗A I.

ON THE HOMOLOGY OF COMPLETION AND TORSION

23

Here φ : Tel(A; a) → Tel(A; b) is a homotopy equivalence, that exists by Theorem
5.1. Taking I to be an arbitrary injective A-module, Theorem 3.24 says that a is
weakly proregular if and only if b is weakly proregular.

Corollary 5.3. Let a be a weakly proregular ideal in a ring A. Then any finite
sequence that generates a is weakly proregular.
Proof. Let a be any ﬁnite sequence that generates a. Since a is weakly proregular,
it has some weakly proregular generating sequence b. By Corollary 5.2, a is also
weakly proregular.

Corollary
5.4. Let a and b be finitely generated ideals in a ring A, such that
√
√
a = b. Then a is weakly proregular if and only if b is weakly proregular.
Proof. Say a is weakly proregular. Choose a weakly proregular generating sequence
a for a. Let b be any ﬁnite sequence that generates b. By Corollary 5.2, b is weakly
proregular. Therefore the ideal b is weakly proregular.

Let f : A → B be a ring homomorphism. There is a forgetful functor (restriction
of scalars) F : Mod
→ Mod A. Suppose a ⊂ A and b ⊂ B are ﬁnitely generated
√ Bp
ideals such that b = B · f (a) in B. It is easy to see that there are isomorphisms
F ◦ Γb ∼
= Λa ◦ F , as functors Mod B → Mod A.
= Γa ◦ F and F ◦ Λb ∼
Sometimes such isomorphisms exist also for the derived functors. Note that the
forgetful functor F is exact, so it extends to a triangulated functor F : D(Mod B) →
D(Mod A).
Theorem 5.5. Let f : A → B be a homomorphism of rings, let a be an ideal in A,
and let b √
be anp
ideal in B. Assume that the ideals a and b are weakly proregular,
and that b = B · f (a). Then there are isomorphisms
F ◦ RΓb ∼
= RΓa ◦ F
and

F ◦ LΛb ∼
= LΛa ◦ F
of triangulated functors D(Mod B) → D(Mod A).

Proof. In view of Corollary 5.4 we can assume that b = B · f (a). Choose a sequence
a = (a1 , . . . , an ) that generates a, and let b := (f (a1 ), . . . , f (an )). According to
Corollary 5.3 the sequences a and b are weakly proregular, in A and B respectively.
We know that Tel(B; b) ∼
= B ⊗A Tel(A; a) as complexes of B-modules. Take
any N ∈ D(Mod B). Using Corollary 4.25 and Hom-tensor adjunction we get
isomorphisms


(F ◦ LΛb ) (N ) ∼
= (LΛa ◦ F )(N ).
= HomA Tel(A; a), N ∼
= HomB Tel(B; b), N ∼
Likewise, using Proposition 4.8, there are isomorphisms
(F ◦ RΓb ) (N ) ∼
= (RΓa ◦ F ) (N ).
= Tel(A; a) ⊗A N ∼
= Tel(B; b) ⊗B N ∼



Example 5.6. This is a continuation of Example 3.35. Let us assume that the ring
homomorphisms K → A and K → B are of formally ﬁnite type, in the sense of [Ye1].
(In the terminology of [AJL2] these are pseudo ﬁnite type homomorphisms.) Let c
b := Λc (C). According to
be the ideal in C generated by the sequence c, and deﬁne C
b
b is of
[Ye1, Corollary 1.23] the ring C is noetherian, and the homomorphism K → C

24

MARCO PORTA, LIRAN SHAUL AND AMNON YEKUTIELI

formally ﬁnite type. (E.g. if A = K[[s]] and B = K[[t]], with deﬁning ideals a := (s)
b∼
and b := (t), then C
= K[[s, t]].) Let us denote by ĉ the image of the sequence c
b
in the ring C, and by ĉ the ideal it generates. By Theorem 3.34 the sequence ĉ is
weakly proregular. Theorem 5.5 says that there are isomorphisms RΓc ∼
= RΓĉ and
LΛc ∼
= LΛĉ between the derived functors.
6. MGM Equivalence
In this section A is a commutative ring. We do not assume that A is noetherian or
complete. Weak proregularity was deﬁned in Deﬁnition 3.21. Recall that any ﬁnite
sequence in a noetherian ring is weakly proregular, and any ideal in a noetherian
ring is weakly proregular (Theorem 3.34).
Lemma 6.1. Let a be a finite sequence in A, let a be the ideal generated by a, and
let M be an A-module. Then the homomorphism

