Chapter 3

Auslander Categories

For a local ring R with a dualizing complex (see (3.0.1) below) we will introduce
two full subcategories of R-complexes: the Auslander class and the Bass class.
They are - - together with the full subcategory of reflexive complexes - - known
as Auslander categories, and they are linked together by Foxby equivalence.
The categories are introduced and studied in the first two sections, and general
Foxby equivalence is treated in section 3.3. All the main results of the first three
sections have particularly nice formulations for modules over Cohen-Macau]~ay
rings, these are summed up in the last section.
Most results in this chapter were published in [8], but the ideas had, by then,
been around for some time and were used, already, in [32] and [39].
Warning! This chapter would have been considerably shorter if it had been
written in the language of derived categories. Users of derived category methods
are advised to study the proofs in [8, Section 3] and [15, Section 4] instead.

(3.0.1) Dualizing Complexes. Recall (from the appendix for example) that a
complex D E C((~))(R) is dualizing for a local ring R if and only if it has finite
injective dimension and the homothety morphism XRp:R--~ HomR(P,P) is a
quasi-isomorphism for some, equivalently every, projective resolution P of D. In
particular, we have

(3.0.1.1) R = RHomR(D, D)

(i.e., R represents RHomR(D, D)) when D is a dualizing complex for R.

3.1 T h e A u s l a n d e r Class
In terms of Foxby equivalence it is (or rather will be) natural to view the Aus-
lander class as an extension of the full subcategory of complexes of finite flat
dimension. But it also extends the full subcategory of reflexive complexes, and
both views are covered by this section.
66 3. AUSLANDER CATEGORIES

(3.1.1) Setup. In this section R is a local ring w i t h dualizing c o m p l e x D.

(3.1.2) Definitions. For R-complexes X and Z a canonical morphism ,),z is

defined by requiring commutativity of the diagram

X ~g > H o m n ( Z , Z ® n X )
(3.1.2.1) 1_~ T~zzx

R®nX x~®nx H o m R ( Z , Z ) ® R X

The morphism ~/z is natural in Z and X and given by

x , > [z (_l)lXNZtz®x].
Let X be an R-complex, and let P E CP(R) be a projective resolu-
tion of the dualizing complex. Then D ®~ X is represented by P ®n X
and RHomR(D,D ®~ X) by HomR(P,P ®n X). We say that X represents
RHomR(D, D ®~ X) canonically if and only if the morphism

7P : X > Homn(P, P ®n X)

is a quasi-isomorphism.

(3.1.3) R e m a r k s . To see that this definition of canonical representation makes

sense, take two projective resolutions P, P' E CP(R) of D; there is then by
(A.3.6) a quasi-isomorphism zr : P' -~ > P. Using the quasi-isomorphism preserv-
ing properties of the functors, we establish the following commutative diagram

X ~ ) Homn(P, P ®n X)
iq,xP' '~lHomn0r,P®RX)
HomR(P',P' ®n X) HomR(P',,~®RX)> HomR(P',P ®n X)

and we see that ~/P is a quasi-isomorphism if and only if 7P' is so.

Also note that if D' is another dualizing complex for R, then D' is equivalent
to D up to a shift, cf. (A.8.3.3), so if P is a projective resolution of D, then,
for a suitable integer m, ~ m p is a projective resolution of D'. By (A.2.1.1) and
(A.2.1.3) there is a natural isomorphism

Homn(~,np, ~mp ®n X) ~- Homn(P, P ®n X),

so it is easy to see that the complex X represents RHomn(D, D ®h X) canoni-

cally if and only if it represents RHomR(D', D' ®~ X) canonically.
3.1. THE AUSLANDERCLASS 67

By the defining diagram (3.1.2.1) the canonical morphism 7 is closely related

to tensor evaluation. The next lemma expresses canonical representation of
RHomn(D, D ®~ X) in terms of tensor evaluation.

(3.1.4) L e m m a . Let P • CP(R) be a projective resolution of D, and let X •

C(~)(R). If F • CF (R) is equivalent to X , then the following are equivalent:
(i) X represents RHomR(D, D ®~ X) canonically.
( ii) The canonical morphism 7 P is a quasi-isomorphism.
(iii) The tensor evaluation morphism ~dpD F iS a quasi-isomorphism.

Proof. Let X • C(m)(R) and a projective resolution ~r: P -~ ~ D be given. Take a

projective resolution ~a: Q -~ ~ X; since F _~ X there is also a quasi-isomorphism
~a': Q -~ F, cf. (A.3.6). The homothety morphism XpR:R -~ HomR(P,P) is a
quasi-isomorphism; and by the quasi-isomorphism preserving properties of the
various functors we have the following diagram

X ~f HomR(P, P ®R X)
"~T~ --~lHom~(P,P®R~)
~Z
Q > nomR(P, P ®R Q)

F ~ ~ HomR(P,P ®R F) HomR(P,Tr®RF)) HomR(P,D ®R F)

R®R F x~®~F HOmR(P,P)®R F HomR(P,,0®RFHomR(P,D) ®R F

It is straightforward to check that the diagram is commutative, and the equiva-
lence of the three conditions follows. []

(3.1.5) Definition. The Auslander class A(R) is the full subcategory of C(R),
actually of C(~)(R), defined by specifying its objects as follows: An R-complex
X belongs to A(R) if and only if
(1) x e CID)(R);
(2) D ®~ X e C(D)(R); and
(3) X represents RHomR(D, D ®~ X) canonically.
We also use the notation A(R) with subscript 0 and superscript f/(f). The
definitions are as usual:
Ao(R) = A(R) N C0(R);
A f ( R ) = A(R) nCfo(R); and
A (f) (R) = A(R) n c(f)(R).
68 3. AUSLANDER CATEGORIES

If X belongs to ,4(R), then so does every equivalent complex X' ~_ X; this

follows by the Lemma, as a flat resolution F of X is also equivalent to X ~. For an
equivalence class X of R-complexes the notation X E .4(R) means that some,
equivalently every, representative X of X belongs to the Auslander class.

(3.1.6) R e m a r k . The Auslander class is defined in terms of a dualizing complex

D for R, but the symbol .A(R) makes no mention of D. This is justified by the
last remark in (3.1.3) which shows that A(R) is independent of the choice of
dualizing complex.

(3.1.7) O b s e r v a t i o n . Let p E SpecR, then Dp is a dualizing complex for Rp

by (A.8.3.4), and, as in Observation (2.1.11), it is straightforward to check that

X E A(R) ~ Xp E A(Rp).

(3.1.8) Proposition. Every R-complex of finite fiat dimension belongs to the

Auslander class. That is, there is a full embedding:
7(n) C A(n).
Proof. Suppose X E J-(R), then both X and D ®~ X belong to C(m)(R),
cf. (A.5.6). By (3.1.6) we are free to assume that D E Cm(R). Choose a complex
F E CF(R) equivalent to X, and take a projective resolution P E C~(R) of the
dualizing complex. The tensor evaluation morphism WPDF is then an isomor-
phism, cf. (A.2.10), in particular a quasi-isomorphism, so by Lemma (3.1.4) X
represents RHomn(D, D ®~ X) canonically. []

We have now established the Auslander class as an extension of the full sub-
category of complexes of finite flat dimension; the next task is to prove the
connection to reflexive complexes and, thereby, to G-dimension.

