We develop a functorial approach to the study of \( n\) -abelian categories by reformulating their axioms in terms of their categories of finitely presented functors. Such an approach allows the use of classical homological algebra and representation theory techniques to understand higher homological algebra. As an application, we present two possible generalizations of the axioms “every monomorphism is a kernel” and “every epimorphism is a cokernel” of an abelian category to \( n\) -abelian categories. We also specialize our results to modules over rings, thereby describing when the category of finitely generated projective modules over a ring is \( n\) -abelian. Moreover, we establish a correspondence for \( n\) -abelian categories with additive generators, which extends the higher Auslander correspondence.

Higher homological algebra has its origin in [1], where Iyama started the study of \( n\) -cluster tilting subcategories of abelian categories. In order to capture the properties of such subcategories, Jasso introduced \( n\) -abelian categories in [2], which coincide with abelian categories when \( n = 1\) . Their introduction was a breakthrough, and crucial to settle higher homological algebra as subject in its own right.

In this paper, we develop a functorial approach to \( n\) -abelian categories. We follow the philosophy that functors over a category are its “representations”, and can be useful to understand its properties. This idea was made precise by Mitchell in [3], where it was supported that additive functors over a preadditive category are analogues of modules over a ring. The use of functor categories to understand a category itself goes back to the works [4] of Freyd and [5] of Auslander. In fact, much of the present paper is influenced by the functorial approach to representation theory employed by Auslander in [5], [6], [7], [8] and several other papers.

The use of functor categories to the study of \( n\) -abelian categories allows the use of classical homological algebra and representation theory techniques to investigate higher homological algebra. Indeed, throughout this paper, we describe properties of \( n\) -abelian categories in terms of their categories of finitely presented functors, which are abelian, thereby obtaining classical homological algebra descriptions (with a representation theory flavor) for higher homological algebra phenomena. Consequently, by working with functors, one can hope to obtain new insights on \( n\) -abelian categories by “translating” results for functors to the language of higher homological algebra.

Let us outline the sections and main results of this paper.

Section 2 provides the reader with the conventions we follow, and concise backgrounds on functor categories, ideals of categories, projectively stable categories and higher homological algebra.

In Section 3, we explore the idea that \( n\) -kernels and \( n\) -cokernels are projective resolutions in functor categories. Then we reformulate the axioms of an \( n\) -abelian category in terms of its categories of finitely presented functors. These reformulations are summarized in Theorem 2, the main result of this paper.

Section 4 is devoted to the study of von Neumann regular categories. Through the functorial approach, we give an alternative proof of a result of Jasso, which characterizes von Neumann regular categories as the categories that are \( n\) -abelian for more than one (equivalently, for every) positive integer \( n\) . This is Proposition 11.

In Section 5, we consider the double dual sequence of a finitely presented functor, and some of its properties and consequences, which are used to prove further results in this paper.

In Section 6, we use the functorial approach to obtain two possible generalizations of the axioms “every monomorphism is a kernel” and “every epimorphism is a cokernel” of an abelian category to \( n\) -abelian categories, which are registered in Theorems 5 and 8. These generalizations are stated in terms of \( m\) -segments, \( m\) -cosegments, pre-\( m\) -segments and pre-\( m\) -cosegments, which are certain sequences consisting of \( m\) morphisms, that recover the notions of monomorphisms and epimorphisms when \( m = 1\) .

Section 7 contains results that aim to characterize \( n\) -abelian categories with enough injectives and enough projectives in terms of the global and dominant dimensions of their categories of finitely presented functors. Its main result is Theorem 9.

In Section 8, we specialize previous results to rings and modules over rings. Thus, we describe in Theorem 10 when the category of finitely generated projective modules over a ring is \( n\) -abelian. Such a description leads to a correspondence for \( n\) -abelian categories with additive generators, which extends the higher Auslander correspondence to arbitrary rings. This is Theorem 11.

In Appendix A, we introduce the tensor product of finitely presented functors, and we prove in Theorem 12 that the global dimensions of the categories of finitely presented contravariant and covariant functors over a coherent category coincide.

Appendix B covers a few known results on \( n\) -abelian categories from the functorial perspective, as a further exposition of the functorial approach.

The author would like to thank his Ph.D. advisor Alex Martsinkovsky for his constant encouragement and discussions on the content of this paper.

2.1 Conventions

2.2 Functor categories

In this subsection, we review some basic definitions and results concerning functor categories.

