arXiv:1801.08933v1 [math.KT] 26 Jan 2018

TRANSFER OF A∞ -STRUCTURES TO PROJECTIVE
RESOLUTIONS
JESSE BURKE
Abstract. We show that an A∞ -algebra structure can be transferred to a
projective resolution of the complex underlying any A∞ -algebra. Under certain connectedness assumptions, this transferred structure is unique up to
homotopy. In contrast to the classical results on transfer of A∞ -structures
along homotopy equivalences, our result is of interest when the ground ring is
not a field. We prove an analog for A∞ -module structures, and both transfer
results preserve strict units.

0. Introduction
It is a classical and motivating result in the theory of A∞ -algebras that A∞ ∼
structures can be transferred along homotopy equivalences, i.e., if f : A −
→ B is a
homotopy equivalence of complexes, and B has an A∞ -algebra structure, then A
has an A∞ -algebra structure, and f can be extended to a morphism of the A∞ algebras. Different versions of this result are proved in [12, 7, 9, 11, 8, 15, 18, 17].
It is most often used the in case B is a dg-algebra, A = H∗ (B) is the homology
algebra of B (with zero differential), and the ground ring k is a field, so there is a
homotopy equivalence between A and B.
In this paper we show that if B has an A∞ -algebra structure, and q : A → B is
a projective resolution of the complex underlying B, over the ground ring k, then
A has an A∞ -algebra structure such that q is a strict morphism of A∞ -algebras
(by projective resolution we mean a cofibrant replacement in the projective model
category structure on chain complexes over k). If B satisfies Hi (B) = 0 for all i < 0,
then the transferred structure on A is unique up to homotopy. If the A∞ -algebra
structure on B is strictly unital, then the transferred structure is also strictly unital,
under a mild assumption on A. We prove analogous results for A∞ -modules. Note
that if k is not a field, then a projective resolution is generally not a homotopy
equivalence, so the earlier results do not apply.
These transfer results are a technical tool in developing Koszul duality relative to
an arbitrary commutative base ring. By Koszul duality we mean in the generalized
sense of using the bar construction, or some small replacement of it, to study the
homological algebra of an algebra B (associative, dg, or A∞ ), e.g., to construct
canonical B-projective resolutions of B-modules. If B is not projective as a module
over k, then its bar construction can be nonsensical. For instance, if B = k/I is a
cyclic k-algebra, the bar construction of B is an infinite sequence of copies of B with
zero differential. This tells us nothing about the structure of B and seems to dash
any hope of using the bar construction to construct resolutions. The transfer results
proved here offer an alternative: resolve B over k, transfer the algebra structure to
the k-resolution, use the bar construction to construct resolutions there, and then
1

2

JESSE BURKE

try to massage the result back down to B. This is carried out in detail in the case
B = k/I is cyclic in [3], and we hope to return to the general case in future work.
The proofs of our results use obstruction theory and the lifting properties of
projective resolutions. Obstruction theory has been used in the construction of
A∞ -structures at least since [7]. Sullivan, in the context of topology, described
obstruction theory as
. . . much like being in a labyrinth with a weak miner’s light attached
to your forehead and being forced always to move forward. The
light enables you to see if you may take your next step but it is not
strong enough to tell you which fork to take when you must make
a decision [6, §6.3].
We can use this analogy to illustrate the relation of the present work to the classical
results on transferring via homotopy equivalence. Our results show that there is
always a path through the labyrinth of transferring an A∞ -algebra structure to
a projective resolution, and in many cases this path is unique up to homotopy,
but we do not have global information, e.g., a map of the labyrinth. The classical
homotopy transfer results give much more detailed information, formulated e.g.,
with SDR data, on the labyrinth of transferring an A∞ -algeba structure via a
homotopy equivalence. Additional information in specialized situations seems to be
needed to better understand the A∞ -structures that result in the case of resolutions.
Finally, we mention that the results here are easily dualized to give transfer
results for injective resolutions, in the case of augmented or nonunital A∞ -algebras.
The way we handle the transfer of strictly unital (but potentially non-augmented)
A∞ -algebras assumes there is a free summand in degree zero. It is not clear at the
moment how to adapt this to the injective case, since injective modules do not have
free summands.

0. Introduction
1. Notation and sign conventions
2. Definitions
3. Statement of results
4. Obstruction theory
5. Proof of main results
References

1
2
3
6
8
14
19

1. Notation and sign conventions
(1) Throughout, k is a fixed commutative ring. By module, complex, map,
etc. we mean k-module, k-linear map, etc. We place no boundedness or
connectedness assumptions on complexes.
(2) For graded modules M, N, Hom(M, N ) and M ⊗ N are graded by:
Y
M
Hom(M, N )n =
Hom(Mi , Ni+n ) (M ⊗ N )n =
Mi ⊗ Nn−i .
i∈Z

i∈Z

TRANSFER OF A∞ -STRUCTURES TO PROJECTIVE RESOLUTIONS

3

If (M, δM ) and (N, δN ) are complexes, then Hom(M, N ) and M ⊗ N are
complexes with differentials δHom and δ⊗ given by:
δHom (f ) = δN f − (−1)|f | f δM

δ⊗ = δM ⊗ 1 + 1 ⊗ δN .

A morphism of complexes is a cycle in the complex (Hom(M, N ), δHom ). A
quasi-isomorphism is a morphism that induces an isomorphism in homology.
(3) All elements of graded objects are assumed to be homogeneous. We write
|x| for the degree of an element x. Set Π to be the endofunctor of the
category of graded modules defined by (ΠM )n = Mn−1 and (Πf )[m] =
[f (m)] for a morphism f , where [m] ∈ (ΠM )n is the element corresponding
s
to m ∈ Mn−1 . There is a degree one natural transformation 1 −
→ Π that
is the identity on every graded module, i.e., s(x) = [x] ∈ ΠM. If (M, δM )
is a complex, we set δΠM = −sδM s−1 , so s : (M, δM ) → (ΠM, δΠM ) is a
degree one cycle in complex (Hom(M, ΠM ), δHom ). We write [x1 | . . . |xn ] =
sx1 ⊗ . . . ⊗ sxn .
(4) Signs are introduced when applying a tensor product of morphisms as follows: (f ⊗ g)(x ⊗ y) = (−1)|g||x| f (x) ⊗ g(y).
2. Definitions
In this section we collect various definitions we need to precisely state our main
results. See e.g., [19, 13, 14] for an introduction to, and further context on, A∞ objects, and [4] for an expanded version of the development below, using string
diagrams. Throughout this section A and B denote graded modules.
Definition 2.1. For l ∈QN, set CC l (A, B) = Hom((ΠA)⊗l , ΠB), and for n ∈ N ∪
{∞}, set CC ≤n (A, B) = 1≤l≤n CC l (A, B). We write CC • (A, B) for CC ≤∞ (A, B).
Elements f ∈ CC • (A, B) are denoted f = (f l ), with f l ∈ CC l (A, B) the lth
tensor homogeneous component. Since A and B are graded, so is CC ≤n (A, B),
using the convention on gradings of Hom and tensor products. We denote the ith
homogeneous component of this grading as CC ≤n (A, B)i .
(1) The Gerstenhaber product of µ = (µl ) ∈ CC • (A, B)i and ν = (ν l ) ∈
CC • (A, A)j is µ ◦ ν = ((µ ◦ ν)l ) ∈ CC • (A, B)i+j , with
X
(µ ◦ ν)l =
µi (1⊗j ⊗ ν l−i+1 ⊗ 1⊗i−j−1 ).
1≤i≤l
0≤j≤i−1

(2) The *-product of ν = (ν l ) ∈ CC • (B, B)−1 and α = (αl ) ∈ CC • (A, B)0 is
ν ∗ α = ((ν ∗ α)l ) ∈ CC • (A, B)−1 , with
X
(ν ∗ α)l =
ν j (αi1 ⊗ . . . ⊗ αij ).
1≤j≤l
i1 +...+ij =l

(3) The homotopy *-product of ν ∈ CC • (B, B)−1 and r ∈ CC • (A, B)1 with
respect to α, β ∈ CC • (A, B)0 is (ν α∗β r) = ((ν α∗β r)l ) ∈ CC • (A, B)0 , with
X
(ν α∗β r)l =
ν i (αj1 ⊗ . . . ⊗ αjk−1 ⊗ rjk ⊗ β jk+1 ⊗ . . . ⊗ β ji ).
1≤i≤l,1≤k≤i
j1 +...+ji =l