(3.1.9) L e m m a . If X E C((nf))(R), then X represents RHomn(RHomn( X, R), R)

canonically if and only if X represents RHomn(D, D ®~ X) canonically.

Proof. Take a resolution by finite free modules X ( ~ L E CL(R), a projective

resolution P E CP(R) of the dualizing complex, and an injective resolution
R ~-~ I E C~(R). The dualizing complex is equivalent to a bounded complex
of injective modules, so by (3.1.6) we are free to assume that D E CI(R). The
complex HomR(P, D) represents RHOmR(D, D) and is therefore equivalent to
R, so by (A.3.5) there is a quasi-isomorphism L: HomR(P,D) ~> I. Note that
Homn(P, D) is a complex of injective modules and bounded to the left, i.e.,
Homn(P, D) e C~(R). The Hom evaluation morphism

0LRD : L ®n Homn(R, D) > Homn(L*, D)

is an isomorphism by (A.2.11), and using thequasi-isomorphism preserving prop-

3.1. THE AUSLANDERCLASS 69

erties of the various functors, we set up a commutative diagram:

HomR(P, D) ®R L r~,om~(P.D)L L ®R HomR(P, D)

HomR(P, D ®R L) L ®R I
~--I HomR(P,'rDL) 1 ~-
Homn(P, L ®n D) L ®n Homn(R, I)

HomR(P, L ®R HomR(R, D)) HomR(L*, I)

~--1HomR(P,OLaD) ~-THom~(L*,~)
HomR(P, HomR(L*, D)) CPL*% Uom. (5", HomR(P, n))

The diagram shows that o)pD L is a quasi-isomorphism if and only if OLRI is so;
that is, X represents RHomR(D, D ®L X) canonically if and only if it represents
RHomR(RHomR(X, R), R) canonically, cf. Lemmas (2.1.5) and (3.1.4). []

(3.1.10) T h e o r e m . A complex X E c~f~(R) belongs to the Auslander class if

and only if it is reflexive. That is, there is an equality of full subcategories:
A ~f)(R) = n ( n ) .
Proof. "C_": If X E fl,(f)(R), then X and D ®~ X belong to c((f~(R), and X
represents RHomR(D, D ®~ X) canonically. According to the Lemma X also
represents R H o m n ( R H o m n ( X , R), R) canonically, so all we have to prove is
that Rnomn(X, R) belongs to c((f~(R). We have

RHomn(X, R) = RHomR(X, RHomR(D, D))

-- RHomR(X®L D, D)
by (3.0.1.1) and adjointness(A.4.21), and sinceD E Z(f)(R) it followsby (A.5.2)
that RHomR(X,R) E C~ (R) as desired.
"_D': Let X E T~(R), that is, X and RHomR(X,R) belong to c~f))(R),
and X represents RHomR(RHomR(X,R), R) canonically. By the LemmaX
also represents l:tHomR(D,D @LX) canonically,so we only haveto provethat
D ®~ X E C(•) (R). SinceD is of finite injectivedimension,we have
D ®L X ----X ®L RHomR(R, D)
= RHomR(RHomR(X, R), D)
by Horn evaluation (A.4.24), so D ®~ X is homologically bounded as desired,
again by (A.5.2). []
70 3. AUSLANDER CATEGORIES

(3.1.11) C o r o l l a r y . A complex X E c((f))(R) has finite G-dimension if and only

if it belongs to the Auslander class; that is,

G-dimR X < oc ~ X E ,4(0 (R).

Furthermore, if X E ,4(f)(R), then

G-dimR X = inf D - inf (RHomR(X, D)).

Proof. The first assertion is immediate by the Theorem and GD Corol-

lary (2.3.8). The equality follows by (A.8.5.1) and the AB formula (2.3.13):

inf D - inf (RHomR(X, D)) = (depth R - depth R D)

- (depth R X - depth R D)
-- depth R - depth R X
= G-dimRX. []

The Auslander class of a Gorenstein ring is "as large as possible" and, in fact,
this characterizes these rings.

(3.1.12) G o r e n s t e i n T h e o r e m , ,4 Version. Let R be a localring with residue

field k. If R admits a dualizing complex, then the following are equivalent:
( i) R is Gorenstein.
(ii) k e ,4o(R).
(iii) ,4 o(R) = C o(R).
(iv) ,4o(R) = Co(R).
(v) ,4(R) = C(D)(R).

Proof. In view of Theorem (3.1.10) conditions (i), (ii), and (iii) are just the
first three equivalent conditions of the 7¢ version (2.3.14). Since (v) is stronger
than (iv), and (iv) is stronger than (iii), it is sufficient to prove that (i) implies
(v). If R is Gorenstein, then R is a dualizing complex for R, cf. (A.8.3.1), so by
(3.1.6) we can assume that D = R. For X E C(o)(R ) homological boundedness
of D ®~ X is then automatic, and for any F E C~(R) the tensor evaluation
morphism O.)RRF is an isomorphism, cf. (A.2.10). By (A.3.2) and Lemma (3.1.4)
it now follows that every complex X E C(o)(R) belongs to ,4(R). []

The next two results are auxiliaries needed in chapters 4 and 5, but they belong
in this section.

(3.1.13) L e m m a . Let 0 -+ X ' ~ X -+ X " --+ 0 be a short exact sequence in

C(~)(R). If two of the complexes belong to the Auslander class A ( R ) , then
so does the third.
3.2. THE BASS CLASS 71

Proof. By (A.3.4) we can choose a short exact sequence

(t) 0 -~ Q' ~ Q -~ Q" -+ 0

in CP(R), such that Q', Q, and Q" are projective resolutions of, respectively,
X', X, and X". As in the proof of Lemma (2.1.12) it follows, by inspection of
the long exact sequence of homology modules associated to (t), that homological
boundedness of two complexes in the original short exact sequence implies that
also the third belongs to C(D) (R).
Let P e CP(R) be a projective resolution of D; applying P ®n - to (t) we
get another short exact sequence:

(~) O ~ P ® n Q ' -~ P ® n Q ~ P ® n Q " ~ O.

The complexes in (:~) represent D ®~ X', D ®~ X, and D ®~ X", and, as above,

if two of these complexes belong to C(o)(R), then so does the third.
Finally, applying Homn(P, - ) to (:~) we get the bottom row in the diagram:

0 -~ Q' -~ Q -, Q" -~ 0

0 -+ Homn(P, P ®n Q') -~ Homn(P, P ®n Q) --> Homn(P, P ®n Q") -~ 0

The rows are exact and the diagram is commutative. As in the proof of
Lemma (2.1.12) we pass to homology to see that if two of the morphisms 7~),,
-y~), and ?~),, are quasi-isomorphisms, then so is the third. []

(3.1.14) P r o p o s i t i o n . A bounded complex of modules from Ao(R) belongs to

the Auslander class.

Proof. The proof of Proposition (2.1.13) applies verbatim, only use the Lemma
above instead of Lemma (2.1.12). []

3.2 T h e B a s s Class
The Bass class is the dual of the Auslander class: at least in the sense that it is
an extension of the full subcategory of complexes of finite injective dimension,
and duality with respect to an injective module takes complexes from one class
into the other.