∨
Λa (e∨
a,∞ ⊗ 1M ) : Λa K∞ (A; a) ⊗A M → Λa (M )
(see (3.17)) is an isomorphism of complexes.

∨
0
0
∼
Proof. Since K∨
∞ (A; a) = A, we have K∞ (A; a) ⊗A M = M . We will prove that
∨
∨
i
i
Λa (K∞ (A; a) ⊗A M ) = 0 for i > 0. Now K∞ (A; a) is a direct sum of modules
Ni,j , where Ni,j is an A[a−1
j ]-module. Since

(A/ak ) ⊗A Ni,j ⊗A M = 0
for any k ∈ N, in the limit we get Λa (Ni,j ⊗A M ) = 0.



Lemma 6.2. Let a be a weakly proregular ideal in A. For any complex M ∈
D(Mod A) the morphism
R
LΛa (σM
) : LΛa (RΓa (M )) → LΛa (M )

is an isomorphism.
Proof. Choose a weakly proregular generating sequence a for the ideal a, and a
K-ﬂat resolution P → M in C(Mod A). The complex K∨
∞ (A; a) ⊗A P is also K-ﬂat.
R
By Corollary 3.26 and Proposition 2.6, the morphism LΛa (σM
) can be replaced by
the homomorphism of complexes

∨
(6.3)
Λa (e∨
a,∞ ⊗ 1P ) : Λa K∞ (A; a) ⊗A P → Λa (P ).

But by the previous lemma, the homomorphism (6.3) is actually an isomorphism
in C(Mod A).

Lemma 6.4. Let b = (b1 , . . . , bn ) be a sequence of nilpotent elements in a ring B.
Then ub : Tel(B; b) → B is a homotopy equivalence.

∨
Proof. Recall that ub = e∨
b,∞ ◦ wb , where wb : Tel(B; b) → K∞ (B; b) is a quasi∨
isomorphism. By formulas (3.14) and (3.15) we see that K∞ (B; b)i = 0 for i > 0,
so e∨
b,∞ is an isomorphism. We conclude that ub : Tel(B; b) → B is a quasiisomorphism. But these are bounded complexes of free B-modules, and hence ub
is a homotopy equivalence.


ON THE HOMOLOGY OF COMPLETION AND TORSION

25

Lemma 6.5. Let a be a finite sequence in A, and let B := A/(aj ) for some j ≥ 1.
Let N be a complex of A-modules, whose cohomology H(N ) is bounded, and such
that each Hk (N ) is a B-module. Then the homomorphism

Hom(ua , 1N ) : N → HomA Tel(A; a), N
is a quasi-isomorphism.

Proof. Using smart truncation and induction on amp(H(N )), i.e. by the way-out
argument of [RD, Proposition I.7.1], we may assume that N is a single B-module.
Let b denote the image of the sequence a in B. Then Tel(B; b) ∼
= B ⊗A Tel(A; a)
as complexes. By Hom-tensor adjunction there is an isomorphism of complexes


HomA Tel(A; a), N ∼
= HomB Tel(B; b), N .
It suﬃces then to prove that

Hom(ub , 1N ) : N ∼
= HomB (B, N ) → HomB Tel(B; b), N



is a quasi-isomorphism. By Lemma 6.4 we know that ub is a homotopy equivalence;
and therefore Hom(ub , 1N ) is a quasi-isomorphism.

Lemma 6.6. Let a be a weakly proregular ideal in A. For any complex M ∈
D(Mod A) the morphism
is an isomorphism.