4

JESSE BURKE

For any n ≥ 1, CC ≤n (A, A) is a submodule and quotient module of CC • (A, A).
The inclusion allows us to apply the three products defined above to elements of
CC ≤n (A, A), but note that CC ≤n (A, A) is not closed under any of these operations.
≤n
We write (−) : CC • (A, A) → CC ≤n (A, A) for the canonical projection.
Definition 2.2. Let A and B be graded modules and fix n ∈ N ∪ {∞}.
(1) A nonunital An -algebra structure on A is an element ν ∈ CC ≤n (A, A)−1
≤n
such that (ν ◦ ν) = 0. (The pair (A, ν) is then an An algebra.)
(2) A morphism between nonunital An algebras (A, νA ) → (B, νB ) is an element
≤n
α ∈ CC ≤n (A, B)0 such that (νB ∗ α − α ◦ νA ) = 0.
(3) A homotopy between morphisms of nonunital An -algebras α, β : (A, νA ) →
(B, νB ) is an element r ∈ CC n (A, B)1 such that α−β = (νB α∗β r − r ◦ νA )≤n .
The unital versions of the above are defined next. The adjective strict is used to
distinguish from the weaker notion of a homotopy unit, see e.g., [17, §3.2].
Definition 2.3. Let A, B be graded modules with fixed elements 1 ∈ A0 , 1 ∈ B0
and fix n ∈ N ∪ {∞}.
(1) An element ν ≤n ∈ CC ≤n (A, A)−1 is strictly unital (with respect to 1 ∈ A0 )
if ν 2 [1|a] = [a] = (−1)|a| [a|1] for all a ∈ A and ν k [a1 | . . . |ai |1|ai+1 | . . . |ak−1 ] =
0 for all a1 , . . . , ak−1 ∈ A with k 6= 2 and k ≤ n. An An -algebra (A, ν ≤n ) is
strictly unital if ν ≤n is strictly unital in the above sense.
(2) An element α≤n ∈ CC ≤n (A, B)0 is strictly unital if α1 [1] = 1 and for all
2 ≤ k ≤ n and a1 , . . . , ak−1 ∈ A, we have αk [a1 | . . . |ai |1|ai+1 | . . . |ak−1 ] = 0.
A morphism of strictly unital An -algebras is strictly unital if it is strictly
unital in the above sense.
(3) An element r≤n ∈ CC ≤n (A, B)1 is strictly unital if for all 1 ≤ k ≤ n and all
a1 , . . . , ak−1 ∈ A, we have rk [a1 | . . . |ai |1|ai+1 | . . . |ak−1 ] = 0. A homotopy
between strictly unital morphisms is strictly unital if it is strictly unital in
the above sense.
We now recall definitions related to An -modules. It is a small but important
point that An -module structures are naturally defined over An−1 -algebras (as opposed to An -algebras).
Definition 2.4. Let A be a graded module and (M, δM ) a complex.
(1) The graded module Hom(M, M ) is a canonically a dg algebra, with multiplication given by composition and differential δHom = [δM , −]. We de1
note by (End M, νEnd ) the corresponding A∞ -algebra, so νEnd
= δΠ Hom =
−1 ⊗2
−1
2
−sδHom s
and νEnd = −sγ(s ) , where γ denotes composition. See
also [4, Remark 2.10].
(2) If (A, ν ≤n−1 ) is a nonunital An−1 -algebra, an An -module structure on (M, δM )
is a morphism of An−1 -algebras pM ∈ CC ≤n−1 (A, End M ).
One can use the isomorphism CC l−1 (A, End M )0 ∼
= Hom((ΠA)⊗l−1 ⊗ M, M )−1
l
to write an An -module structure pM = (pM ) as a sequence of maps ml : (ΠA)⊗l−1 ⊗
M → M, with 1 ≤ l ≤ n, giving an idea why this is called an An -module structure.
It will be helpful Q
to expand CC ≤n (A, B) by allowing tensor degree zero elements.
≤n
Set CCu (A, B) = 0≤l≤n CC l (A, B) = ΠB ⊕ CC ≤n (A, B). Given an An -module
structure pM ∈ CC ≤n−1 (A, End M )0 on a complex (M, δM ), we consider δM +pM ∈
CCu• (A, End M )0 . Conversely, we can view An -module structures as elements pM ∈

TRANSFER OF A∞ -STRUCTURES TO PROJECTIVE RESOLUTIONS

5

CCu≤n (A, End M )0 such that p0M ∈ End M is a differential and p≥1
M is an morphism
of An−1 -algebras from A to the endomorphism A∞ -algebra of the complex (M, p0M ).
To define morphisms of An -modules, we add to the list of products in 2.1.
Definition 2.5. Let A, M, N, P be graded modules.
(1) Define the ⋆ product as follows,
⋆ : CCu• (A, Hom(N, P ))k ⊗ CCu• (A, Hom(M, N ))l → CCu• (A, Hom(M, P ))k+l−1


n
X
αj ⊗ β n−j  = α ⋆ β,
α ⊗ β = (αn ) ⊗ (β n ) 7→ sγ(s−1 ⊗ s−1 )
j=0

where γ is the composition map.
(2) Let (A, ν ≤n−1 ) be a nonunital An−1 -algebra, for some n ∈ N∪{∞}. An element f ∈ CCu≤n−1 (A, Hom(M, N ))1 is a morphism of An -modules (M, pM ) →
(N, pN ) if
pN ⋆ f + (f ≥1 ) ◦ µ + f ⋆ pM = 0.
The composition with a second morphism, fe ∈ CCu• (A, Hom(N, P ))1 , is
fe ⋆ f ∈ CCu• (A, Hom(M, N ))1 .
(3) An element r ∈ CCu≤n−1 (A, Hom(M, N ))2 is a homotopy between morphisms of An -modules f, g : (M, pM ) → (N, pN ) if
f − g = r ◦ ν ≤n−1 + pN ⋆ r + r ⋆ pM .
The unital version of An -modules is the following:
Definition 2.6. Let (A, ν ≤n−1 ) be a strictly unital An−1 -algebra. An An -module
(M, pM ) is strictly unital if pM is a strictly unital morphism of An−1 -algebras.
A morphism of strictly unital An -modules (M, pM ) → (N, pN ) is a morphism of
An -modules f ≤n−1 such that f ≤n−1 is in CCu≤n−1 (A, Hom(M, N ))1 , i.e., for all
1 ≤ j ≤ n and a1 , . . . , aj−1 ∈ A, we have
f j ([a1 | . . . |ai−1 |1|ai | . . . |aj−1 ]) = 0.
A homotopy between morphisms of strictly unital An -modules f ≤n , g ≤n : (M, pM ) →
(N, pN ) is a homotopy between morphisms of An -modules r≤n−1 such that r≤n−1
is in CCu≤n−1 (A, Hom(M, N ))2 .
To transfer strictly unital A∞ -structures, we need to place a further assumption
on the pair (A, 1).
Definition 2.7. A split element of a graded module A is an element that generates
a rank one free module. A graded module with split element is a pair (A, 1) with
1 a split element in A0 , and a fixed (unlabeled) splitting A → k of the inclusion
k → A, 1 7→ 1. Morphisms of graded modules with split elements (A, 1) → (B, 1)
are always assumed to preserve the fixed splittings. An An algebra with split unit
is a triple (A, 1, ν ≤n ), where (A, 1) is a graded module with split element and ν ≤n
is an An algebra structure on A that is strictly unital with respect to 1.
If (A, 1) is a graded module with split element, we set A = A/(k · 1), and
consider it as a submodule of A via the fixed splitting of 1. The projection A → A
identifies CC ≤n (A, A) as a submodule of CC ≤n (A, A). The trivial strictly unital
A∞ -structure on (A, 1) is a strictly unital element, denoted µ2su ∈ CC 2 (A, A)−1 ,
such that for n ≥ 2, every strictly unital element ν ≤n ∈ CC ≤n (A, A)−1 can be

6

JESSE BURKE

written ν ≤n = µ≤n + µsu for a unique µ≤n ∈ CC ≤n (A, A)−1 ; see [4, Definition 4.3,
Lemma 4.4] for details. Analogously, there is a trivial strictly unital morphism
gsu ∈ CC 1 (A, B)0 and every strictly unital element α≤n ∈ CC ≤n (A, B)0 can be
written uniquely as α≤n = β ≤n + gsu , for β ≤n ∈ CC n (A, B)0 . It is clear that an
element r ∈ CC n (A, B)1 is strictly unital if and only if r is in CC n (A, B)1 .
Remark. If k is a field, then every strictly unital An algebra is an An algebra with
split unit, since every element of A is split. This is no longer the case if k is not a
field: if I is a nonzero ideal of k, then k/I has a strict, but not a split, unit.
We need the following homological algebra of complexes.
Definition 2.8. Let (P, dP ) and (A, dA ) be complexes, and recall the Hom-complex
(Hom(P, A), δHom ) has differential δHom (f ) = dA f − (−1)|f | f dP . If f : (A, dA ) →
(B, dB ) is a morphism of complexes, we have the following morphisms of complexes,
f∗ = Hom(P, f ) : (Hom(P, A), δHom ) → (Hom(P, B), δHom )
f ∗ = Hom(f, P ) : (Hom(B, P ), δHom ) → (Hom(A, P ), δHom ).
Thus Hom(P, −) and Hom(−, P ) are endofunctors of the category of complexes.
A complex (P, dP ) is semiprojective if for every surjective quasi-isomorphism f ,
the morphism f∗ = Hom(P, f ) is also a surjective quasi-isomorphism. A semipro≃
jective resolution of a complex M is a quasi-isomorphism P −
→ M, with P semiprojective.
Remark. If k is a field, then every complex is semiprojective. If Pn = 0 for all
n ≪ 0, then P is semiprojective if and only if each Pn is a projective k-module. In
particular, if M is concentrated in degree 0 (i.e., M is a module), then a projective
resolution of M is a semiprojective resolution. If P is semiprojective, then Pn
is a projective k-module for all n, but not every complex of projective modules is
2
2
semiprojective; for instance, . . . → Z/4Z −
→ Z/4Z −
→ Z/4Z → . . . , where k = Z/4Z.
Every complex has a surjective semiprojective resolution.
Semiprojective complexes are the cofibrant objects in the projective model structure on the category of k-complexes [10, 2.3]. Semifree complexes, of which semiprojective are summands, were first defined in [2]. Semiprojective complexes are the
K-projective complexes of projectives, using the terminology of [20], and cell kmodules, using the terminology of [16].
3. Statement of results
Theorem 3.1. Let (B, νB ) be a strictly unital A∞ -algebra.
1
1
(1) Let q : (ΠA, νA
) → (ΠB, νB
) be a surjective semiprojective resolution of
the complex underlying (B, νB ), and assume that A has a split element
1
1 ∈ A0 with νA
([1]) = 0 and q([1]) = [1]. There exists νA ∈ CC • (A, A)−1 ,
1
extending νA , such that (A, 1, νA ) is an A∞ -algebra with split unit and q is
a strict morphism.1 If (B, νB ) is augmented, then we can choose νA such
that (A, νA ) is augmented.2
1 A morphism of A -algebras f = (f l ) ∈ CC • (A, B) is strict if f l = 0 for all l ≥ 2.
∞
0
2A strictly unital A -algebra (B, ν ) is augmented if there is a strictly unital morphism
∞
B

(B, νB ) → (k, µsu ).

