The Splitting Lemma
Evidently I never did this one when I was talking about abelian categories. Looks like I have to go back and patch this now.
We start with a short exact sequence:
A large class of examples of such sequences are provided by the split-exact sequences:
where these arrows are those from the definition of the biproduct. But in this case we’ve also got other arrows: and
that satisfy certain relations.
The lemma says that we can go the other direction too. If we have one arrow so that
then everything else falls into place, and
. Similarly, a single arrow
so that
will “split” the sequence. We’ll just prove the first one, since the second goes more or less the same way.
Just like with diagram chases, we’re going to talk about “elements” of objects as if the objects are abelian groups. Of course, we don’t really mean “elements”, but the exact same semantic switch works here.
So let’s consider an element and write it as
. Clearly
lands in
. We can also check
so . That is, any element of
can be written as the sum of an element of
and an element of
. But these two intersect trivially. That is, if
and
then
, and so
. This shows that
. Thus we can write every
uniquely as
.
Now consider an element . By exactness, there must be some
so that
. That is, we have a unique
with
. This shows that
. It’s straightforward to show that also
. Thus we have split the sequence:
.