L
RΓa (τM
) : RΓa (M ) → RΓa (LΛa (M ))

L
Proof. By Corollary 4.25 we can replace τM
with

Hom(ua , 1M ) : M → HomA Tel(A; a), M

L
And by Proposition 4.8 we can replace RΓa (τM
) with

(6.7)



1Tel ⊗ Hom(ua , 1M ) : Tel(A; a) ⊗A M


→ Tel(A; a) ⊗A HomA Tel(A; a), M .

We will prove that (6.7) is a quasi-isomorphism.
In view of Proposition 1.9 we can assume that M is a single A-module. Since
direct limits commute with cohomology, it suﬃces to prove that
(6.8)

1Telj ⊗ Hom(ua , 1M ) : Telj (A; a) ⊗A M


→ Telj (A; a) ⊗A HomA Tel(A; a), M .

is a quasi-isomorphism for every j. Now Telj (A; a) is a bounded complex of ﬁnite
rank free A-modules, so we can replace (6.8) with

Hom(ua , 1N ) : N → HomA Tel(A; a), N ,

where N := Telj (A; a) ⊗A M . The complex N satisﬁes the assumption of Lemma
6.5, and therefore Hom(ua , 1N ) is a quasi-isomorphism.

Lemma 6.9. For a finite sequence a of elements of A, the homomorphisms
ua ⊗ 1Tel , 1Tel ⊗ ua : Tel(A; a) ⊗A Tel(A; a) → Tel(A; a)

are homotopy equivalences.

Proof. Because of Lemmas 3.29 and 4.7 these are quasi-isomorphisms. But a quasiisomorphism between K-projective complexes is a homotopy equivalence.


26

MARCO PORTA, LIRAN SHAUL AND AMNON YEKUTIELI

Proposition 6.10. Let a be a weakly proregular ideal in A. For any M ∈ D(Mod A)
the morphism
L
: LΛa (M ) → LΛa (LΛa (M ))
τLΛ
a (M)
is an isomorphism. So the functor
LΛa : D(Mod A) → D(Mod A)
is idempotent.
Proof. Choose some weakly proregular sequence a that generates a. According to
L
Corollary 4.25 we can replace τLΛ
with
a (M)

Hom(1T , Hom(ua , 1M )) : HomA (T, M ) → HomA T, HomA (T, M ) ,

where T := Tel(A; a). Using Hom-tensor adjunction this can be replaced by
Hom(1T ⊗ ua , 1M ) : HomA (T, M ) → HomA (T ⊗A T, M ).
By Lemma 6.9 this is a quasi-isomorphism.



Theorem 6.11 (MGM Equivalence). Let A be a ring, and let a be a weakly proregular ideal in it.
(1) For any M ∈ D(Mod A) one has RΓa (M ) ∈ D(Mod A)a-tor and LΛa (M ) ∈
D(Mod A)a-com .
(2) The functor
RΓa : D(Mod A)a-com → D(Mod A)a-tor
is an equivalence, with quasi-inverse LΛa .
Proof. (1) This is immediate from the idempotence of the functors RΓa and LΛa ;
see Corollary 3.30 and Proposition 6.10.
(2) By Lemma 6.6 and Deﬁnition 2.11, there are functorial isomorphisms
M∼
= RΓa (M ) ∼
= RΓa (LΛa (M ))
for M ∈ D(Mod A)a-tor . By Lemma 6.2 and Deﬁnition 2.8 there are functorial
isomorphisms
N∼
= LΛa (N ) ∼
= LΛa (RΓa (N ))
for N ∈ D(Mod A)a-com . These isomorphisms set up the desired equivalence.



Here are a couple of related results.
Theorem 6.12 (GM Duality). Let A be a ring, and a a weakly proregular ideal in
A. For any M, N ∈ D(Mod A) the morphisms
R

 RHom(1,σN
)
→ RHomA RΓa (M ), N
RHomA RΓa (M ), RΓa (N ) −−−−−−−−
L
 RHom(σR ,1)
RHom(1,τN
)
−−−
−−−−−−−−
→ RHomA RΓa (M ), LΛa (N ) ←−−−−−M
L

 RHom(τ ,1)
RHomA M, LΛa (N ) ←−−−−−M−−− RHomA LΛa (M ), LΛa (N )

in D(Mod A) are isomorphisms.