(3.2.1) S e t u p . In this section R is a local ring with dualizing c o m p l e x D.

72 3. AUSLANDER CATEGORIES

(3.2.2) Definitions. For R-complexes Y and Z a canonical morphism ~z is

defined by requiring commutativity of the diagram

Z ®n Homn(Z, Y) ¢~ > Y

(3.2.2.1) ~ Ozzv
-T
Homn(Homn(Z, Z), Y) H°mR(XzR'Y)) Homn(R, Y)

The morphism ( z is natural in Z and Y and given by

z®¢ , ) (-1)lzll¢l¢(z).

Let Y be an R-complex, and let P E CP(R) be a projective resolution of

the dualizing complex. Then RHomR(D,Y) is represented by HomR(P,Y)
and D ®~ RHomR(D, Y) by P ®n Homn(P, Y). We say that Y represents
D ®~ RHomR(D, Y) canonically if and only if the morphism

~P : P ®a Homn(P, Y) >Y

is a quasi-isomorphism.

(3.2.3) R e m a r k . As in (3.1.3) it is straightforward to check that this defini-

tion of canonical representation makes sense. That is, if P and P' are pro-
jective resolutions of D, and Y is an R-complex, then ~P is a quasi-isomorphism
if and only if ~P' is so. And if D' is another dualizing complex for R,
then Y represents D ®~ RHomR(D, Y) canonically if and only if it represents
D' ®L RHomR(D', Y) canonically.

By the defining diagram (3.2.2.1) the canonical morphism ~ is closely linked

to Hom evaluation, and the next lemma expresses canonical representation of
D ®~ RHomR(D, Y) in terms of Hom evaluation.

(3.2.4) L e m m a . Let P E CP(R) be a projective resolution of D, and let Y E

Cff-)(R). If I E CIw(R) is an injective resolution of Y, then the following axe
equivalent:
(i) Y represents D ®LR RHomR(D, Y) canonically.
( ii) The canonical morphism ~iP is a quasi-isomorphism.
( iii) The Hom evaluation morphism Opvl is a quasi-isomorphism.

Proof. Let a projective resolution zr: P ~-> D be given, and take an injective
resolution e: Y ~- ~ I. The homothety morphism xRp: R -+ Homn(P, P) is a
quasi-isomorphism, and using the quasi-isomorphism preserving properties of
the various functors, we set up the following diagram
3.2. THE BASSCLASS 73

P ®n Homn(P,Y) ~ Y
"-'l P®nHomn (P,I,)
P ®n Homn(D, I) P®nHomn(~r,l)) p ®n Homn(P, I) ~f I

OPDI ~OpPI
[[P, D]I] [[P,~]l] ) [[P, P]I] Homn(x~,l))Homn (R, I)
where we use the abbreviated notation [[P,-]I] = H o m n ( H o m n ( P , - ) , I). It is
straightforward to check that the diagram is commutative, and the equivalence
of the three conditions follows. []

(3.2.5) Definition. The Bass class B(R) is the full subcategory of C(R), actu-
ally of C(D)(R), defined by specifying its objects as follows: An R-complex Y
belongs to B(R) if and only if
(1) Y C(D)(R);
(2) R H o m n ( D , Y ) • C(D)(R); and
(3) Y represents D ®~ RHomR(D, Y) canonically.
We also use the notation B(R) with subscript 0 and superscript f/(f) defined as
in (3.1.5).
If Y belongs to 13(R), then so does every equivalent complex Y' _~ Y; this
follows by the Lemma, as an injective resolution I of Y is also a resolution of Y',
cf. (A.3.5). For an equivalence class Y of R-complexes the notation Y • B(R)
means that some, equivalently every, representative Y of Y belongs to the Bass
class.

(3.2.6) R e m a r k . The Bass class is defined in terms of a dualizing complex D

for R, but the symbol B(R) makes no mention of D. As in the case of the
Auslander class, this is justified by the fact that B(R) is independent of the
choice of dualizing complex, cf. (3.2.3).

(3.2.7) O b s e r v a t i o n . Let p E SpecR, then Dp is a dualizing complex for Rp,

cf. (A.8.3.4), and, as in Observation (2.1.11), it is straightforward to check that

Y E B(R) ~ YpE B(Rp).

(3.2.8) P r o p o s i t i o n . Every R-complex of finite injective dimension belongs to

the Bass class. That is, there is a full embedding:

Z(R) B(R).
74 3. AUSLANDER CATEGORIES

Proof. Suppose Y E Z(R), then both Y and RHomR(D, Y) belong to C(n)(R),

cf. (A.5.2). By (3.2.6) we are free to assume that D E CD(R). Choose a bounded
resolution Y -~ ) I E C~(R), and take a projective resolution P E C~(R) of the
dualizing complex. The Horn evaluation morphism OPDIis then an isomorphism,
cf. (A.2.11), and by Lemma (3.2.4) Y, therefore, represents D ®~ RHomR(D, Y)
canonically. []

We have now established the Bass class as an extension of the full subcategory of
complexes of finite injective dimension. The next lemma should - - for reasons to
be revealed in chapter 6 - - be perceived as an extension of Ishikawa's formulas
(see [42] or page 7).

(3.2.9) L e m m a . Consider complexes X E C(-7)(R) and Y E C(r-)(R), and let E

be an injective R-module; then the following hold:
(a) If X E A(R) then HomR(X, E) E B(R), and the converse holds if E is
faithfully injective.
(b) If Y E B(R) then HomR(Y, E) E A(R), and the converse holds if E is
faJthfully injective.
Proof. We have
(t) - inf (HomR(X, E)) _< sup X,
and by adjointness (A.4.21) and (A.5.2.1) we have
- inf (RHom•(D, HomR(X, E))) = - inf (RHomR(D,RHomR(X, E)))
(~) = - inf (RHomR(D ®L
R X, E))
_< sup (D ®~ X)
as E is injective. Thus, if X E A(R) then, in particular, HomR(X, E) and
RHomR(D, Homn(X,E)) are homologically bounded. On the other hand, if
E is faithfully injective, then equality holds in (t) and (:~), cf. (A.4.10), so X
and D ®L X are homologically bounded if Homn(X,E) E B(R). Take a flat
resolution qD: F -~) X, then

HomR(qo, E) : Homn(X, E) -~) HomR(F,E)

is an injective resolution of HomR(X, E). Let L be a resolution of D by finite
free modules, then L ®R F represents the homologically bounded D ®~ X, so
by (A.l.14) there is a quasi-isomorphism ~: L ® R F ~-~ V, where V E CD(R)
is a suitable (soft left) truncation of L ®R F. The commutative diagram

L ®R HomR(V, E) OLw ) HomR(HomR(L, V), E)

"~IL®RHomR(w,E) "~Homl~(HomR(L,w),E)
L ®n HomR(L ®R F, E) 0LL,~Ve HomR(HomR(L, L ®R F), E)
3.2. THE BASS CLASS 75

where the Hom evaluation morphism OLVE is an isomorphism by (A.2.11), shows

that OLL®RFEis a quasi-isomorphism. Also the next diagram is commutative.

