Tensor product terminology in category theory?











up vote
5
down vote

favorite












Say that I have any homomorphisms of commutative rings, $A rightarrow B, A rightarrow C.$ I recently read that $B otimes_A C$ is the pushout of the morphisms in the category of commutative rings. However, I understood tensor products as defined for modules over a commutative ring. Can we somehow realize $B, C$ as modules over $A$ via the homomorphisms or is $B otimes_A C$ as defined by the pushout a generalization of the 'normal' definition of tensors? It seems unlikely that it is a generalization as it seems to depend on these morphisms whereas the tensors of modules doesn't depend on any sort of morphisms.










share|cite|improve this question




























    up vote
    5
    down vote

    favorite












    Say that I have any homomorphisms of commutative rings, $A rightarrow B, A rightarrow C.$ I recently read that $B otimes_A C$ is the pushout of the morphisms in the category of commutative rings. However, I understood tensor products as defined for modules over a commutative ring. Can we somehow realize $B, C$ as modules over $A$ via the homomorphisms or is $B otimes_A C$ as defined by the pushout a generalization of the 'normal' definition of tensors? It seems unlikely that it is a generalization as it seems to depend on these morphisms whereas the tensors of modules doesn't depend on any sort of morphisms.










    share|cite|improve this question


























      up vote
      5
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      5
      down vote

      favorite











      Say that I have any homomorphisms of commutative rings, $A rightarrow B, A rightarrow C.$ I recently read that $B otimes_A C$ is the pushout of the morphisms in the category of commutative rings. However, I understood tensor products as defined for modules over a commutative ring. Can we somehow realize $B, C$ as modules over $A$ via the homomorphisms or is $B otimes_A C$ as defined by the pushout a generalization of the 'normal' definition of tensors? It seems unlikely that it is a generalization as it seems to depend on these morphisms whereas the tensors of modules doesn't depend on any sort of morphisms.










      share|cite|improve this question















      Say that I have any homomorphisms of commutative rings, $A rightarrow B, A rightarrow C.$ I recently read that $B otimes_A C$ is the pushout of the morphisms in the category of commutative rings. However, I understood tensor products as defined for modules over a commutative ring. Can we somehow realize $B, C$ as modules over $A$ via the homomorphisms or is $B otimes_A C$ as defined by the pushout a generalization of the 'normal' definition of tensors? It seems unlikely that it is a generalization as it seems to depend on these morphisms whereas the tensors of modules doesn't depend on any sort of morphisms.







      category-theory terminology tensor-products






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited yesterday









      Shaun

      7,892113377




      7,892113377










      asked yesterday









      伽罗瓦

      1,068615




      1,068615






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          5
          down vote













          Take all rings here to be commutative. A ring homomorphism $f:Ato B$
          makes $B$ into an $A$-module. In detail, the module action is $acdot b=f(a)b$.
          With another ring homomorphism $g:Ato C$ then we have two $A$-modules,
          and can form the tensor product $Botimes_A C$.



          At first $Botimes_A C$ is just a module. But it has a multiplication,
          defined as the composition
          $$(Botimes_A C)times(Botimes_A C)to (Botimes_A C)otimes_A (Botimes_A C)
          to (Botimes_A B)otimes_A (Cotimes_A C)to Botimes_A C.$$

          The middle map is just permuting the factors, and the last map is induced
          by $(botimes b')otimes(cotimes c')mapsto bb'otimes cc'$.
          In terms of elements:
          $$(botimes c)(b'otimes c')=bb'otimes cc'.$$



          Then $Botimes_A C$ is a ring. There are ring homomorphisms from $B$
          and $C$ to it, the first given by $amapsto aotimes 1_C$. Now one sits
          down with a large sheet of paper, and proves that the map $Ato Botimes_A C$
          is the pushout of $Ato B$ and $Ato C$.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














             

            draft saved


            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3012515%2ftensor-product-terminology-in-category-theory%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            5
            down vote













            Take all rings here to be commutative. A ring homomorphism $f:Ato B$
            makes $B$ into an $A$-module. In detail, the module action is $acdot b=f(a)b$.
            With another ring homomorphism $g:Ato C$ then we have two $A$-modules,
            and can form the tensor product $Botimes_A C$.