ON THE HOMOLOGY OF COMPLETION AND TORSION

27

Proof. Choose a weakly proregular sequence a that generates a, and write T :=
Tel(A; a) and u := ua . Next choose a K-projective resolution P → M and a Kinjective resolution N → I. The complex T ⊗A P is K-projective, and the complex
HomA (T, I) is K-injective.
By Corollary 4.25 and Proposition 4.8 we can replace the diagram above with
the diagram
 Hom(1,u⊗1)

HomA T ⊗A P, T ⊗A I −−−−−−−−→ HomA T ⊗A P, I
 Hom(u⊗1,1)
Hom(1,Hom(u,1))
−−−−−−−−−−−→ HomA T ⊗A P, HomA (T, I) ←−−−−−−−−
 Hom(Hom(1,u),1)

HomA P, HomA (T, I) ←−−−−−−−−−−− HomA HomA (T, P ), HomA (T, I)
in C(Mod A). We will prove that all these morphisms are quasi-isomorphisms.
Consider the homomorphism of complexes
Hom(u, 1) : T ⊗A P → HomA (T, T ⊗A P ).

By Corollary 4.25, Proposition 4.8 and Lemma 6.2 this is a quasi-isomorphism.
Therefore, by Hom-tensor adjunction and the fact that I is K-injective, we see that
Hom(1, u ⊗ 1) is a quasi-isomorphism.
By Lemma 6.9 and Hom-tensor adjunction it follows that Hom(1, Hom(u, 1))
and Hom(u ⊗ 1, 1) are quasi-isomorphisms.
Finally consider the homomorphism of complexes
1 ⊗ Hom(u, 1) : T ⊗A P → T ⊗A HomA (T, P ).

By Corollary 4.25, Proposition 4.8 and Lemma 6.6 this is a quasi-isomorphism.
Therefore, by Hom-tensor adjunction and the fact that I is K-injective, we see that
Hom(Hom(1, u), 1) is a quasi-isomorphism.

Corollary 6.13. There is a functorial isomorphism
≃

ρLR
→ LΛa (N )
N : RHomA (RΓa (A), N ) −

R
L
for N ∈ D(Mod A), such that ρLR
N ◦ RHom(σA , 1N ) = τN as morphisms N →
LΛa (N ).

Proof. Take M := A in Theorem 6.12.



Remark 6.14. Here is a brief historical survey of the material in this paper. GM
Duality for derived categories was introduced in [AJL1]. Precursors, in “classical”
homological algebra, were in the papers [Ma1], [Ma2] and [GM].
The construction of the total left derived completion functor LΛa was ﬁrst done
in [AJL1]. Recall that [AJL1] dealt with sheaves on a scheme X, where K-projective
resolutions are not available, and certain operations work only for quasi-coherent
OX -modules. Hence there are some technical diﬃculties that do not arise when
working with rings.
The derived torsion functor goes back to work of Grothendieck in the late 1950’s
(see [LC] and [RD, Chapter IV]). The use of the inﬁnite dual Koszul complex to
prove that the functor RΓa has ﬁnite cohomological dimension already appears in
[AJL1].
The concept of “telescope” comes from algebraic topology, as a device to form
the homotopy colimit in triangulated categories. This is how it was treated in [GM].