L ®n HomR(L ®R F, E) eLL®R~E> HomR(HomR(L, L ®R F ) , E )

~ ~ L~RPLFE ~ HornR(~'~.,E)

L ®R HomR(L, HomR(F, E)) ~omR(F,E) HomR(F, E)

If X belongs to the Auslander class, then the canonical morphism "rL is a quasi-
isomorphism, cf. Lemma (3.1.4), and, hence, so is HomR('),L,E). The diagram
then shows that also ~LomR(F,E) is a quasi-isomorphism, so HomR(X, E) E/3(R)
by Lemma (3.2.4). Conversely, if HomR(X, E) E/3(R), then the canonical mor-
L
phism ~HOmR(F,E) and, thereby, HomR('),FL, E) is a quasi-isomorphism; and if E
is faithfully injective, then this is tantamount to "yF
L being a quasi-isomorphism,
cf. (A.2.1.4) and (A.l.19). This proves part (a), and the proof of (b) is similar.
[]

The next theorem is parallel to the .4 version, Theorem (3.1.12), it characterizes

Gorenstein ring as being those with the "largest possible" Bass class.

(3.2.10) G o r e n s t e i n T h e o r e m , / 3 Version. Let R be a local ring with residue

field k. If R admits a dualizing complex, then the following are equivalent:
(i) R is Gorenstein.
(ii) k •/3o(R).
(gig)/3fo(n) = cg(n).
(iv) /3o(R) = Co(It).
(v) /3(n) = C(D)(R).
Proof. Obviously, (v) is stronger than (iv), and (iv) is stronger than (iii), which
in turn is stronger than (ii). Hence, it is sufficient to prove that (i) implies (v)
and (ii) implies (i).
(i) ~ (v): If R is Gorenstein, then R is a dualizing complex for R, so by
(3.2.6) we can assume that D = R. For Y E C(D)(R) homological bounded-
ness of RHomn(D, Y) is then automatic, and for any complex I E C~(R) the
Hom evaluation morphism Onnl is an isomorphism, cf. (A.2.11). By (A.3.2) and
Lemma (3.2.4) every complex Y E C(o)(R) then belongs to/3(R).
(ii) ~ (i): The Matlis dual of k is k, i.e., HomR(k, En(k)) ~- k, so it follows
by the Lemma that the residue field belongs to the Auslander class if and only
if it belongs to the Bass class. In particular, if k E/3o(R) then k E Ao(R), and
R is then Gorenstein by the the ,4 version (3.1.12). []

(3.2.11) R e m a r k . The proof above of the implication "(ii) =v (i)" in the/3 ver-
sion uses the A version but, of course, a direct proof also exists: if k is in the
76 3. AUSLANDER CATEGORIES

Bass class, then RHomn(D, k) is homologically bounded, so pd n D < oo by

(A.5.7.3) and, hence,

idn R = idn(RHomn(D, D)) <_fdn D + idn D = pd n D + idn D < oc

by (3.0.1.1), (A.5.8.2), and (A.5.7.2), so R is Gorenstein.

The last two results of this section are auxiliaries needed in chapter 6.

(3.2.12) L e m m a . Let 0 -+ Y' -+ Y -~ Y " -+ 0 be a short exact sequence in

C(E)(R ). If two of the complexes belong to the Bass class B(R), then so does
the third.

Proof. Similar to the proof of Lemma (3.1.13), only use (A.3.3) instead of
(A.3.4). []

(3.2.13) P r o p o s i t i o n . A bounded complex of modules from Bo(R) belongs to

the Bass class.

Proof. The proof of Proposition (2.1.13) applies verbatim, only use the Lemma
above instead of Lemma (2.1.12). []

3.3 Foxby Equivalence

Over a Cohen-Macaulay local ring with a dualizing (canonical) module the full
subcategories of finite modules of, respectively, finite projective dimension and
finite injective dimension are equivalent. This was established by Sharp in [55].
In [34] and [8, Section 3] Foxby has extended and generalized Sharp's construc-
tion in several directions; and in [32] and [61] Enochs, Jenda, and Xu have used
the name 'Foxby duality' for the version to be described in this section. The
involved functors are, however, not contravariant, so we find the name Foxby
equivalence more appropriate.

(3.3.1) S e t u p . In this section R is a local ring w i t h dualizing c o m p l e x D.

(3.3.2) T h e o r e m (Foxby Equivalence). If R is a local ring and D is a dua-

lizing complex for R, then the following hold for complexes X and Y in C(D)(R):

(a) X e A(R) ~ D ®~ X E B(R);

(b) Y E B(R) ~ RHomn(D, Y) E A(R);
(c) x•gr(R) ¢=~ D®Lx•Z(R); and
(d) Y • Z(R) ~ RHomn(D, Y) • Y(R).

Furthermore, X E A(R) has finite homology modules, respectively, finite

depth if and only if D ®L X has the same; and Y E B(R) has finite homology
3.3. FOXBY EQUIVALENCE 77

modules, respectively, finite depth if and only if RHomn(D, Y) has the same.
That is, the following hold for X 6 A(R) and Y 6 B(R):

(e) X 6 c((f~(R)
(f) Y E c((f] (R) .: ~.. RHomn(D,Y) 6 C~))(R);
(g) depth n X < oo ,. ,.. depthn(D ®L X) < oo; and
(h) depth n Y < oo .: ~ depthn(RHomn(D ,Y)) < oo.

Proof. (a): Let X 6 C(c3)(R), take a complex F 6 CF(R) equivalent to X and a

projective resolution P of the dualizing complex, then D ®~ X is represented by
the complex W = P®RF. We will prove that X 6 A(R) if and only i f W 6 B(R).
If X belongs to A(R) it follows that W 6 C(D)(R), and RHomR(D,W) =
R H o m R ( D , D ®L X) is represented by X, so also RHomR(D,W) E C(D)(R).
On the other hand, if W E B(R) then, in particular, D ®L X 6 C(D)(R). Take
an injective resolution e: W ---> I; by Lemmas (3.1.4) and (3.2.4) it is now
sufficient to prove that the canonical morphism 7 P is a quasi-isomorphism if
and only if ~P is so. The commutative diagram

PQnF P®n~'~) p ®n Homn(P, P ®n F)

~-l P®nHomn( P#)

I ~ P ®n Homn(P, I)

shows that ~P is a quasi-isomorphism exactly when P ®n 7 P is so, and since

Supp n D = Spec R by (A.8.6.1) it follows by (A.8.12) that P ®n 7 P is a quasi-
isomorphism if and only if 7 P is so.
(b): Let Y 6 C(D)(R), take an injective resolution Y 2> I 6 CI(R) and a
projective resolution P of the dualizing complex, then RHomn(D, Y) is repre-
sented by the complex V = Homn(P, I). We will prove that Y E 13(R) if and
only if V 6 A(R). If V belongs to A(R) then, certainly, RHomn(D, Y) is homo-
logically bounded. On the other hand, if Y belongs to B(R), then V 6 C(o)(R)
and D ®L V = D ®L RHomn(D, Y) is represented by Y, so also D ®L V is ho-
mologically bounded. Now take a fiat resolution ~: F -~ > V; in view of (A.8.13)
it follows from the commutative diagram

F > Homn (P, I)