We call a contravariant additive functor from \( \mathcal{C}\) to \( \mathsf {Ab}\) a right \( \mathcal{C}\) -module. We denote by \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}\) the category whose objects are the right \( \mathcal{C}\) -modules and whose morphisms are natural transformations. That is, for \( F, G \in \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}\) , the collection of morphisms from \( F\) to \( G\) is given by the natural transformations from \( F\) to \( G\) , and we denoted it by \( \mathsf {Hom}(F,G)\) . In general, \( \mathsf {Hom}(F,G)\) might not be a set, but if \( \mathcal{C}\) is skeletally small, then it is indeed always a set, so that \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}\) is a locally small category.

A left \( \mathcal{C}\) -module is a covariant additive functor from \( \mathcal{C}\) to \( \mathsf {Ab}\) , that is, a right \( \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) -module. We give preference to work with right \( \mathcal{C}\) -modules, with the case of left \( \mathcal{C}\) -modules being recovered by taking \( \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) in place of \( \mathcal{C}\) . We will call a right \( \mathcal{C}\) -module a \( \mathcal{C}\) -module, and a left \( \mathcal{C}\) -module will be referred to as a \( \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) -module.

A sequence

in \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}\) is called exact when

is exact in \( \mathsf {Ab}\) for every \( X \in \mathcal{C}\) . In words, a sequence in \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}\) is exact if and only if each of its components is an exact sequence of abelian groups.

When \( \mathcal{C}\) is skeletally small, the category \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}\) is abelian, and a sequence in \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}\) is exact in the above sense if and only if it is exact as a sequence in an abelian category. We remark that, in this case, kernels, cokernels and direct sums in \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}\) are computed componentwise.

If \( \mathcal{C}\) is not skeletally small, then \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}\) might not be locally small, which prevents us from saying that \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}\) is a preadditive category. However, \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}\) still has kernels, cokernels and direct sums, which are computed componentwise, and basic results that hold for abelian categories also hold for \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}\) .

It follows from the Yoneda lemma that, for every \( X \in \mathcal{C}\) , the representable functor \( \mathcal{C}(-,X)\) is a projective object in \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}\) . We say that a \( \mathcal{C}\) -module \( F\) is finitely generated if there is an epimorphism \( \mathcal{C}(-,X) \to F\) in \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}\) for some \( X \in \mathcal{C}\) . We denote by \( \mathsf {proj} \mathcal{C}\) the subcategory of \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}\) consisting of the finitely generated projective \( \mathcal{C}\) -modules. We recall that the Yoneda embedding \( \mathcal{C} \to \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}\) induces an equivalence of categories \( \mathcal{C} \to \mathsf {proj} \mathcal{C}\) since \( \mathcal{C}\) is additive and idempotent complete. Therefore, every object in \( \mathsf {proj} \mathcal{C}\) is isomorphic to \( \mathcal{C}(-,X)\) for some \( X \in \mathcal{C}\) , and every morphism in \( \mathsf {proj} \mathcal{C}\) is isomorphic to \( \mathcal{C}(-,f)\) for some morphism \( f\) in \( \mathcal{C}\) .

A \( \mathcal{C}\) -module \( F\) is finitely presented if there is an exact sequence

in \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}\) for some \( f \in \mathcal{C}(X,Y)\) . Such an exact sequence is called a projective presentation of \( F\) . We denote by \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) the subcategory of \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}\) consisting of the finitely presented \( \mathcal{C}\) -modules. The category \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) is always locally small, regardless if \( \mathcal{C}\) is skeletally small or not. We also remark that the category \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) is additive, it has cokernels, its projective objects are given by \( \mathsf {proj} \mathcal{C}\) and it has enough projectives.

The next result tells us that the category \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) determines \( \mathcal{C}\) up to equivalence of categories. In fact, \( \mathcal{C}\) is recovered from \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) by taking its projective objects.

Proposition 1

Let \( \mathcal{B}\) and \( \mathcal{C}\) be additive and idempotent complete categories. The following are equivalent:

1. (a)

   The categories \( \mathcal{B}\) and \( \mathcal{C}\) are equivalent.
2. (b)

   The categories \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{B}\) and \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) are equivalent.

If \( \mathcal{B}\) and \( \mathcal{C}\) are skeletally small, then the above items are also equivalent to:

1. (c)

   The categories \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{B}\) and \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}\) are equivalent.