28

MARCO PORTA, LIRAN SHAUL AND AMNON YEKUTIELI

Its purpose there was the same as in our proof of Theorem 6.12. We give a concrete
treatment of the telescope complex, resulting in our Theorem 4.21.
GM Duality (Theorem 6.12) was already proved in [AJL1]. Perhaps because of
the complications inherent to the geometric setup, the proofs in [AJL1] are not
quite transparent. Moreover, there was a subtle mistake in [AJL1] involving the
concept of proregularity, that was discovered by Schenzel (see [AJL1, Correction]
and [Sc]). On the other hand, the results in the later paper [Sc] are not as strong
as those in [AJL1], and this is quite confusing. See Remark 4.28 for details. One
of our aims in this paper is to clarify the foundations of the theory in the algebraic
setting.
MGM Equivalence (Theorem 6.11) is present, in essence, already in [AJL2] and
[Sc]. See a discussion of the various statements and proofs in Remark 4.28.
Theorem 6.11 is similar to [DG, Theorem 2.1]; but the relationship is not clear.
In [DG] the authors seem to define the derived completion and torsion functors to
be HomA (T, M ) and T ⊗A M respectively, where a is a ﬁnite sequence and T :=
Tel(A; a). There is no apparent comparison in [DG] of these functors to the derived
functors LΛa (M ) and RΓa (M ) associated to the ideal a generated by a (something
like Proposition 4.8 and Corollary 4.25). There is also no assumption that A is
noetherian, nor any mention of weak proregularity of a. The same reservations
pertain also to [DGI].
7. Derived Localization
In this ﬁnal section we give an alternative characterization of cohomologically
complete complexes (Theorem 7.8). This result is inspired by the paper [KS2]. See
Remark 7.13 for a comparison.
We make this assumption throughout the section: a = (a1 , . . . , an ) is a weakly
proregular sequence in the ring A, and a is the ideal generated by a. We do not
assume that A is noetherian or a-adically complete.
There is an additive functor
Γ0/a : Mod A → Mod A , Γ0/a (M ) := M/Γa (M ) .

The functor Γ0/a has a right derived functor RΓ0/a , constructed using K-injective
resolutions.
Lemma 7.1. For M ∈ D(Mod A) there is a distinguished triangle
σR

△

M
RΓa (M ) −−
→ M → RΓ0/a (M ) −
→,

in D(Mod A), functorial in M .

Proof. Take any K-injective resolution M → I. Consider the exact sequence
σ

I
0 → Γa (I) −→
I → Γ0/a (I) → 0

σ

△

I
I → Γ0/a (I) −
→ in
in C(Mod A). This gives rise to a distinguished triangle Γa (I) −→
σI
D(Mod A), using the cone construction. But the diagram Γa (I) −→ I is isomorphic
σR

→ M , and Γ0/a (I) ∼
in D(Mod A) to the diagram RΓa (M ) −−M
= RΓ0/a (M ).

Lemma 7.2. The following conditions are equivalent for M ∈ D(Mod A):
(i) M is cohomologically a-adically complete.

(ii) M is right perpendicular to RΓ0/a (A); namely RHomA RΓ0/a (A), M = 0.

ON THE HOMOLOGY OF COMPLETION AND TORSION

29

Proof. Start with the distinguished triangle
σR

△

A
RΓa (A) −−→
A → RΓ0/a (A) −
→

in D(Mod A) that we have by Lemma 7.1. Now apply the functor RHomA (−, M )
to it. This gives a distinguished triangle

 △
(σR ,1M )
→.
RHomA RΓ0/a (A), M → M −−A−−−→ RHomA RΓa (A), M −
According to Corollary 6.13 we can replace this triangle by the isomorphic distinguished triangle
L

τM
△
→ LΛa (M ) −
→.
(7.3)
RHomA RΓ0/a (A), M → M −−

The equivalence of the two conditions is now clear.



Let X := Spec A; Z := Spec A/a, the closed subset of X deﬁned by the ideal a;
U := X − Z, an open set in X; and Ui := Spec A[ai−1 ], the aﬃne open set {ai 6= 0}
of X. The collection U := {Ui }i=1,...,n is an aﬃne open covering of U .
Let C(U , OX ) be the Čech cosimplicial algebra corresponding to this open covering. So
Y
C(U , OX )p =
Γ(Ui0 ∩ · · · ∩ Uip , OX ).
1≤i0 ≤······≤ip ≤n