THomR(P,~P)
Homn(P, P ®n F) HomR(P,P®R~)) Homn(P, P ®n Homn(P, I))

that 7 P is a quasi-isomorphism if and only if ~P is so. By Lemmas (3.1.4) and

(3.2.4) the proof of (b) is then complete.
78 3. AUSLANDERCATEGORIES

(c): If X E ~-(R), then D ®L X e Z(R) as D E Z(R), cf. (A.5.8.3). On the

other hand, if D ®L X E Z(R), then X E .A(R) by (a) and Proposition (3.2.8),
so X represents RHomR(D,D ®~ X), and RHomR(D,D ®L X) e ~'(R) by
(A.5.8.4).
(d): If Y E Z(R), then RHomn(D,Y) E ~-(R) by (A.5.8.4). If
RHomR(D,Y) E ~'(R) then Y E B(R) by Proposition (3.1.8) and (b), so Y
represents D ®~ RHomn(D, Y) E Z(R), cf. (A.5.8.3).
Both (e) and (f) are immediate, cf. (A.4.4) and (A.4.13); and to prove (g)
and (h) it is sufficient to prove "=~" in both statements.
(g): By (A.6.4) and (A.6.3.2) we have

c~ > depth R X = depthR(RHomR(D , D ®~ X))

= inf D + depthR(D ®~ X),

so depthR(D ®~ X) < cc as wanted.

(h): Again we have

depthR(RHomR(D , Y)) = infD + depth R Y <

by (A.6.4) and (A.6.3.2). []

(3.3.3) L e m m a . The following hold for U 6 C(o ) (R), X 6 A(R), and Y 6 B(R):

(a) RHomR(U, X) = RHOmR(D ®~ U,D ®L X);

(b) RHomR(Y, U) = RHomR(RHomR(D, Y), RHomR(D, U)); and
(c) Y ®~ U = ( n ®~ U) ®L R H o m n ( n , Y).

Proof. The proof of (a) is straightforward, it uses adjointness (A.4.21) and com-
mutativity (A.4.19):

RHomR(U, X) = RHomR(U, RHomn(D, D ®~ X))

= RHomR(U ®~ D, D @~ X)
= RHomR(D ®~ U, D ®~ X).

The proofs of (b) and (c) are similar. []

The next two theorems characterize Gorenstein rings in terms of special proper-
ties of the (almost 1) derived functors D ®L _ and R H o m R ( D , - ) and existence
of special complexes in the Auslander categories. The first part of (3.3.4) should
be compared to the PD/ID version on page 6.

1See section A.4.

3.3. FOXBY EQUIVALENCE 79

(3.3.4) Gorenstein Theorem, Foxby Equivalence Version. Let R be a lo-

cal ring. The following are equivalent:
( i) R is Gorenstein.
(ii) An R-complex X E C(D)(R ) has finite fiat dimension if and only if it has
finite injective dimension; that is, fdR X < c¢ ¢* idR X < c¢.
Furthermore, if D is a dualizing complex for R, then the next three conditions
are equivalent, and equivalent to those above.
(iii) There is a complex Y E C(c3)(R) with depth R Y < oo such that
RHomR(D, Y) belongs to A(R) and V ®~ Y E Z(R).
(iv) There is a complex X E C(c3)(R) with depthRX < oo such that D ®~ X
belongs to B(R) and RHomn(D, X) E ~-(R).
(v) D e P(f)(R).

Proof. If every complex of finite fiat dimension has finite injective dimension,
then, in particular, idn R < cx) and R is Gorenstein. On the other hand, if R is
Gorenstein, then R is a dualizing complex for R, cf. (A.8.3.1), so it follows by
Foxby equivalence (3.3.2) that the full subcategories 9V(R) and Z(R) are equal.
This proves equivalence of the first two conditions.
Now assume that D is a dualizing complex for R.
(ii) ~ (iii): Set Y = R, then RHomR(D,Y) • 5r(R) and D ®L y • Z(R)
by (A.5.8.4) and (A.5.8.3).
(ii) ~ (iv): Set X = R and use (A.5.8) as above.
(iii) ~ (v): It follows by (b), (c), and (h) in Theorem (3.3.2) that Y be-
longs to B ( R ) N J:(R) and depthn(RHomn(D,Y)) < oo. By (A.6.6) also
widthn(RHomn(D, Y)) < c~, in particular, - sup (RHomn(D, Y) ®L k) < oc.
By (c) in the Lemma we have Y ®L k = (D ®L k) ®L RHomR(D, Y), so
sup (Y ®L k) = sup (D ®L k) + sup (RHomR(D, Y) ®L k)
by (A.7.9.1). By (A.5.7.2) and (A.5.6.1) we now have
pd n D = sup (D ®L k) = sup (Y ®L k) - sup (RnomR(D, Y) ®L k)
_< fdn Y - sup (RHomR(D, Y) ®L k)
((x3.
(iv) ~ (v): It follows by (a), (d), and (g) in Theorem (3.3.2) that X be-
longs to A(R) N Z(R) and depthn(D ®L X) < oc. This means, in particu-
lar, that inf (RHomR(k,D ®L X)) < oc. By (a) in the Lemma we now have
RHomn(k, X) = RHomn(D ®L k, D ®L X), so
inf (RnomR(k, X)) = inf (Rnomn(k, D ®L X)) - sup (D ®L k)
by (A.7.9.4). It now follows from (A.5.7.2) and (A.5.2.1) that
pd n D = sup (D ®L k) = inf (RHomR(k, D ®L X)) - inf (Rnomn(k, X))
< inf (RHomR(k, D ®L X)) + idR X
((x).
80 3. AUSLANDER CATEGORIES

(v) =~ (i): Suppose D belongs to P(f)(R), then

idn R = idR(RHomR(D, D)) <_ pd n D + idn D < oc

by (3.0.1.1), (A.5.7.2), and (A.5.8.2). []

(3.3.5) G o r e n s t e i n T h e o r e m , Special Complexes V e r s i o n . Let R be a lo-

cal ring. If D is a dualizing complex for R, then the following axe equivalent:
( i) R is Gorenstein.
(ii) R e/3(R).
(ii ') D E A(R).
(i i) depth R Y < oo for some Y E B(R) n JZ(R).
(iii ') depth R X < oc for some X E A(R) N Z(R).
(iv) .4(R) =/3(a).

Proof. The following implications are immediate by the Foxby equivalence ver-
sion (3.3.4), Propositions (3.1.8) and (3.2.8), the A version (3.1.12), and the
/3 version (3.2.10):

(ii') ~ (i) ~ (ii)

# lI It
(iii') ~ (iv) ~ (iii)

It is now sufficient to prove that (iii) and (iii') imply (i).

(iii) ~ (i): If Y E B(R) Mbe(R), then R H o m n ( D , Y) E A(R) and D ®~ Y E
Z(R), so it follows by the Foxby equivalence version (3.3.4) that R is Gorenstein.
(iii')~(i): I f X E .A(R)MZ(R), then D ®L X E B ( R ) a n d R H o m R ( D , X) e
be(R), so it follows, again by (3.3.4), that R is Gorenstein. []

The next two results answer the question of 'how much the homological size
of a complex can change under Foxby equivalence'; and it paves the way for a
description of Foxby equivalence over Cohen-Macaulay rings in terms of classical
homological algebra.

(3.3.6) L e m m a . For X E C(j)(R) and Y E C(c)(R) the next inequalities hold.