TRANSFER OF A∞ -STRUCTURES TO PROJECTIVE RESOLUTIONS

7

(2) Consider a diagram of strictly unital A∞ -algebras,
(A, νA )
q

(C, νC )

(B, νB ).

α

1
Assume that (C, 1, νC ) is an A∞ -algebra with split unit such that (ΠC, νC
)
1
1
1
is a semiprojective complex, and that q = q is strict, with q : (ΠA, νA ) →
1
(ΠB, νB
) a surjective quasi-isomorphism of complexes. Assume further that
1
1
there is a morphism of chain complexes δ 1 : (ΠC, νC
) → (ΠA, νA
) such that
1
1 1
1
δ [1] = [1] and q δ = α . Then there exists a strictly unital morphism of
A∞ -algebras δ : (C, νC ) → (A, νA ) such that qδ = α.
(3) If H0 (CC n+1 (C, A), dCA ) = 0 for all n ≥ 1, and δ ′ is another lifting of α
through q, then δ and δ ′ are homotopic by a strictly unital homotopy:

A
∼

δ
δ′

C

B.

In particular, if A satisfies H0 (CC n+1 (A, A), dAA ) = 0 for all n ≥ 1, then
any two elements νA , νeA ∈ CC • (A, A), such that (A, 1, νA ) and (A, 1, νeA )
are A∞ -algebras with split units and q is a strict morphism, are homotopy
equivalent (via strictly unital homotopies).
Remark. In part 2 above, there is always a morphism of chain complexes δ 1 :
1
1
(ΠC, νC
) → (ΠA, νA
) such that q 1 δ 1 = α1 , using the lifting properties of the
1
semiprojective complex (ΠC, νC
). But it is not clear that δ 1 can be chosen such
1
that δ [1] = [1]. In certain situations such a δ 1 always exists, e.g., if A0 , B0 , C0 are
all cyclic k-modules. It is also often the case, as in the corollary below, that A = C
and δ 1 can be chosen to be the identity.
Corollary 3.2. Let B be an associative k-algebra, and let π : (A, dA ) → B be a
k-projective resolution. Assume that A has a split element 1 ∈ A0 with π(1) = 1 ∈
B. Then A has a strictly unital A∞ -algebra structure such that sπs−1 is a strict
morphism of A∞ -algebras, and this is unique up to strictly unital homotopy.
n
Proof of Corollary 3.2. We can consider B as an A∞ -algebra (B, νB ) with νB
=0
for all n 6= 2. The complex (A, dA ) is semiprojective, so by 3.1.(1) νA exists as
claimed. To see the uniqueness statement, assume that νA and νeA both satisfy the
hypothesis. By 3.1.(2), with δ 1 = 1, there are strictly unital morphisms δ, ǫ with
qǫ = q and qδ = q, where q = sπs−1 ,

A
δ

q
ǫ

A

q

B.

It follows that qǫδ = q = qδǫ. Now note the canonical map (CC n+1 (A, A), dAA ) →
(CC n+1 (A, B), dAB ) is a quasi-isomorphism, since A is semiprojective. Further,
CC n+1 (A, B)0 ∼
= Hom((A⊗n+1 )−n , B) = 0 for n ≥ 1, since A⊗n+1 is concentrated

8

JESSE BURKE

in nonnegative degrees. Thus H0 (CC n+1 (A, A), dAA ) = 0 for all n ≥ 1, and applying 3.1.(3) shows that ǫδ and δǫ are homotopic to the identity (the definition of
(A, νA ) and (A, νeA ) being homotopy equivalent).


Theorem 3.3. Let (A, 1, ν) be an A∞ -algebra with split unit such that (ΠA, ν 1 )
is a semiprojective complex, and let (M, pM ) be a strictly unital A∞ -module over
(A, 1, ν).
(1) Let q : (G, p0G ) → (M, p0M ) be a surjective semiprojective resolution of the
complex underlying (M, pM ). There exists pG ∈ CC • (A, End G)0 , extending p0G , such that (G, pG ) is a strictly unital A∞ -module over (A, 1, νA ) and
q is a strict morphism of A∞ -modules.3
(2) Consider a diagram of strictly unital A∞ -modules over (A, 1, νA ) :
(G, pG )
q

(N, pN )

(M, pM ).

α

Assume that (N, p0N ) is a semiprojective complex, and that q = q 1 is strict,
with q 1 : (G, p0G ) → (M, p0M ) a surjective quasi-isomorphism of complexes.
Then there exists a strictly unital morphism of A∞ -modules δ : (N, pN ) →
(G, pG ) such that qδ = α.
(3) If H1 (CC n (A, Hom(N, G)), dA Hom ) = 0 for all n ≥ 1, and δ ′ is another
lifting of α through q, then the strictly unital morphisms δ and δ ′ are homotopic (via a strictly unital homotopy):
G
∼

δ
δ′

N

M.

In particular, if G satisfies H1 (CC n (A, Hom(G, G)), dA Hom ) = 0 for all
n ≥ 1, then any two strictly unital A∞ -module structures pG , peG ∈ CC • (A, End G)0 ,
such that q is a strict morphism, are homotopy equivalent (via strictly unital
homotopies).
Corollary 3.4. Let B be an associative k-algebra, and π : (A, dA ) → B a kprojective resolution such that A has a split element 1 ∈ A0 with π(1) = 1 ∈ B. Let
νA be a strictly unital A∞ -structure on A such that sπs−1 is a strict morphism.
≃
(Such νA exists by 3.2.) Let M be a B-module and G −
→ M a k-projective resolution. Then G has a strictly unital A∞ -module structure over (A, 1, νA ), and this is
unique up to strictly unital homotopy.
The proof is similar to the proof of 3.2.
4. Obstruction theory
The main tool used in the proofs of Theorems 3.1 and 3.3 is obstruction theory.
This is a way of extending an An -object (algebra, morphism, or homotopy) to an
An+1 -object, towards the goal of building an A∞ -object. This general strategy is
based on the following.
3A morphism of A -modules f = (f n ) is strict if f n = 0 for all n ≥ 1.
∞

TRANSFER OF A∞ -STRUCTURES TO PROJECTIVE RESOLUTIONS

9

Lemma 4.1. Let A and B be graded modules.
(1) An element ν ∈ CC • (A, A)−1 is a nonunital A∞ -algebra structure if and
only if, for all n ≥ 1, ν ≤n ∈ CC ≤n (A, A)−1 is a nonunital An -algebra
structure.
(2) An element α ∈ CC • (A, B)0 is a morphism of nonunital A∞ -algebras
(A, νA ) → (B, νB ), if and only if, for all n ≥ 1, α≤n ∈ CC ≤n (A, B)0 is
≤n
≤n
a morphism of An -algebras (A, νA
) → (B, νB
).
•
(3) An element r ∈ CC (A, B)1 is a homotopy between morphisms α, β :
(A, νA ) → (B, νB ) if and only if, for all n ≥ 1, r≤n ∈ CC ≤n (A, B)1 is
a homotopy between α≤n and β ≤n .
≤n

≤n

≤n

Proof. Note first that (ν ◦ ν) = (ν ≤n ◦ ν ≤n ) . Thus, if ν ◦ν = 0, then (ν ◦ ν) =
≤n
(ν ≤n ◦ ν ≤n ) = 0 for all n ≥ 1, so ν ≤n is an An -algebra structure for all n ≥ 1.
Conversely, if ν ≤n is an An -algebra for all n ≥ 1, then (ν ◦ ν)≤n = 0 for all n ≥ 1,
and so ν ◦ ν = 0. This proves part 1, and the other parts are proved in an analogous
way.

To pass from an An -object to An+1 -object requires one to show that a certain
cycle, called the obstruction, is a boundary. The complex where this occurs is the
following.
1
1
1
Definition 4.2. Let νA
and νB
be A1 -algebra structures on A and B (i.e., (ΠA, νA
)
1
and (ΠB, νB ) are complexes). For any n ∈ N ∪ {∞}, we consider the complex (CC n+1 (A, B), dAB ), where dAB is the Hom-complex differential δP
Hom on
CC n+1 (A, B) = Hom((ΠA)⊗n , ΠB) between the complexes ((ΠA)⊗n , δ⊗ = j 1⊗j ⊗
1
1
1
1
νA
⊗ 1n−j−1 ) and (ΠB, νB
)). Note that dAB (α) = νB
α − (−1)|α| α ◦ νA
.