            At first $Botimes_A C$ is just a module. But it has a multiplication,
            defined as the composition
            $$(Botimes_A C)times(Botimes_A C)to (Botimes_A C)otimes_A (Botimes_A C)
            to (Botimes_A B)otimes_A (Cotimes_A C)to Botimes_A C.$$

            The middle map is just permuting the factors, and the last map is induced
            by $(botimes b')otimes(cotimes c')mapsto bb'otimes cc'$.
            In terms of elements:
            $$(botimes c)(b'otimes c')=bb'otimes cc'.$$



            Then $Botimes_A C$ is a ring. There are ring homomorphisms from $B$
            and $C$ to it, the first given by $amapsto aotimes 1_C$. Now one sits
            down with a large sheet of paper, and proves that the map $Ato Botimes_A C$
            is the pushout of $Ato B$ and $Ato C$.






            share|cite|improve this answer

























              up vote
              5
              down vote













              Take all rings here to be commutative. A ring homomorphism $f:Ato B$
              makes $B$ into an $A$-module. In detail, the module action is $acdot b=f(a)b$.
              With another ring homomorphism $g:Ato C$ then we have two $A$-modules,
              and can form the tensor product $Botimes_A C$.



              At first $Botimes_A C$ is just a module. But it has a multiplication,
              defined as the composition
              $$(Botimes_A C)times(Botimes_A C)to (Botimes_A C)otimes_A (Botimes_A C)
              to (Botimes_A B)otimes_A (Cotimes_A C)to Botimes_A C.$$

              The middle map is just permuting the factors, and the last map is induced
              by $(botimes b')otimes(cotimes c')mapsto bb'otimes cc'$.
              In terms of elements:
              $$(botimes c)(b'otimes c')=bb'otimes cc'.$$



              Then $Botimes_A C$ is a ring. There are ring homomorphisms from $B$
              and $C$ to it, the first given by $amapsto aotimes 1_C$. Now one sits
              down with a large sheet of paper, and proves that the map $Ato Botimes_A C$
              is the pushout of $Ato B$ and $Ato C$.






              share|cite|improve this answer























                up vote
                5
                down vote










                up vote
                5
                down vote









                Take all rings here to be commutative. A ring homomorphism $f:Ato B$
                makes $B$ into an $A$-module. In detail, the module action is $acdot b=f(a)b$.
                With another ring homomorphism $g:Ato C$ then we have two $A$-modules,
                and can form the tensor product $Botimes_A C$.



                At first $Botimes_A C$ is just a module. But it has a multiplication,
                defined as the composition
                $$(Botimes_A C)times(Botimes_A C)to (Botimes_A C)otimes_A (Botimes_A C)
                to (Botimes_A B)otimes_A (Cotimes_A C)to Botimes_A C.$$

                The middle map is just permuting the factors, and the last map is induced
                by $(botimes b')otimes(cotimes c')mapsto bb'otimes cc'$.
                In terms of elements:
                $$(botimes c)(b'otimes c')=bb'otimes cc'.$$



                Then $Botimes_A C$ is a ring. There are ring homomorphisms from $B$
                and $C$ to it, the first given by $amapsto aotimes 1_C$. Now one sits
                down with a large sheet of paper, and proves that the map $Ato Botimes_A C$
                is the pushout of $Ato B$ and $Ato C$.






                share|cite|improve this answer












                Take all rings here to be commutative. A ring homomorphism $f:Ato B$
                makes $B$ into an $A$-module. In detail, the module action is $acdot b=f(a)b$.
                With another ring homomorphism $g:Ato C$ then we have two $A$-modules,
                and can form the tensor product $Botimes_A C$.



                At first $Botimes_A C$ is just a module. But it has a multiplication,
                defined as the composition
                $$(Botimes_A C)times(Botimes_A C)to (Botimes_A C)otimes_A (Botimes_A C)
                to (Botimes_A B)otimes_A (Cotimes_A C)to Botimes_A C.$$

                The middle map is just permuting the factors, and the last map is induced
                by $(botimes b')otimes(cotimes c')mapsto bb'otimes cc'$.
                In terms of elements:
                $$(botimes c)(b'otimes c')=bb'otimes cc'.$$



                Then $Botimes_A C$ is a ring. There are ring homomorphisms from $B$
                and $C$ to it, the first given by $amapsto aotimes 1_C$. Now one sits
                down with a large sheet of paper, and proves that the map $Ato Botimes_A C$
                is the pushout of $Ato B$ and $Ato C$.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered yesterday









                Lord Shark the Unknown

                97.6k958128




                97.6k958128






























                     

                    draft saved


                    draft discarded



















































                     


                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3012515%2ftensor-product-terminology-in-category-theory%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Accessing regular linux commands in Huawei's Dopra Linux

                    Can't connect RFCOMM socket: Host is down

                    Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal Exception in Interrupt