Note that

Γ(Ui0 ∩ · · · ∩ Uip , OX ) ∼
= A[(ai0 · · · aip )−1 ]

as A-algebras.
Any cosimplicial algebra C has the standard normalization N(C), which is a DG
algebra. In degree p the abelian group N(C)p is the kernel of all the codegeneracy
operators. The multiplication is by the Alexander-Whitney formula (which is usually noncommutative!), and the diﬀerential is the alternating sum of the coboundary
operators. For full details see any book on simplicial methods; or [HY, Section 1].
Definition 7.4. Let C(A; a) := N(C(U , OX )), the standard normalization of the
cosimplicial algebra C(U , OX ). The DG A-algebra C(A; a) is called the derived
localization of A with respect to the sequence of elements a.
For the convenience of the reader we shall now give explicit formulas for the
structure of the DG algebra C(A; a). For any q ∈ {0, . . . , n − 1} consider the set of
strictly increasing sequences k = (k0 , . . . , kq ) in {1, . . . , n}q+1 . Deﬁne
Ck (A; a) := A[(ak0 · · · akq )−1 ].

This is a commutative A-algebra, isomorphic to

−1
A[a−1
k0 ] ⊗A · · · ⊗A A[akq ].

If k is a subsequence of l then there is a canonical A-algebra homomorphism
We deﬁne
(7.5)

φk,l : Ck (A; a) → Cl (A; a).
Cq (A; a) :=

Y

Ck (A; a)

k

where k = (k0 , . . . , kq ) is strictly increasing. The diﬀerential
d : Cq (A; a) → Cq+1 (A; a)

30

MARCO PORTA, LIRAN SHAUL AND AMNON YEKUTIELI

has components
dk,l : Ck (A; a) → Cl (A; a)

for l = (l0 , . . . , lq+1 ), with
(
(−1)j φk,l
k,l
d :=
0

if k is gotten from l by deleting lj
otherwise .

Here is the explicit description of the Alexander-Whitney multiplication on
C(A; a). For strictly increasing multi-indices k = (k0 , . . . , kp ) and l = (l0 , . . . , lq ),
the multiplication
∗ : Ck (A; a) × Cl (A; a) → Cp+q (A; a)

is this: if kp = l0 then let

k ` l := (k0 , . . . , kp , l1 , . . . , lq ).
There are A-algebra homomorphisms
φk,k`l : Ck (A; a) → Ck`l (A; a)

and

φl,k`l : Cl (A; a) → Ck`l (A; a).

For elements a ∈ Ck (A; a) and b ∈ Cl (A; a) we let

a ∗ b := φk,k`l (a) · φl,k`l (b) ∈ Ck`l (A; a).

If kp 6= l0 then the multiplication ∗ is zero.
Let us denote by fa : A → C0 (A; a) the canonical ring homomorphism. It is
easy to check that this becomes a homomorphism of DG algebras
(7.6)

fa : A → C(A; a).

Observe that C(A; a) is concentrated in degrees 0, . . . , n − 1; and each C(A; a)p
is a ﬂat A-module. If n = 1 then C(A; a) = A[a−1
1 ]; in particular in this case
C(A; a) is commutative. However if n ≥ 2 then the center of C(A; a) is the ring
Γ(U, OX ), which is many cases (e.g. A := K[t1 , t2 ], a polynomial algebra over a
ﬁeld, and a := (t1 , t2 )) equals A.
∼
Lemma 7.7.
(1) There is an isomorphism K∨
∞ (A; a)[1] = cone(fa ) in
C(Mod A). The corresponding distinguished triangle in K(Mod A) is
e∨
a,∞

fa

△

K∨
→ A −→ C(A; a) −
→.
∞ (A; a) −−−

(2) The homomorphisms

1C ⊗ fa , fa ⊗ 1C : C(A; a) → C(A; a) ⊗A C(A; a)

are quasi-isomorphisms.

Proof. (1) This is a direct calculation, quite easy.
(2) Since the complexes in the distinguished triangle in part (1) are all K-ﬂat over
A, the assertion follows from Lemma 3.29.

Theorem 7.8. Let a = (a1 , . . . , an ) be a weakly proregular sequence in the ring A,
and let a be the ideal generated by a. The following conditions are equivalent for
M ∈ D(Mod A):
(i) M is cohomologically a-adically complete.

ON THE HOMOLOGY OF COMPLETION AND TORSION

31


(ii) RHomA C(A; a), M = 0.