Definition 4.3. Let A and B be graded modules.
(1) If (A, ν ≤n ) is an An -algebra, an element ν n+1 ∈ CC n+1 (A, A)−1 extends
ν ≤n if (A, ν ≤n+1 = ν ≤n + ν n+1 ) is an An+1 -algebra. The obstruction (to
extending ν ≤n ) is
≤n+1

o(ν ≤n ) = − (ν ≤n ◦ ν ≤n )

∈ CC n+1 (A, A)−2 .

≤n+1
≤n+1
(2) If (A, νA
) and (B, νB
) are nonunital An+1 -algebras, and α≤n ∈ CC ≤n (A, B)0
≤n
≤n
is a morphism of nonunital An -algebras (A, νA
) → (B, νB
), an element
n+1
n+1
≤n
≤n+1
α
∈ CC
(A, B)0 extends α if α
is a morphism of An -algebras
≤n+1
≤n+1
(A, νA
) → (B, νB
). The obstruction (to extending α≤n to a morphism of An+1 -algebras) is

≤n+1
≤n+1 ≤n+1
o(α≤n ) = − νB
∗ α≤n − α≤n ◦ νA
∈ CC n+1 (A, B)−1 .
≤n+1
≤n+1
(3) If α≤n+1 , β ≤n+1 : (A, νA
) → (B, νB
) are morphisms of nonunital
≤n
≤n
An+1 -algebras, and r ∈ CC (A, B)1 a homotopy between α≤n and β ≤n ,
an element rn+1 ∈ CC n+1 (A, B)1 extends r≤n if r≤n+1 is a homotopy between α≤n+1 and β ≤n+1 . The obstruction (to extending r≤n ) is

≤n+1
≤n+1 ≤n+1
≤n
o(r≤n ) = αn+1 − β n+1 − νB
− r ≤ n ◦ νA
∈ CC n+1 (A, B)0 .
α∗β r

The following is stated in [17, B.1] and a proof of the first part is given. We
give full proofs of all three parts below for the ease of the reader, because they are
essential to what follows, and because loc. cit. implicitly assumes that k is a field

10

JESSE BURKE

(rather that every module is semisimple), though this hypothesis is not used there.
Our proofs are based on the proof of part 1 given in loc. cit.
Proposition 4.4. Let A and B be graded modules.
(1) If (A, ν ≤n ) is a nonunital An -algebra, then the obstruction o(ν ≤n ) is a cycle
in (CC n+1 (A, A), dAA ). An element ν n+1 in CC n+1 (A, A)−1 extends ν ≤n
if and only if dAA (ν n+1 ) = o(ν ≤n ).
≤n+1
≤n+1
(2) If (A, νA
) and (B, νB
) are nonunital An+1 -algebras, and α≤n ∈ CC ≤n (A, B)0
≤n
≤n
is a morphism of nonunital An -algebras (A, νA
) → (B, νB
), then the ob≤n
n+1
struction o(α ) is a cycle in (CC
(A, B), dAB ). An element αn+1 ∈
CC n+1 (A, B)0 extends α≤n if and only if dAB (αn+1 ) = o(α≤n ).
≤n+1
≤n+1
(3) If α≤n+1 , β ≤n+1 : (A, νA
) → (B, νB
) are morphisms of nonunital
≤n
≤n
An+1 -algebras, and r
∈ CC (A, B)1 is a homotopy between α≤n and
β ≤n , then the obstruction o(r≤n ) is a cycle in (CC n+1 (A, B), dAB ). An element rn+1 extends r≤n if and only if dAB (rn+1 ) = o(r≤n ).
For the proofs we will need the following
L technical material. If V is a graded
n
module and n ∈ N ∪ {∞}, we set Tco
(V ) = 1≤i≤n V ⊗i to be the truncated tensor
coalgebra on V . This is a nonunital graded
coalgebra, with comultiplication the
P
linear extension of ∆(v1 ⊗ . . . ⊗ vi ) = 1≤j≤i−1 (v1 ⊗ . . . ⊗ vj ) ⊗ (vj+1 ⊗ . . . ⊗ vi ).
n
Note that CC n (A, B) = Hom(Tco
(ΠA), ΠB).
If C, D are graded coalgebras and α, β : C → D graded coalgebra morphisms,
an (α, β)-coderivation is a degree −1 map r : C → D satisfying ∆D r − (r ⊗ α +
r ⊗ β)∆C = 0. We write Coderα,β (C, D) for the set of (α, β)-coderivations. It will
often be the case that α = 1C = β; a coderivation is a (1C , 1C )-coderivation, and
we will write Coder(C, C) for the set of such.
Lemma 4.5. Let A and B be graded modules and fix n ∈ N ∪ {∞}.
n
(1) The canonical projection π1 : Tco
(ΠB) → ΠB induces an isomorphism,
∼
=

n
n
n
(ΠA), Tco
(ΠB)) −
→ Hom(Tco
(ΠA), ΠB)0 = CC ≤n (A, B)0 .
Ψn = (π1 )∗ : HomCoalgk (Tco

The inverse applied to α = (αl ) ∈ CC ≤n (A, B)0 is given by:
X
πj Ψ−1
αi1 ⊗ . . . ⊗ αij .
n (α)|(ΠA)⊗k =
i1 +...+ij =k

Ψn−1 (α), Ψ−1
n (β)
≤n

n
(ΠA)
Tco

n
(ΠB) be two coalgebra morphisms,
→ Tco
(2) Let
:
n
with α, β ∈ CC (A, B)0 . The canonical projection π1 : Tco
(ΠB) → ΠB
induces an isomorphism,
∼
=

n
n
n
Φα,β
= (π1 )∗ : Coderα,β (Tco
(ΠA), Tco
(ΠB)) −
→ Hom(Tco
(ΠA), ΠB) = CC ≤n (A, B).
n

The inverse applied to r = (rl ) ∈ CC ≤n (A, B) is given by
X
−1
πj (Φα,β
(r)|(ΠA)⊗k =
αi1 ⊗ . . . ⊗ αim−1 ⊗ rim ⊗ β im+1 ⊗ . . . ⊗ β ij .
n )
i1 +...+ij =k
1≤m≤j

Proof. Part 1 is [19, 2.19], and Part 2, in case both morphisms are the identity, is
[19, 2.16]. The proof given in loc. cit. is easily modified to prove part 2 for arbitrary
α and β.

The isomorphisms above are related to the products defined in 2.1 as follows.
(We write Φn for Φ1nC ,1C below and in the sequel.)

TRANSFER OF A∞ -STRUCTURES TO PROJECTIVE RESOLUTIONS

11

Lemma 4.6. Let A and B be graded modules and fix n ∈ N ∪ {∞}.
≤n
(1) For µ ∈ CC ≤n (A, B) and ν ∈ CC ≤n (A, A), we have (µ ◦ ν) = µΦ−1
n (ν).
(2) For ν ∈ CC ≤n (B, B) and α ∈ CC ≤n (A, B)0 , we have (ν ∗ α)≤n = νΨ−1
n (α).
(3) For ν ∈ CC ≤n (B, B)−1 , r ∈ CC ≤n (A, B)1 , and α, β ∈ CC ≤n (A, B)0 , we
−1
have ν α∗β r = ν(Φα,β
(r).
n )
n
Proof. Note that µΦ−1
n (ν) is a morphism Tco (ΠA) → ΠB, i.e., is an element of
≤n
−1
CC
(A, B). By the definition of Φ , this is given in tensor degree 1 ≤ j ≤ n by
P
i ⊗j
⊗ ν k−i+1 ⊗ 1⊗i−j−1 ), which agrees with µ ◦ ν in tensor degree j.
1≤i≤k µ (1
0≤j≤i−1

This proves part 1 and the others are proved in an analogous way.



Proof of Proposition 4.4. We first prove part 1. Let ν n+1 ∈ CC n+1 (A, A)−1 be an
arbitrary element, and set ν ≤n+1 = ν ≤n + ν n+1 . We have,
≤n+1
≤n+1
= (ν ≤n ◦ ν ≤n )
+ ν 1 ◦ ν n+1 + ν n+1 ◦ ν 1
ν ≤n+1 ◦ ν ≤n+1
(4.1)
= −o(ν ≤n ) + dAA (ν n+1 ).
≤n+1
Thus to show o(ν ≤n ) is a cycle, it is enough to show ν ≤n+1 ◦ ν ≤n+1
is a cycle.

≤n+1
≤n+1
Since ν 1 has tensor degree 1, ν ≤n+1 ◦ ν ≤n+1
◦ν 1 = (ν ≤n+1 ◦ ν ≤n+1 ) ◦ ν 1
.
≤n+1
≤n+1
≤n
Since ν
◦ν
is concentrated in tensor degrees at least n+1 (because ν is an
≤n+1
≤n+1
An -algebra structure), (ν ≤n+1 ◦ ν ≤n+1 ) ◦ ν 1
= (ν ≤n+1 ◦ ν ≤n+1 ) ◦ ν ≤n+1
.