(a) sup Y - sup D _< sup (RHomR(D, Y)) _~ sup Y - inf D; and
(b) inf X + inf D _< inf (D ®L X) _( inf X + sup D.

Proof. The second inequality in (a) and the first one in (b) are the standard
inequalities (A.4.6.1) and (A.4.15.1). Since SuppR D = S p e c R by (A.8.6.1) the
first inequality in (a) and the second in (b) follow by, respectively, (A.8.7) and
(A.8.8). []
3.3. FOXBY EQUIVALENCE 81

(3.3.7) Proposition ( A m p l i t u d e Inequalities). For complexes X • A(R)

and Y • B(R) there are inequalities:
(a) sup X + inf D <_ sup (D ®L X) _< sup X + sup D;
(b) amp X - amp D _< amp(D ®L X) _< amp X + amp D;
(c) i n f Y - supD _< inf(RHomR(D,Y)) _< i n f Y - infD; and
(d) amp Y - amp D _< amp(RHomR(D, Y)) ~ amp Y + amp D.

Proof. (a): Since X = RHomR(D, D ®~ X) it follows by Lemma (3.3.6)(a) that

sup(D ® L x ) -- s u p D _< s u p X _< sup(D ®~ X) - infD;

and, therefore,
- sup X - sup D _< - sup (D ®~ X) _< - sup X - inf D.

(b): Using the inequalities in (a) and Lemma (3.3.6)(b) we find:

amp(D ®~ X) = sup (D ®L X) - inf (D ®L X)

sup X + sup D - inf (D ®L X)
sup X + sup D - (inf X + inf D)
amp X + amp D; and
amp(D ®~ X) = sup (D ®~ X) - inf (D ®~ X)
sup X + inf D - inf (D ®~ X)
sup X + inf D - (inf X + sup D)
amp X - amp D.

The proof of (c) is similar to that of (a), only it uses Lemma (3.3.6)(b). The
proof of (d) uses (c) and Lemma (3.3.6)(a), otherwise it is analogous to the proof
of (b). []

(3.3.8) T h e o r e m . Let R be a local ring. ff D is a dualizing complex for R, then

the following axe equivalent:
( i) R is Cohen-Macaulay.
(ii) amp(D ®L X ) = amp X for all X • A(R).
(ii') amp(D ®L M) = 0 for all M • .Ao(R).
(iii) amp(RHomR(D,Y)) = ampY for all Y • B(R).
(iii') a m p ( R H o m R ( D , N ) ) = 0 for all N • 13o(R).
(iv) amp D = 0.

Proof. The equivalence of (i) and (iv) is well-known, cf. (A.8.5.3), and the im-
plications (iv) ~ (ii) and (iv) ~ (iii) follow by the amplitude inequalities (b) and
(d) in (3.3.7). It is also clear that (ii) ~ (ii') and (iii) ~ (iii'); the remaining
implications are proved as follows:
82 3. AUSLANDER CATEGORIES

(ii') ~ (iv): The ring R belongs to ~4o(R), so

amp D = amp(D ®~ R) = 0.
(iii') ~ (iv): The injective hull of the residue field, En(k), is a faithfully
injective R-module, so it belongs to Bo(R) by Proposition (3.2.8), and
amp D = a m p ( R H o m n ( D , E)) = 0
by (A.4.10). []

Notes
Theorem (3.3.5) is due to Foxby; a module version (see (3.4.12)) was announced
in [39, Theorem (5.1)], and generalized versions are found in [15, Section 8].
The last two results of this section are extended versions of [8, Lem-
mas (1.2.3)(a) and (3.3)]; they are generalized in [15, Section 4], and so is
Theorem (3.3.2).

The fact that we do not work in the derived category has forced a quite unsatis-
factory formulation of the Foxby equivalence Theorem (3.3.2): indeed, the word
'equivalence' only appears in the label and not in the statement! This will be
partially remedied in the next section, but to justify the name of the current
section we also state the "correct" version [8, Theorem (3.2)]:

T h e o r e m . Let R be a local ring. If D is a dualizing complex for R,

then there is a commutative diagram
D®~-
Z (R) . "
RHomR(D,-)
UI UI
,4(R) . ' B(R)

UI UI
7(n), " Z(R)

in which the vertical inclusions are full embeddings, and the unlabeled
horizontal arrows are quasi-inverse equivalences of categories.
Furthermore, for bounded complexes X and Y the following hold:
(a) D ®~ X 6 B(R) ~ X 6 A(R);
(b) R H o m n ( D , Y ) 6 A(R) ~ Y 6 B(R);
(c) D ®~ X 6 Z(R) ~ X • }'(R); and
(d) R H o m n ( D , Y) • .7:(R) ~ Y • Z(R).

Here :D(R) is the derived category, and R H o m R ( D , - ) and D ®~ - are derived

functors, cf. section A.4.
3.4. COHEN-MACAULAY RINGS 83

3.4 Cohen-Macaulay Rings

We now return to Sharp's [55] original setting: a Cohen-Macaulay local ring
with a dualizing module. We start by describing - - in classical homological
terms - - the modules in the Auslander and Bass classes of such a ring, and then
we can state and prove a more satisfactory version of the Foxby equivalence
Theorem (3.3.2).

(3.4.1) Dualizing Modules. Let R be a local ring with a dualizing complex D.

If R is Cohen-Macaulay, then amp D = 0 by Theorem (3.3.8), so we can assume
(after a shift) that the complex D has homology concentrated in degree zero and
identify it with the module H0(D), cf. (A.l.15). For obvious reasons D is then
called a dualizing module.
In the literature, in [12] for example, a dualizing module is also called a
canonical module. Recalling from the appendix, or [12, Section 3.3], a dualizing
module D is a finite R-module of finite injective dimension, E x t , ( D , D) = 0 for
m > 0, and the canonical map

X~): R ---+ HomR(D,D),

given by x~(r)(d) = rd, is an isomorphism, i.e., R ~ HomR(D, D).

Note that if R is a Cohen-Macaulay local ring with a dualizing module D,
then

(3.4.1.1) idR D -- depth R -- dim R.

by the Bass formula.

(3.4.2) S e t u p . In this section R is a C o h e n - M a c a u l a y local r i n g w i t h a

d u a l i z i n g m o d u l e D.

(3.4.3) L e m m a . The [ollowing hold for U E C(o)(R), X E .A(R), and Y E B(R):

(a) inf (D ®L U) = inf U;
(b) sup (RHomR(D, U)) = sup U;
(c) sup(D ®L X) = s u p X ; and
(d) inf (RHomR(D, Y)) = inf Y.

Proof. Since sup D = inf D = 0 the equalities in (a) and (b) follow by the
inequalities in Lemma (3.3.6); and the equalities in (c) and (d) follow by (a) and
(c) in Proposition (3.3.7). []
!

(3.4.4) Canonical maps. Let M and N be R-modules, then the canonical

maps from (3.1.2.1) and (3.2.2.1),

~,D
M : M -~ HomR(D, D ®R M) and ~D : D ®R Homa(D, N) -+ N,
84 3. AUSLANDER CATEGORIES

are natural homomorphisms of R-modules defined by:

"yD(m)(d)=d®m and ~D(d®¢)--¢(d)

for m E M, d E D, and ¢ E HomR(D, N).