Proof. From Lemma 7.7(1), Lemma 7.1 and Corollary 3.26 (applied to M := A) we
see that there is an isomorphism RΓ0/a (A) ∼
= C(A; a) in D(Mod A). Now combine
this with Lemma 7.2.

Let F : D → D′ be an additive functor between additive categories. Recall that
the essential image of F is the full subcategory of D′ on the objects N ′ ∈ D′ such
that N ′ ∼
= F (N ) for some N ∈ D. The kernel of F is the full subcategory of D on
the objects N ∈ D such that F (N ) ∼
= 0.
Proposition 7.9. When a is a weakly proregular ideal in A, the kernel of the
functor LΛa equals the kernel of the functor RΓa .
Proof. This is an immediate consequence of the MGM Equivalence (Theorem 6.11).

For a DG algebra C we denote by DGMod C the category of left DG C-modules,
and by D̃(DGMod C) the derived category, gotten by inverting the quasi-isomorphisms in DGMod C.
Theorem 7.10. Let a = (a1 , . . . , an ) be a weakly proregular sequence in the ring
A, and let a be the ideal generated by a. Consider the triangulated functor
F : D̃(DGMod C(A; a)) → D(Mod A)

induced by the DG algebra homomorphism A → C(A; a).
(1) The functor F is full and faithful.
(2) The essential image of F equals the kernel of the functor LΛa .
Proof. (1) Let’s write C := C(A; a), D(C) := D̃(DGMod C) and D(A) := D(Mod A).
Take any N ∈ DGMod C. Lemma 7.7(2) implies that fa ⊗ 1N : N → C ⊗A N is
a quasi-isomorphism. This shows that the functor G : D(A) → D(C), G(M ) :=
C ⊗A M , is right adjoint to F , and it satisﬁes G ◦ F ∼
= 1D(C) . Hence F is fully
faithful.
(2) Let’s write K := K∨
∞ (A; a). Take any M ∈ D(A). In view of the idempotence of
C (namely Lemma 7.7(2)), Proposition 7.9, Corollary 3.26 and the proof of part (1)
above, it is enough to show that K ⊗A M ∼
= 0 iﬀ M ∼
= C ⊗A M . Now after applying
− ⊗A M to the distinguished triangle in Lemma 7.7(1) we obtain a distinguished
triangle
△
K ⊗A M → M → C ⊗A M −
→
in D(A). So the conditions are indeed equivalent.

Remark 7.11. One can show that D(A)a-tor is a Bousﬁeld localization of D(A)
in the sense of [Ne, Chapter 9]. Here we use the notation from the proof above.
Therefore, using Proposition 7.9 and Theorem 7.10, we see that there is an exact
sequence of triangulated categories
F

RΓ

a
D(A)a-tor → 0.
0 → D(C) −
→ D(A) −−−→

This was already observed in [AJL1, Remark 0.4] and [DG].
Moreover, Jorgensen, in [Jo, Theorem 3.3], showed that when we take into account the functors
inc, LΛa : D(A)a-tor → D(A)

32

MARCO PORTA, LIRAN SHAUL AND AMNON YEKUTIELI

and
RHomA (C, −), C ⊗A − : D(A) → D(C)

we obtain a recollement of triangulated categories.

Remark 7.12. The scheme U = X − Z is quasi-aﬃne. We denote by QCoh OU the
category of quasi-coherent OU -modules. It can be shown that there is a canonical
A-linear equivalence of triangulated categories
D(QCoh OU ) ≈ D̃(DGMod C(A; a)).