≤n+1
1
≤n+1
≤n+1 ≤n+1
≤n+1
≤n+1
≤n+1
Analogously, ν ◦ ν
◦ν
= ν
◦ (ν
◦ν
)
. Thus



≤
n+1
=
dAA ν ≤n+1 ◦ ν ≤n+1
≤n+1
ν ≤n+1 ◦ (ν ≤n+1 ◦ ν ≤n+1 ) − (ν ≤n+1 ◦ ν ≤n+1 ) ◦ ν ≤n+1
= 0,
since f ◦ (f ◦ f ) − (f ◦ f ) ◦ f = 0 for any element of f ∈ CC • (A, A)−1 by [5,
§2], and thus o(ν ≤n ) is a cycle. By definition, ν n+1 extends ν ≤n if and only if
≤n+1
ν ≤n+1 ◦ ν ≤n+1
= 0, and by (4.1) this is equivalent to dAA (ν n+1 ) = o(ν ≤n ).
To prove part 2, let αn+1 ∈ CC n+1 (A, B)0 be an arbitrary element. We have

≤n+1
≤n+1 ≤n+1
(4.2)
νB
∗ α≤n+1 − α≤n+1 ◦ νA
= −o(α≤n ) + dAB (αn+1 ).
Thus to show o(α≤n ) is a cycle, it is enough to show (4.2) is a cycle. Set
≤n+1
n+1
n+1
dA = Φ−1
) ∈ Coder(Tco
(ΠA), Tco
(ΠA))
n+1 (νA
≤n+1
n+1
n+1
dB = Φ−1
) ∈ Coder(Tco
(ΠB), Tco
(ΠB))
n+1 (νB
≤n+1
n+1
n+1
ζ = Ψ−1
) : Tco
(ΠA) → Tco
(ΠB).
n+1 (α

By Lemma 4.6 we have
≤n+1
≤n+1
νB
∗ α≤n+1 − α≤n+1 ◦ νA

≤n+1

≤n+1
= νB
ζ − α≤n+1 dA ,

≤n+1
and thus, we aim to show dAB (νB
ζ − α≤n+1 dA ) = 0.
≤n+1
≤n+1
≤n+1
1
ζ − α≤n+1 dA ) = − νB
ζdA
. Indeed, beWe first claim that νB
(νB
≤n+1
1
1
1
cause νB
has tensor degree 1, νB
(νB
ζ − α≤n+1 dA ) = νB
(dB ζ − ζdA ), using the
definition of Φ−1 and Ψ−1 . Since dB ζ − ζdA is concentrated in tensor degree at
1
least n + 1 (because α≤n is a morphism of An -algebras), we have νB
(dB ζ − ζdA ) =

≤
n+1
≤n+1
νB (dB ζ − ζdA )
, and the claim follows from

≤n+1
≤n+1
≤n+1 ≤n+1
νB
dB = νB
◦ νB
= 0,

12

JESSE BURKE

≤n+1
which holds since νB
is an An+1 algebra structure.
≤n+1
≤n+1
≤n+1
1
= νB
ζdA
. By tensor degree
We now claim that (νB ζ−α≤n+1 dA )◦νA

≤n+1
≤n+1
≤n+1 ≤n+1
≤n+1
1
≤n+1
considerations (νB ζ −α
dA )◦νA = (νB ζ − α
dA ) ◦ νA
, and

≤n+1
≤n+1
this is equal to (νB
ζ − α≤n+1 dA )dA
by Lemma 4.6. The claim follows
n+1
since dA dA = 0, since νA
is an An+1 -algebra structure. Putting the two claims
together, we have
≤n+1
≤n+1
≤n+1
≤n+1
≤n+1
dAB (νB
ζ − α≤n+1 dA ) = − νB
ζdA
+ νB
ζdA
= 0.

This shows that o(α≤n ) is a cycle. By definition, αn+1 is an extension of α≤n if
and only if

≤n+1
≤n+1 ≤n+1
νB
∗ α≤n+1 − α≤n+1 ◦ νA
= 0,

and this is equivalent to dAB (αn+1 ) = o(α≤n ) by (4.2).
To prove part 3, let rn+1 ∈ CC n+1 (A, B)1 be an arbitrary element. We have

≤n+1
≤n+1 ≤n+1
≤n+1
νB
− r≤n+1 ◦ νA
+ β n+1 − αn+1 = −o(r≤n ) + dAB (rn+1 ).
α∗β r

Thus, as above, we aim to show the left side of the above equation is a cycle. Using
similar techniques as in the proof of part 2, one computes


≤n+1
≤n+1 ≤n+1
n+1 ≤n+1
≤n+1
1 ≤n+1
1
νB
− r≤n+1 ◦ νA
= −νB
r
◦ νA
νB
α∗β r


≤n+1
≤n+1 ≤n+1
n+1 ≤n+1
≤n+1
1
1 ≤n+1
νB
− r≤n+1 ◦ νA
◦ νA
= νB
r
◦ νA
α∗β r
1
1 n+1
αn+1 ◦ νA
− νB
α
=0

1
1 n+1
β n+1 ◦ νA
− νB
β
=0

where the last two equalities use that α≤n−1 and β ≤n+1 are morphisms of An+1 algebras. Combining the above four equations, we see that

≤n+1
≤n+1 ≤n+1
≤n+1
dAB ( νB
− r≤n+1 ◦ νA
+ β n+1 − αn+1 ) = 0.
α∗β r
The rest of the proof is analogous to part 2.



To use obstruction theory to construct strictly unital objects, we need to assume (A, 1) is a graded module with split element (see Definition 2.7). It follows from Definition 2.3 that to extend a strictly unital An -algebra structure
on A to a strictly unital An+1 -algebra structure, we need only an element of
CC n+1 (A, A), not CC n+1 (A, A) (and analogously for morphisms and homotopies).
1
1
If νA
is strictly unital, i.e., νA
[1] = 0, the differential dAB preserves CC n+1 (A, B).
We write dAB for dAB |CC n+1 (A,B) , so (CC n+1 (A, B), dAB ) is a subcomplex of
1
1
,
: ΠA → ΠA the map induced by νA
(CC n+1 (A, B), dAB ). If we denote by νA
1
1
then dAB (α) = νB
. The following shows we can work with the
α − (−1)|α| α ◦ νA
complex (CC n+1 (A, B), dAB ) to do strictly unital obstruction theory.
Lemma 4.7. Let (A, 1) be a graded module with split element, B a graded module
with fixed element 1 ∈ B0 , and fix n ∈ N ∪ {∞}.
≤n
(1) If (A, 1, νA
= µ≤An + µsu ) is an An -algebra with split unit, where µ≤An ∈
≤n
CC ≤n (A, A), then the obstruction o(νA
) is in CC n+1 (A, A) ⊆ CC n+1 (A, A).
≤n+1
n+1
n+1
= µ≤An+1 + µsu is a strictly unital An+1 For µA ∈ CC
(A, A)−1 , νA
≤n
n+1
algebra if dAA (µA ) = o(νA ), when n ≥ 2, or dAA (µ2A ) + dAA (µ2su ) = 0
when n = 1.

TRANSFER OF A∞ -STRUCTURES TO PROJECTIVE RESOLUTIONS

13

≤n+1
≤n+1
(2) If (A, 1, νA
) is an An+1 -algebra with split unit, (B, νB
) a strictly uni≤n
≤n
≤n
≤n
tal An+1 -algebra, and α = β + gsu : (A, νA ) → (B, νB
) a strictly unital morphism of An -algebras, with β ≤n ∈ CC ≤n (A, B), then the obstruction
o(α≤n ) is in CC n+1 (A, B) ⊆ CC n+1 (A, B). For β n+1 ∈ CC n+1 (A, B)0 ,
α≤n+1 = β ≤n+1 + gsu is a strictly unital morphism of An+1 -algebras if
dAB (β n+1 ) = o(α≤n ).
≤n+1
≤n+1
(3) If α≤n+1 , β ≤n+1 : (A, νA
) → (B, νB
) are strictly unital morphisms of
≤n
strictly unital An+1 -algebras, and r ∈ CC ≤n (A, B)1 a strictly unital homotopy between α≤n and β ≤n , then the obstruction o(r≤n ) is in CC n+1 (A, B).
For rn+1 ∈ CC n+1 (A, B)1 , r≤n+1 is a strictly unital homotopy between
α≤n+1 and β ≤n+1 if dAB (rn+1 ) = o(r≤n ).
≤n+1