(3.4.5) P r o p o s i t i o n . Let M be an R-module. The following hold:

(a) D ®~ M has homology concentrated in degree zero if and only if
Tor,~(D, M) = 0 for m > O.
(b) If D ®~ M E C(o)(R), then D ®~ M is represented by the module
D ®R M, and R H o m R ( D , D ®~ M) belongs to C(o)(R) if and only if
E x t , ( D , D ®R M)] = 0 for m > O.
(c) If D ®~ M and RHomR(D, D ®~ M) have homology concentrated in
degree zero, then the canonical map "rD : M --~ HomR(D, D ®R M) is an
isomorphism if and only if M represents RHomR(D, D ®~ M) canoni-
cally.

Proof. (a) is immediate by (A.4.12) and (A.4.15.1).

Take r e s o l u t i o n s ~ : F ~-) M a n d T r : P ~-)D, w h e r e F E CF(R) a n d P E
Cp (R) have Ft = 0 and Pt = 0 for / < 0.
(b): The complex D @R F represents D @~ M, and the induced homomor-
phism

H0(D ®R qo) : H0(D ®R F) ~ D @R M

is invertible, cf. (A.4.15). Therefore, if D ®~ M E C(o)(R) then D ®R ~o

is a quasi-isomorphism, in particular, D ®R M represents D ®L R M. By
Lemma (3.4.3)(b) it now follows that RHomR(D, D ®~ M) has homology con-
centrated in non-positive degrees, and for m E No we have

H-m(RHomR(D, D ®~ M)) = H_m(RHomR(D, D @R M))

= E x t ~ ( D , D @n M).

So, indeed, RHomR(D, D @~ M) has homology concentrated in degree zero if

and only if the modules E x t ~ ( D , D ®R M) vanish for m > 0.
(c): From what we have already proved it follows that RHomR(D, D ®~ M)
is represented by HomR(P,D @R M), and since RHomR(D, D @~ M) has ho-
mology concentrated in degree zero, the induced morphi§m

HomR(r, D ®R M) : HomR(D, D ®R M) ~ Homn(P, D ®R M)

is a quasi-isomorphism. We have now established a commutative diagram

3.4. COHEN-MACAULAY RINGS 85

F HomR(P, P ®R F)
"~~ HomR( P,:,r@I~F)

M Homn(P, D @R F)
-----~ HornR(P,D®R~o)

HomR(D, D ®R M) HomR(Tr,D®RM)) HomR(P,D ®R M)

from which it is evident that .yD is a quasi-isomorphism if and only if 7FP is

SO. That is, .~D is an isomorphism of modules if and only if M represents
RHomR(D, D ®~ M) canonically, cf. Lemma (3.1.4). []

(3.4.6) T h e o r e m . An R-module M belongs to Ao(R) if and only if it satisfies

the following three conditions:
(1) TorRm(D, M) = 0 for m > 0;
(2) E x t , ( D , D ®R M) = 0 for m > O; and
(3) the canonical map "yD M : M -+ HomR(D, D ®R M) is an isomorphism.
In particular: if M E Ao(R) then the module D ®R M represents D ®L M.

Proof. "If": Using the Proposition, we see that it follows from (1) that
D ®L R M has homology concentrated in degree zero, then from (2) that also
R H o m R ( D , D ® ~ M ) E C(0)(R), and finally from (3) that M represents
RHomR(D, D ®L M) canonically, so M E .Ao(R).
"Only if": Let M E Ao(R), then D ®~ M has homology concentrated in
degree zero by Lemma (3.4.3), so TorRm(D,M) = 0 for m > 0, cf. (a) in the
Proposition. Furthermore, M represents RHomR(D, D ®~ M) canonically, in
particular, R H o m R ( D , D ®L M) E C(0)(R), so it follows by (b) and (c) in the
Proposition that E x t , ( D , D ®R M) = 0 for m > 0 and that 7 D is an isomor-
phism.
The last assertion is now immediate by (b) in the Proposition. []

(3.4.7) Corollary. Let 0 -~ M' -~ M -~ M" -~ 0 be a short exact sequence of

R-modules. The following hold:
(a) If two of the modules belong to Ao(R), then so does the third.
(b) If the sequence splits, then M E Ao(R) if and only if both M' and M "
belong to Ao(R).

Proof. Part (a) is a special case of Lemma (3.1.13).

If the sequence 0 ~ M' -~ M -~ M" -~ 0 splits, then so do the sequences

0 ~ D ® R M ' ~ D ® R M --+ D ® R M " --+ 0

and
0 ~ HomR(D, D ®R M') ~ HomR(D, D ®R M) ~ HomR(D, D ®R M") ~ O.
86 3. AUSLANDERCATEGORIES

Furthermore, there are isomorphisms

TorRm(D, M) ~ Wor~(D, M') ~ TorR(D, M ' )

and
E x t ~ ( D , D ®R M) -- E x t ~ ( D , D ®R M') • E x t ~ ( D , D ®R M " )
I

for m > 0. It is immediate from these isomorphisms that M satisfies conditions

(1) and (2) in the Theorem if and only if both M ~ and M" do so. Consider the
diagram

0 -~ M' -~ M ~ M" --+ 0

0 -~ Homn(D,D ®n M') -~ Homn(D, D ®n M) ~ H o m n ( D , D ®R M " ) --+ 0

The canonical maps "y are natural, so the diagram is commutative. Furthermore,
the rows split, so it follows that 7 D is an isomorphism if and only if both 7 D,
and ~DM,,are so. Part (b) now follows by the Theorem. []

The next three results are parallel to (3.4.5), (3.4.6), and (3.4.7).

(3.4.8) P r o p o s i t i o n . Let N be an R-module. The following hold:

(a) RHomR(D, N) has homology concentrated in degree zero if and only if
Ext~'(D, N) = 0 for m > O.
(b) If RHomR(D,N) E C(o)(R), then RHomR(D,N) is represented by the
module HomR(D, N), and D ®~ RHOmR(D, N) belongs to C(0)(R) if and
only if TOrRm(D,HomR(D,N)) = 0 for m > O.
(c) If RHomR(D, N) and D ®~ RHomR(D, N ) have homology concentrated
in degree zero, then the canonical map ~g : D ®n HomR(D, N) ~ N is an
isomorphism if and only if N represents D ®~ RHomR (D, N) canonically.

Proof. Similar to the proof of Proposition (3.4.5). []

(3.4.9) T h e o r e m . An R-module N belongs to Bo(R) if and only if it satisfies

the following three conditions:
(1) E x t , ( D , N) = 0 for m > 0;
(2) TOrRm(D,Homn(D,N)) = 0 f o r m > O; and
(3) the canonical map ~D : D ®R HomR(D, N) -+ N is an isomorphism.
In particular: if N E Bo(R) then HomR(D, N) represents RHomR(D, N).

Proof. Similar to the proof of Theorem (3.4.6). []

3.4. COHEN-MACAULAY RINGS 87

(3.4.10) Corollary. Let 0 -~ N' --4 N -~ N " -~ 0 be a short exact sequence of

R-modules. The following hold:
(a) If two of the modules belong to Bo(R), then so does the third.
(b) If the sequence splits, then N E Bo(R) if and only if both N' and N "
belong to Bo(R).
Proof. Similar to the proof of Corollary (3.4.7). []

We can now express Foxby equivalence in terms of usual module functors.