Of course in the principal case (n = 1) this is a trivial fact. In terms of derived
Morita theory, the equivalence above corresponds to the fact that OU is a compact
generator of D(QCoh OU ).
Remark 7.13. In the paper [KS2] the authors consider the special case where a
is a principal ideal of A, generated by a regular element (i.e. a non-zero-divisor) a.
Here the derived localization C(A; a) is just the commutative ring A[a−1 ], and the
notation of [KS2] for this algebra is Aloc . Theorems 7.8 and 7.10 for this case are
closely related to [KS2, Corollaries 1.5.7 and 1.5.9]. The Cohomological Nakayama
Theorem in [PSY2] is inspired by results in [KS2].
References
[AJL1] L. Alonso, A. Jeremias and J. Lipman, Local homology and cohomology on schemes,
Ann. Sci. ENS 30 (1997), 1-39. Correction, availabe online at
http://www.math.purdue.edu/~lipman/papers/homologyfix.pdf
[AJL2] L. Alonso, A. Jeremias and J. Lipman, Duality and flat base change on formal schemes. in:
“Studies in duality on Noetherian formal schemes and non-Noetherian ordinary schemes”,
Contemporary Mathematics, 244 pp. 3-90. AMS, 1999. Correction: Proc. AMS 131, No.
2 (2003), pp. 351-357
[Bo]
N. Bourbaki, “Commutative Algebra”, Chapters 1-7, Springer, 1989.
[DG]
W. G. Dwyer and J. P. C. Greenless, Complete Modules and Torsion Modules, American
J. Math. 124, No. 1 (2002), 199-220.
[DGI] W.G. Dwyer, J.P.C. Greenlees and S. Iyengar, Duality in algebra and topology, Advances
Math. 200 (2006), 357-402.
[BN]
M. Bokstedt and A. Neeman, Homotopy limits in triangulated categories, Compositio
Math. 86 (1993), 209-234.
[Ef]
A.I Efimov, Formal completion of a category along a subcategory, eprint arXiv:1006.4721.
[GM]
J.P.C. Greenlees and J.P. May, Derived functors of I-adic completion and local homology,
J. Algebra 149 (1992), 438-453.
[HY]
R. Huebl and A. Yekutieli, Adelic Chern Forms and Applications, American Journal of
Mathematics 121 (1999), 797-839.
[Jo]
P. Jorgensen, Recollement for differential graded algebras, J. Algebra 299, Issue 2 (2006),
Pages 589-601.
[Ke]
B. Keller, Deriving DG categories, Ann. Sci. Ecole Norm. Sup. 27, (1994) 63-102.
[KS1] M. Kashiwara and P. Schapira, “Sheaves on Manifolds”, Springer-Verlag, (1990).
[KS2] M. Kashiwara and P. Schapira, Astérisque, Soc. Math. France, 345 (2012)
[LC]
A. Grothendieck, “Local Cohomology”, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 41, Springer, 1967.
[Ma1] E. Matlis, Injective modules over noetherian rings, Pacific J. Math. 8 (1958), 511-528.
[Ma2] E. Matlis, The Higher Properties of R-Sequences, J. Algebra 50 (1978), 77-112.
[Ne]
A. Neeman, “Triangulated Categories”, Annals of Mathematics Studies 148, Princeton,
2001.
[PSY1] M. Porta, L. Shaul and A. Yekutieli, Completion by Derived Double Centralizer, eprint
arXiv:1207.0612.
[PSY2] M. Porta, L. Shaul and A. Yekutieli, Cohomologically Cofinite Complexes, eprint
arXiv:1208.4064.

ON THE HOMOLOGY OF COMPLETION AND TORSION

[RD]
[Sc]
[Sp]
[We]
[Ye1]
[Ye2]

33

R. Hartshorne, “Residues and Duality,” Lecture Notes in Math. 20, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, 1966.
P. Schenzel, Proregular sequences, Local Cohomology, and Completion, Math. Scand. 92
(2003), 181-180.
N. Spaltenstein, Resolutions of unbounded complexes, Compositio Math. 65 (1988), no.
2, 121-154.
C. Weibel, “An introduction to homological algebra”, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1994.
A. Yekutieli, Smooth formal embeddings and the residue complex, Can. J. Math. 50
(1998), 863-896.
A. Yekutieli, On Flatness and Completion for Infinitely Generated Modules over Noetherian Rings, Comm. Algebra 39, Issue 11 (2011), 4221-4245.

Department of Mathematics, Ben Gurion University, Be’er Sheva 84105, Israel
E-mail address: (Porta) marcoporta1@libero.it, (Shaul) shlir@math.bgu.ac.il, (Yekutieli) amyekut@math.bgu.ac.il