Proof. We prove part 1. By definition, o(ν ≤n ) = (ν ≤n ◦ ν ≤n )
. If n = 1, then
o(ν ≤n ) = 0 ∈ CC 2 (A, A). If n ≥ 2, we can write ν ≤n = µ≤n + µsu , for µ≤n ∈
CC ≤n (A, A). Write µ≤n = µ≤n + h≤n ∈ CC ≤n (A, A) ⊕ CC ≤n (A, k), so ν ≤n ◦ ν ≤n =
(µ≤n + h≤n + µsu ) ◦ (µ≤n + h≤n + µsu ). It is clear that µ≤n ◦ h≤n = 0 = h≤n ◦ h≤n , and
µsu ◦ µsu = 0 since it is an A∞ -algebra structure. By [4, Lemma 4.7.1], µ≤n ◦ µsu +
µsu ◦µ≤n = 0, and by [4, Lemma 4.7.2], h≤n ◦µsu +µsu ◦h≤n = µsu (h≤n ⊗1+1⊗h≤n ).
Thus, ν ≤n ◦ ν ≤n = µ≤n ◦ µ≤n + h≤n ◦ µ≤n + µsu (h≤n ⊗ 1 + 1 ⊗ h≤n ), and this vanishes
on any element that contains 1, so o(ν ≤n ) is in CC n+1 (A, A).
Let µn+1 ∈ CC n+1 (A, A)−1 be an arbitrary element. Assume first that n ≥ 2.
By 4.4.(1), ν ≤n + µn+1 = µ≤n+1 + µsu is an An+1 -algebra structure exactly when
dAA (µn+1 ) = o(ν ≤n ). If n = 1, then o(ν ≤n ) = 0, and so by 4.4 again, ν 1 + µ2 + µsu
is an A∞ -algebra if dAB (µ2 + µsu ) = 0. The other parts are proved analogously. 
We now formulate the module analogues of the definitions and results of this
section. Proofs are not included, but are similar to their algebra analogues.
Lemma 4.8. Let (A, ν) be a nonunital A∞ -algebra.
(1) An element pM ∈ CCu• (A, End M )0 is an A∞ -module structure over (A, ν)
if and only if p≤n−1
is an An -module structure over (A, ν ≤n−1 ) for all n ≥ 1.
M
•
(2) An element f ∈ CCu (A, Hom(M, N ))1 is a morphism of A∞ -modules (M, pM ) →
(N, pN ) if and only if f ≤n−1 is a morphism of An -modules (M, p≤n−1
)→
M
(N, p≤n−1
)
for
all
n
≥
1.
N
(3) An element f ∈ CCu• (A, HomM (N, ))2 is a homotopy between morphisms of
A∞ -modules f, g : (M, pM ) → (N, pN ) if and only if r≤n−1 is a homotopy
between f ≤n−1 and g ≤n−1 for all n ≥ 1.
Definition 4.9. Let (A, ν ≤n ) be a nonunital An -algebra.
(1) If (M, p≤n−1 ) is an An -module over (A, ν ≤n−1 ), an element pn ∈ CC n (A, End M )0
extends p≤n−1 if (M, p≤n ) is an An+1 -module over (A, ν ≤n ). The obstruction
(to extending p≤n−1 ) is
≤n

≤n
o(p≤n−1 ) = − νEnd
∗ p≤n−1 − p≤n−1 ◦ ν ≤n
∈ CC n (A, End M )−1 .
≤n
≤n
(2) If (M, p≤n
) and f ≤n−1 :
M ) and (N, pM ) are An+1 -modules over (A, ν
≤n−1
≤n−1
(M, pM ) → (N, pM ) a morphism of An -modules, an element f n ∈
CC n (A, Hom(M, N ))1 extends f ≤n−1 if f ≤n is a morphism of An+1 -modules

14

JESSE BURKE
≤n
≤n−1
(M, p≤n
) is
M ) → (N, pM ). The obstruction (to extending f

≤n

≤n−1
o(f ≤n−1 ) = − p≤n
+ f 1≤i≤n−1 ◦ ν ≤n + f ≤n−1 ⋆ p≤n
N ⋆f
M
∈ CC n (A, Hom(M, N ))0 .
≤n
(3) If f ≤n , g ≤n : (M, p≤n
M ) → (N, pM ) are morphisms of An+1 -modules, and
≤n−1
≤n−1
r
is a homotopy between f
and g ≤n−1 , an element rn ∈ CC n (A, Hom(M, N ))2
≤n−1
≤n
extends r
if r is a homotopy between f ≤n and g ≤n . The obstruction
(to extending r≤n−1 ) is
≤n
o(r≤n−1 ) = f n − g n − pN
⋆ r≤n−1 − r≤n−1 ◦ ν ≤n − r≤n−1 ⋆ p≤n
M

∈ CC n (A, Hom(M, N ))1 .
Proposition 4.10. Let (A, ν ≤n ) be a nonunital An -algebra.
(1) If (M, p≤n−1 ) is an An -module over (A, ν ≤n−1 ), then the obstruction o(p≤n−1 )
is a cycle in (CC n (A, End M ), dA End ). An element pn in CC n (A, End M )0
extends p≤n−1 if and only if dA End (pn ) = o(p≤n−1 ).
≤n
≤n
(2) If (M, p≤n
) and f ≤n−1 :
M ) and (N, pM ) are An+1 -modules over (A, ν
≤n−1
≤n−1
(M, pM ) → (N, pM ) is a morphism of An -modules, then the obstruction o(f ≤n−1 ) is a cycle in (CC n (A, Hom(M, N )), dA Hom ). An element
f n in CC n (A, Hom(M, N ))1 extends f ≤n−1 if and only if dA Hom (f n ) =
o(f ≤n−1 ).
≤n
(3) If f ≤n , g ≤n : (M, p≤n
M ) → (N, pM ) are morphisms of An+1 -modules, and
≤n−1
≤n−1
r
is a homotopy between f
and g ≤n−1 , then the obstruction o(r≤n−1 )
n
is a cycle in (CC (A, Hom(M, N )), dA Hom ). An element rn in CC n (A, Hom(M, N ))2
extends r≤n−1 if and only if dA Hom (rn ) = o(r≤n−1 ).
Lemma 4.11. Let (A, 1, ν ≤n ) be an An -algebra with split unit.
(1) If (M, p≤n−1 = p≤n−1 + gsu ) is a strictly unital An -module over (A, ν ≤n−1 ),
with p≤n−1 ∈ CCu≤n (A, End M ), then the obstruction o(p≤n−1 ) is in CC n (A, End M )0 .
For pn ∈ CC n (A, End M )0 , p≤n + gsu is a strictly unital An+1 -module over
(A, 1, ν ≤n ) if dA End (pn ) = o(p≤n−1 ).
≤n
≤n
(2) If (M, p≤n
),
M ) and (N, pM ) are strictly unital An+1 -modules over (A, ν
≤n−1
≤n−1
≤n−1
and f
: (M, pM ) → (N, pM ) is a morphism of strictly unital An modules, then the obstruction o(f ≤n−1 ) is in CC n (A, Hom(M, N )). For
≤n
f n ∈ CC n (A, Hom(M, N ))1 , f ≤n−1 is a morphism (M, p≤n
M ) → (N, pN )
n
≤n−1
if dA Hom (f ) = o(f
).
(3) If f ≤n , g ≤n : (M, p≤n
)
→
(N, p≤n
M
M ) are morphisms of strictly unital An+1 ≤n−1
modules and r
is a strictly unital homotopy between f ≤n−1 and g ≤n−1 ,
then the obstruction o(r≤n−1 ) is in CC n (A, Hom(M, N )). For rn ∈ CC n (A, Hom(M, N ))2 ,
r≤n is a homotopy between f ≤n and g ≤n if dA Hom (rn ) = o(r≤n−1 ).
5. Proof of main results
≤n
Proof of Theorem 3.1. We first prove part 1. Assume that n ≥ 1, (A, 1, νA
) is
an An -algebra with split unit, and the following diagram is commutative for all

TRANSFER OF A∞ -STRUCTURES TO PROJECTIVE RESOLUTIONS

15

1≤i≤n:
i
νA

(ΠA)⊗i
(5.1)

ΠA
q

q⊗i

(ΠB)⊗i

ΠB.

i
νB

n+1
This holds for n = 1 by hypothesis. We will construct νA
such that (5.1) is
commutative for i = n + 1. The cases n = 1 and n ≥ 2 require different proofs, but
both use the following morphisms of chain complexes:

ϕ = CC n+1 (A, q) : (CC n+1 (A, A), dAA ) → (CC n+1 (A, B), dAB ),
φ = CC n+1 (q, B) : (CC n+1 (B, B), dBB ) → (CC n+1 (A, B), dAB ).
Since ((ΠA)⊗n+1 , δ⊗ ) is a semiprojective complex and q is a surjective quasiisomorphism,4 ϕ is also a surjective quasi-isomorphism. These maps fit into the
following diagram, where the unlabeled morphism is inclusion,
CC n+1 (A, A)
≃ ϕ

CC n+1 (A, B)
CC n+1 (B, B)

φ

CC n+1 (A, B).

2
Assume n = 1. We construct νA
such that (5.1) is commutative. Consider the
2
2
element ζ = φ(νB ) − qµsu ∈ CC 2 (A, B)−1 . We have ζ[a|1] = 0 = ζ[1|a] for all
a ∈ A, since νB is strictly unital and q[1] = [1]. Thus ζ is in CC 2 (A, B)−1 . Using
the surjectivity of ϕ, choose µ2 ∈ CC 2 (A, A) such that ϕ(µ2 ) = ζ. We have, using
that ϕ is a morphism of chain complexes for the first equality,

ϕ(dAA (µ2 )) = dAB (ϕ(µ2 )) = dAB (ζ)
2
= dAB (φ(νB
)) − qdAA (µ2su )
2
= φ(dBB (νB
)) − ϕ(dAA (µ2su )),

where we can write qdAA (µ2su ) = ϕ(dAA (µ2su )) since dAA (µ2su ) is in CC 2 (A, A).
≤2
1
2
Since νB
is an A2 -algebra structure, and o(νB
) = 0, we have dBB (νB
) = 0 by
2
4.4.(1). Rearranging the equation directly above shows ϕ(dAA (µ ) + dAA (µ2su )) =
0, i.e., dAA (µ2 ) + dAA (µ2su ) ∈ ker ϕ. Since ϕ is a surjective quasi-isomorphism,
ker ϕ is acyclic, and thus there exists µ
e2 with dAA (e
µ2 ) = dAA (µ2 ) + dAA (µ2su ). Set
µ2A = µ2 − µ
e2 . We then have dAA (µ2A ) + dAA (µ2su ) = 0, and so by 4.7.(1), setting
≤2
2
νA
= µ2A + µ2su makes (A, 1, νA
) into an A2 -algebra with split unit. Moreover,
2
φ(νB
) = q(µ2 + µ2su )
2
= q(µ2 − µ
e2 + µ2su ) = qvA
,
4To see that (ΠA)⊗n+1 , δ ) is semiprojective, note that A = ker((A, d ) → (k, 0)) is semipro⊗
A
jective, and the tensor product of two semiprojectives is semiprojective.