(3.4.11) T h e o r e m (Foxby Equivalence for M o d u l e s over C M Rings).

Let R be a Cohen-Macaulay local ring. If D is a dualizing module for R, then
there is a commutative diagram of categories of R-modules:
D®R--
Co(R) . ' Co(R)
HomR(D,-)
UI UI
,4o(R) . ' o(R)

Ul UI
7o(R) . ' Zo(R)

where the vertical inclusions are full embeddings, and the unlabeled horizontal
arrows are quasi-inverse equivalences of categories.
Furthermore, the following hold for R-modules M and N:
(a) D ®R M E Bo(R) ==~ M E dio(R);
(b) HomR(D,N) E Ao(R) ~ g E Bo(R);
(c) D®nM•Zo(R) ~ M • J r 0 ( R ) ; and
(d) HomR(D, N) • ~'o(R) ==~ N • Zo(R).

Also the restrictions of the functors D ®n - and H o m n ( D , - ) to the full

subcategory of finite R-modules give quasi-inverse equivalences. That is, there
is a commutative diagram of categories of R-modules:
D~R--
do(R) . ' Cro(n)
Homn(D,--)
Ul UI
Afo(R) , . Bfo(R)
Ul UI
Yfo(R) , " Zfo(R)

where, as above, the vertical inclusions are full embeddings, and the unlabeled
horizontal arrows are quasi-inverse equivalences of categories.
88 3. AUSLANDERCATEGORIES

Proof. The full embeddings were established in Propositions (3.1.8) and (3.2.8).
In view of the characterization of Ao(R) and B0(R) given in Theorems (3.4.6)
and (3.4.9) all the remaining assertions are immediate from the Foxby equiva-
lence Theorem (3.3.2). For example: if M • Ao(R) then D ®R M • Bo(R)
because D ®R M represents D ®~ M by (3.4.6), and D ®~ M • B(R) by
(3.3.2). Now the module HomR(D, D ®R M) represents RHomR(D, D ®R M)
by (3.4.9), so it belongs to Ao(R) by (3.3.2) and is canonically isomorphic to M
by (3.4.6). []

(3.4.12) G o r e n s t e i n T h e o r e m , Special Modules Version. Let R be a

Cohen-Macaulay local ring. If D is a dualizing module t'or R, then the following
are equivalent:
(i) R is Gorenstein.
(ii) R • Bo(R).
(ii ') D • .Ao(R).
(iii) depth R N < oc for some N • Bo(R) n ~o(R).
(iii') depthR M < c~ for some M • Ao(R) NZo(R).
(iv) 0(R) = B0(R).
Proof. Immediate from the special complexes version (3.3.5). []

The last results in this section will be needed in the chapters to come; the nature
of their proofs suggests that they should be placed here.

(3.4.13) L e m m a . Let X E A(R) and Y E B(R). The following hold:

(a) If M e 3Vo(R), then
- inf (RHomn(X, M)) _< sup X + dim R.
(b) If N 6 Zo(R), then
sup (N ®~ X) _< sup X + dim R.
(c) If N 6 Zo(R), then
- inf (RHomR(N,Y)) _<- inf Y + dimR.
Proof. (a): If M E ~'0(R), then M belongs to the Auslander class, so by
Lemma (3.3.3)(a) and (A.5.2.1) we have
- inf (RHomR(X, M)) = - inf (RHomR(D ®LX, D ®L M))
_<sup (D ®~ X) + idn(D ®~ M).
By Theorem(3.4.6) D ®~ M is representedby D ®n M, and D ®RM E Zo(R)
by Foxbyequivalence (3.4.11), so idR(D ®~ M) _<dimR. Furthermore,we have
sup (D ®LX) = supX by Lemma(3.4.3)(c), so
- inf (RHomn(X, M)) _< sup X + dim R
3.4. COHEN-MACAULAY RINGS 89

as wanted.
(b): As above it follows by (3.3.3)(c), (A.5.6.1), (3.4.3)(c), (3.4.9), and
(3.4.11) that

sup (g ®~ X) = sup ((D ®~ X) ®~ RnomR(D, g))

_< sup (O ®~ X) + fdR(RHomR(D, g ) )
= s u p X + fdR(HomR(D, N))
< sup X + dim R.
(c): As above it follows by (3.3.3)(b), (A.5.4.1), (3.4.3)(d), and (3.4.9) that
- inf ( R n o m R ( g , Y)) = - inf (RHomR(RHomR(D, g ) , RHomR(D, Y)))
_< - inf (RHomR(D, Y)) + pda(RHomR(D, N))
= - inf Y + pdR(HomR(D , N)).
It follows by Foxby equivalence Theorem (3.4.11) that HomR(D, N) E 9V0(R),
so by Theorem (3.4.14) we have pdR(HomR(D , N)) _< dim R and, hence, the de-
sired inequality holds. (The proof of Theorem (3.4.14) actually uses this lemma,
but only part (a).) []

(3.4.14) T h e o r e m . If X 6 ~ ( R ) , then
pda X _<sup X + dim R.
In particular, there is an equality of full subcategories:

P(R) = 7 ( R ) .
Proof. Let X • 9r(R), set n = sup X + dim R, and take a projective resolution
X ( ~- P • CP(R). We want to prove that the cokernel C P is projective, then
p d n X < n by (A.3.9). Since n + 1 > supX, we have a short exact sequence

(t) P 1 AP.~
0 -"+ Cn+ CP
n ---+0,
cf. (A.1.7.2), and it is sufficient to prove that (t) splits. By assumption fdR X <
co, and for g _> fdR X the cokernel C~ is flat, cf. (A.5.5). Thus, for a suitable
g > n + 1 we have an exact sequence,

0 --+ C ~ ~ P t - 1 ~ "" ~ Pn+l --+

P -+ 0,
C.+,
showing that Cn+P 1 is a module of finite flat dimension. By Lemma (3.4.13)(a)
we now have - i n f (RHomR(X, cP+I)) _< n, so it follows by (A.5.9) that
1 P Cn+I)
ExtR(Cn, P = H-(n+1)(RHomR(X,cP+x)) = 0;
and from (t) we, therefore, get an exact sequence

HomR(P., c P + I ) H°mR(0'CnP+I)) HomR(CP+,, CnP+l) ~ 0.

90 3. AUSLANDER CATEGORIES

Thus, there is a homomorphism a: Pn ~ Cn+l P such that a O = lc~, i.e., (t)

splits.
The equality of full subcategories is now immediate as finite projective di-
mension certainly implies finite flat dimension, cf. (A.3.10). []

Notes

Theorem (3.4.11) appeared as [8, Corollary (3.6)]; the equivalence of the full sub-
categories 9vf0(R) and 2:fo(R) was first established by Sharp [55, Theorem 2.9].
Theorem (3.4.12) is due to Foxby; it first appeared in [39], and so did Corol-
laries (3.4.7) and (3.4.10).
The elegant proof of Theorem (3.4.14) is due to Foxby and, actually, it works
for any local ring with a dualizing complex; it just takes a few extra computa-
tions, see [33, Chapter 21]. The origin of the Theorem is a result by Jensen [45,
Proposition 6]: any module of finite flat dimension over a Noetherian ring of
finite Krull dimension is also of finite projective dimension.