16

JESSE BURKE

where the second equality uses that µ
e2 is in ker ϕ. Thus (5.1) is commutative for
i = 2.
Assume now that n ≥ 2. We continue to use the morphisms ϕ and φ defined
above. We have, where the first equality is by definition,
≤n+1

≤n
≤n
≤n
)) = (νB
◦ νB
)
φ(o(νB

q ⊗n+1

≤n+1

≤n
≤n
= q (νA
◦ νA
)

≤n
= ϕ(o(νA
)).

(The second equality follows from the commutativity of (5.1) for all 1 ≤ i ≤ n,
≤n
and the third from the fact that o(νA
) is in CC n+1 (A, A), by 4.7.(1).) Since νB
n+1
is strictly unital and q[1] = [1], the element φ(νB
) is in CC n+1 (A, B). Using the
n+1
n+1
n+1
surjectivity of ϕ, choose µ
in CC
(A, A) with ϕ(µn+1 ) = φ(νB
). We then
have, where the first equality follows from 4.4.(1),
≤n
≤n
n+1
n+1
)) − ϕ(o(νA
))
0 = φ(dBB (νB
) − o(νB
)) = dAB (φ(νB
≤n
))
= dAB (ϕ(µn+1 )) − ϕ(o(νA
≤n
)),
= ϕ(dAA (µn+1 ) − o(νA
≤n
i.e., dAA (µn+1 ) − o(νA
) ∈ ker ϕ. Since this element is a cycle, by 4.7.(1), and ker ϕ
≤n
µn+1 ) = dAA (µn+1 )−o(νA
).
is acyclic, there exists µ
en+1 in CC n+1 (A, A) with dAA (e
≤
n
≤
n+1
≤
n+1
n+1
n+1
n+1
n+1
Set µA = µ
−µ
e
, so dAA (µA ) = o(νA ). By 4.7.(1), νA
= µA
+ µsu
n+1
is a strictly unital An+1 -algebra structure. Moreover, since ϕ(µn+1
)=
A ) = ϕ(µ
≤n+1
≤n+1
n+1
φ(νB
), and νA
, νB
are both strictly unital, (5.1) is commutative for i =
n + 1. It now follows by induction and Lemma 4.1 that there is a strictly unital
element νA ∈ CC • (A, A)−1 such that (A, 1, νA ) is an A∞ -algebra with split unit
and such that (5.1) is commutative for all i ≥ 1. Thus q is a strict morphism
(A, νA ) → (B, νB ).
If (B, νB ) is augmented, then one can replace CC n+1 (B, B) with CC n+1 (B, B),
CC n+1 (A, B) with CC n+1 (A, B), and CC n+1 (A, A) with CC n+1 (A, A), and mimick the previous proof to construct µA ∈ CC • (A, A) such that νA = µA + µsu is an
augmented A∞ -structure and q is a strict morphism.
We now prove part 2. Write α = β + gsu , with β ∈ CC • (C, B)0 . Assume
that n ≥ 1, and γ ≤n + gsu is a strictly unital morphism of An -algebras such that
qγ ≤n = β ≤n . This holds for n = 1 by hypothesis. Define ψ as follows,

ψ = CC n+1 (C, q) : (CC n+1 (C, A), dCA ) → (CC n+1 (C, B), dCB ).
Since q is a surjective quasi-isomorphism and (ΠC)⊗n+1 is semiprojective, ψ is a
surjective quasi-isomorphism. We now calculate:
≤n+1
≤n+1
≤n+1
ψ(o(δ ≤n )) = q γ ≤n ◦ νC
− νA
∗ γ ≤n
≤n+1
≤n+1
≤n+1
= (qγ ≤n ) ◦ νC
− (qνA
) ∗ γ ≤n
≤n+1
≤n+1
≤n+1
= β ≤ n ◦ νC
− (νB
∗ q) ∗ γ ≤n
≤n+1
≤n+1
≤n+1
= β ≤ n ◦ νC
− νB
∗ β ≤n
= o(α≤n ).
γ ) = β n+1 . Thus
Using the surjectivity of ψ, choose γ
e ∈ CC n+1 (C, A)0 with ψ(e
ψ(dCA (e
γ ) − o(δ ≤n )) = dCB ψ(e
γ ) − o(α≤n )

= dCB (β n+1 ) − o(α≤n ) = 0,

TRANSFER OF A∞ -STRUCTURES TO PROJECTIVE RESOLUTIONS

17

γ ) − o(δ ≤n ) is in ker ψ. By
where the last equality holds by 4.7.(2). Thus dCA (e
≤n
≤n
4.4.(2) o(δ ) is a cycle, and thus dCA (e
γ ) − o(δ ) is also a cycle. Since ψ is a
quasi-isomorphism, ker ψ is acyclic, and thus there exists ǫ ∈ ker ψ with dCA (ǫ) =
dCA (e
γ ) − o(δ ≤n ). Set γ n+1 = e
γ − ǫ, so dCA (γ n+1 ) − o(δ ≤n ) = 0. By 4.7.(2),
≤n
≤n+1
δ =γ
+ gsu is a strictly unital morphism of An+1 -algebras. Also, pγ n+1 =
n+1
ψ(γ
) = ψ(e
γ ) = β n+1 , since ψ(ǫ) = 0. Thus, by induction, there exists γ ∈
•
CC (C, A)0 , such that δ = γ + gsu is a strictly unital morphism with qδ = α.
To prove part 3, let δ ′ = γ ′ + gsu be another strictly unital morphism lifting
α through q, and assume that H0 (CC n+1 (C, A), dCA ) = 0 for all n ≥ 1. Since
qγ 1 = qγ ′1 , γ 1 −γ ′1 is in ker ψ. This is element is a cycle, since γ 1 and γ ′1 are cycles.
Because ker ψ is acyclic, there exists r1 ∈ CC 1 (C, A)1 with dCA (r1 ) = γ 1 − γ ′1 .
Assume by induction r≤n is a strictly unital homotopy between β ≤n and γ ≤n . Since
o(r≤n ) is a cycle in CC n+1 (C, A)0 , and H0 (CC n+1 (C, A), dCA ) = 0, there exists
rn+1 with dCA (rn+1 ) = o(r≤n ). Thus by 4.7.(3), r≤n+1 is a strictly unital homotopy
between γ ≤n+1 and γ ′≤n+1 . Now by induction, and 4.1.(3), there exists a strictly
unital homotopy between δ and δ ′ .

Proof of Theorem 3.3. We first prove part 1. Write pM = pM + gsu with pM ∈
CC • (A, End M )0 . Assume that n ≥ 1 and p≤n−1
is an element in CC ≤n−1 (A, End G)0
G
≤n−1
+ gsu ) is a strictly unital module over (A, 1, ν ≤n ) and the folsuch that (G, pG
lowing diagram is commutative for all 0 ≤ i ≤ n − 1 :
(ΠA)⊗i
(5.2)

piG

Πq∗

piM

Π End M

Π End G

Πq∗

Π Hom(G, M ).

This holds for n = 1 by hypothesis (note that p0 = p0 ). The morphism q∗ :
(End G, δHom ) → (Hom(G, M ), δHom ) is a surjective quasi-isomorphism, since q is a
surjective quasi-isomorphism and (G, p0G ) is semiprojective. Consider the following
morphisms of complexes:
ϕ = CC n (A, q∗ ) : (CC n (A, End G), dA End ) → (CC n (A, Hom(G, M )), dA Hom )
φ = CC n (A, q ∗ ) : (CC n (A, End M ), dA End ) → (CC n (A, Hom(G, M )), dA Hom ).
Since q∗ is a surjective quasi-isomorphism and ((ΠA)⊗n , δ⊗ ) is semiprojective, ϕ is
a surjective quasi-isomorphism. We have the following diagram:
CC n (A, End P )
≃ ϕ

CC n (A, End M )

φ

CC n (A, Hom(P, M )).

Using the surjectivity of ϕ, choose pn in CC n (A, End P ) with ϕ(pn ) = φ(pnM ). Using
that ϕ and φ are morphisms of complexes, we have ϕ(dA End (pn )) = φ(dA End (pnM )).
We also claim that
(5.3)

φ(o(p≤n−1
)) = ϕ(o(p≤n−1
)).
M
G

Assuming the claim (we give a proof in the next paragraph), we then have
)) = φ(dA End (pnM ) − o(p≤n−1
)) = 0,
ϕ(dA End (pn ) − o(p≤n−1
G
M

18

JESSE BURKE

) is in
where the last equality follows from 4.11.(1). Thus dA End (pn ) − o(p≤n−1
G
n
)
is
a
cycle
in
(CC
(A,
End
G),
d
)
and
ker
ϕ
is
acyclic
ker ϕ. Since o(p≤n−1
G
A End
(since ϕ is a quasi-isomorphism), there exists pen ∈ ker ϕ ⊆ CC n (A, End G) with
pn ) = dA End (pn ) − o(p≤n−1
). Set pnG = pn − pen , so dA End (pnG ) = o(p≤n−1
).
dA End (e
G
G
≤n
By 4.11.(1), pG + gsu is a strictly unital An -module structure on G. Moreover,
Πq∗ (pnG ) = ϕ(pn − pen ) = ϕ(pn ) = φ(pnM ) = Πq ∗ (pnM ),

where the first equality is by definition of ϕ and pnG , the second because pen is in
ker ϕ, the third by choice of pn , and the fourth by definition of φ. Thus (5.2) is
commutative for i = n. It now follows by induction and 4.8.(1) that there exists
pG ∈ CC • (A, End G)0 such that (G, pG + gsu ) is a strictly unital A∞ -module over
(A, 1, ν). By induction (5.2) is commutative for all i, and thus q is a strict morphism
of strictly unital modules.
We now prove that (5.3) holds. First, we note:
≤n
φ(o(p≤n−1
)) = −Πq ∗ (νEnd
∗ p≤n−1
− p≤n−1
◦ ν ≤n )≤n
M
M
M
1
2
∗ p≤n−1
− p≤n−1
◦ ν ≤n )≤n .
= −Πq ∗ (νEnd
p≤n−1
+ νEnd
M
M
M

and
≤n
ϕ(o(p≤n−1
)) = −Πq∗ (νEnd
∗ p≤n−1
− p≤n−1
◦ ν ≤n )≤n
G
G
G
1
2
= −Πq∗ (νEnd
p≤n−1
+ νEnd
∗ p≤n−1
− p≤n−1
◦ ν ≤n )≤n .
G
G
G
1
1
Since Πq ∗ is a morphism of complexes and νEnd
= δΠ Hom , we have Πq ∗ νEnd
=
∗
δΠ Hom Πq . This gives the first equality below, the second follows from (5.2), and
the third is analogous to the first,
1
1
Πq ∗ νEnd
p≤n−1
= δΠ Hom Πq ∗ p≤n−1
= δΠ Hom Πq∗ p≤n−1
= Πq∗ νEnd
p≤n−1
.
M
M
G
G

Thus the first terms of φ(o(p≤n−1
)) and ϕ(o(p≤n−1
)) agree. Using (5.2), we have
M
G
≤n−1
≤n−1
≤n
≤n
∗
◦ ν = Πq∗ pG
◦ ν , so the third terms also agree. Working on
that Πq pM
the second term, where we denote by γ various composition maps, we have
2
= −Πsγ(s−1 )⊗2 ∗ p≤n−1
Πq ∗ νEnd
p≤n−1
M
M

= −sq ∗ γ(s−1 )⊗2 ∗ p≤n−1
M
= −sγ(1 ⊗ q ∗ )(s−1 )⊗2 ∗ p≤n−1
M
= sγ(s−1 )⊗2 (1 ⊗ Πq ∗ ) ∗ p≤n−1
.
M
2
p≤n−1
= sγ(s−1 )⊗2 (1 ⊗ Πq∗ ) ∗ p≤n−1
. Using (5.2) one checks
Analogously, Πq∗ νEnd
G
G
these last two terms agree.
We now prove part 2. Since (N, p0N ) is semiprojective and q is a surjective
quasi-isomorphism, there exists a morphism of chain complexes δ 0 : (N, p0N ) →
(G, p0G ) such that qδ 0 = α0 . Assume by induction that there exists δ ≤n−1 ∈
) →
CCu≤n (A, Hom(N, G))1 , a morphism of strictly unital An -modules (N, p≤n−1
N
≤n−1
≤n−1
(G, p≤n−1
)
such
that
qδ
=
α
.
Set
G

ψ = CC n (A, q∗ ) : (CCu≤n (A, Hom(N, G)), dA Hom ) → (CCu≤n (A, Hom(N, M )), dA Hom ).
Since (N, p0N ) is semiprojective and q is a surjective quasi-isomorphism, Πq∗ :
(Π Hom(N, G), δΠ Hom ) → (Π Hom(N, M ), δΠ Hom ) is also a surjective quasi-isomorphism.
Since ((ΠA)⊗n , δ⊗ ) is semi-projective, ψ is also a surjective quasi-isomorphism.

TRANSFER OF A∞ -STRUCTURES TO PROJECTIVE RESOLUTIONS

19

e = αn .
Using the surjectivity of ψ, choose δe ∈ CC n (A, Hom(N, G)) with ψ(δ)
≤n−1
≤n−1
We claim ψ(o(δ
)) = o(α
). This follows from the fact that q is a strict
morphism and that qδ ≤n−1 = α≤n−1 . We now have:
n
≤n−1
e − o(δ ≤n−1 )) = d
) = 0,
ψ(dA Hom (δ)
A Hom (α ) − o(α

e − o(δ ≤n−1 ) is in ker ψ.
where the last equality holds by 4.11.(2). Thus, dA Hom (δ)
This element is a cycle by 4.10.(2). Since ψ is a quasi-isomorphism, ker ψ is acyclic,
e
ee
ee
≤n−1
e
and so there exists δe in ker ψ with d
(δ)
=d
(δ)−o(δ
). Set δ n = δe− δ.
A Hom

A Hom

Since dA Hom (δ n ) = o(δ ≤n−1 ), it follows from 4.11.(2) that δ ≤n is a morphism of
strictly unital An -modules. Also qδ n = ψ(δ n ) = αn . Thus by induction and 4.8.(2),
there exists δ ∈ CCu• (A, Hom(N, G)) that is a morphism of strictly unital A∞ modules and qδ = α.
The proof of part 3 is analogous to the proof of part 3 of 3.1.

References

[1] Luchezar L. Avramov, Hans-Bjorn Foxby, and Stephen Halperin. Differential graded homological algebra. Preprint, June 21, 2006.
[2] Luchezar L. Avramov and Stephen Halperin. Through the looking glass: a dictionary between rational homotopy theory and local algebra. In Algebra, algebraic topology and their
interactions (Stockholm, 1983), volume 1183 of Lecture Notes in Math., pages 1–27. Springer,
Berlin, 1986.
[3] Jesse Burke. Higher homotopies and Golod rings, 2015.
[4] Jesse Burke. Strictly unital A∞ -algebras, 2017.
[5] Murray Gerstenhaber. The cohomology structure of an associative ring. Ann. of Math. (2),
78:267–288, 1963.
[6] Phillip Griffiths and John Morgan. Rational homotopy theory and differential forms, volume 16 of Progress in Mathematics. Springer, New York, second edition, 2013.
[7] V. K. A. M. Gugenheim. On a perturbation theory for the homology of the loop-space. J.
Pure Appl. Algebra, 25(2):197–205, 1982.
[8] V. K. A. M. Gugenheim, L. A. Lambe, and J. D. Stasheff. Perturbation theory in differential
homological algebra. II. Illinois J. Math., 35(3):357–373, 1991.
[9] V. K. A. M. Gugenheim and J. D. Stasheff. On perturbations and A∞ -structures. Bull. Soc.
Math. Belg. Sér. A, 38:237–246 (1987), 1986.
[10] Mark Hovey. Model categories, volume 63 of Mathematical Surveys and Monographs. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1999.
[11] Johannes Huebschmann and Tornike Kadeishvili. Small models for chain algebras. Math. Z.,
207(2):245–280, 1991.
[12] T. V. Kadeišvili. On the theory of homology of fiber spaces. Uspekhi Mat. Nauk,
35(3(213)):183–188, 1980. International Topology Conference (Moscow State Univ., Moscow,
1979).
[13] Bernhard Keller. Introduction to A-infinity algebras and modules. Homology Homotopy Appl.,
3(1):1–35, 2001.
[14] M. Kontsevich and Y. Soibelman. Notes on A∞ -algebras, A∞ -categories and noncommutative geometry. In Homological mirror symmetry, volume 757 of Lecture Notes in
Phys., pages 153–219. Springer, Berlin, 2009.
[15] Maxim Kontsevich and Yan Soibelman. Homological mirror symmetry and torus fibrations.
In Symplectic geometry and mirror symmetry (Seoul, 2000), pages 203–263. World Sci. Publ.,
River Edge, NJ, 2001.
[16] Igor Křı́ž and J. P. May. Operads, algebras, modules and motives. Astérisque, (233):iv+145pp,
1995.
[17] K. Lefvre-Hasegawa. Sur les A-infini catgorie. PhD thesis, University of Paris 7.
[18] S. A. Merkulov. Strong homotopy algebras of a Kähler manifold. Internat. Math. Res. Notices,
(3):153–164, 1999.

20

JESSE BURKE

[19] Alain Prouté. A∞ -structures. Modèles minimaux de Baues-Lemaire et Kadeishvili et homologie des fibrations. Repr. Theory Appl. Categ., (21):1–99, 2011. Reprint of the 1986 original.
[20] N. Spaltenstein. Resolutions of unbounded complexes. Compositio Math., 65(2):121–154,
1988.
Mathematical Sciences Institute, Australian National University, Canberra ACT
E-mail address: jesse.burke@anu.edu.au