Proof

It is easy to see that if \( \mathcal{B}\) and \( \mathcal{C}\) are equivalent categories, then so are \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{B}\) and \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) . Conversely, if there is an equivalence of categories \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{B} \approx \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) , then it induces an equivalence on the subcategories of projective objects, hence there is an equivalence \( \mathsf {proj} \mathcal{B} \approx \mathsf {proj} \mathcal{C}\) . Since the Yoneda embedding induces equivalences \( \mathcal{B} \approx \mathsf {proj} \mathcal{B}\) and \( \mathcal{C} \approx \mathsf {proj} \mathcal{C}\) , we deduce that there is an equivalence \( \mathcal{B} \approx \mathcal{C}\) . Therefore, items (a) and (b) are equivalent.

Next, assume that \( \mathcal{B}\) and \( \mathcal{C}\) are skeletally small. Again, it is easy to see that if \( \mathcal{B}\) and \( \mathcal{C}\) are equivalent categories, then so are \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{B}\) and \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}\) . Conversely, if there is an equivalence of categories \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{B} \approx \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}\) , then it induces an equivalence \( \mathsf {proj} \mathcal{B} \approx \mathsf {proj} \mathcal{C}\) , see [9, Theorem 2.7.2]. Hence, as above, we conclude that there is an equivalence \( \mathcal{B} \approx \mathcal{C}\) . Thus, items (a) and (c) are equivalent.

As a final observation, we do not assume \( \mathcal{C}\) to be skeletally small in this paper. This will not cause any issues, as we mainly work with the category \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) , and only componentwise constructions and arguments are used when dealing with \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}\) .

2.3 Ideals

2.4 The projectively stable category

Let \( \mathcal{A}\) be an additive and idempotent complete category, and let \( \mathsf {P} (\mathcal{A})\) be the subcategory of projective objects of \( \mathcal{A}\) .

The projectively stable category of \( \mathcal{A}\) is the category \( \mathcal{A} / \langle \mathsf {P} (\mathcal{A}) \rangle\) , which we denote by \( \underline{\mathcal{A}}\) . Note that, for \( X,Y \in \mathcal{A}\) , the collection of morphisms from \( X\) to \( Y\) in \( \underline{\mathcal{A}}\) is given by the quotient of abelian groups

\[ \underline{\mathcal{A}}(X,Y) = \mathcal{A}(X,Y) / \langle \mathsf {P} (\mathcal{A}) \rangle (X,Y). \]

When \( \mathcal{A} = \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) , we have \( \mathsf {P} (\mathcal{A}) = \mathsf {proj} \mathcal{C}\) and we write \( \underline{\mathcal{A}} = \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) . Moreover, for \( F, G \in \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) , we denote \( \underline{\mathcal{A}}(F,G)\) by \( \mathsf {Hom} (F,G)\) .

Now, suppose that \( \mathcal{A}\) is an abelian category with enough projectives, and take some \( X \in \mathcal{A}\) . If

is an exact sequence in \( \mathcal{A}\) with \( P \in \mathsf {P} (\mathcal{A})\) , then \( K\) is called a syzygy of \( X\) and we denote it by \( \Omega X\) . Despite this notation, observe that syzygies are not unique. However, if

is another exact sequence in \( \mathcal{A}\) with \( Q \in \mathsf {P} (\mathcal{A})\) , then it follows from Schanuel’s lemma that \( K \oplus Q \simeq J \oplus P\) . Therefore, we conclude from Theorem 1 that \( K\) and \( J\) are isomorphic in \( \underline{\mathcal{A}}\) . In symbols, \( K \oplus \mathsf {P} (\mathcal{A}) \simeq J \oplus \mathsf {P} (\mathcal{A})\) . Hence a syzygy of \( X\) becomes unique up to isomorphism in the projectively stable category \( \underline{\mathcal{A}}\) .

Still in the settings of the above paragraph, given a positive integer \( j\) , we define a \( j\) ^th syzygy of \( X\) recursively by letting it be a syzygy of a \( (j-1)\) ^th syzygy of \( X\) , agreeing that a \( 0\) ^th syzygy of \( X\) is \( X\) . We denote it by \( \Omega^{j} X\) , which is unique up to isomorphism in the category \( \underline{\mathcal{A}}\) .

We remark that the syzygy defines a functor \( \Omega : \underline{\mathcal{A}} \to \underline{\mathcal{A}}\) in the obvious way. Similarly, given a positive integer \( j\) , the \( j\) ^th syzygy defines a functor \( \Omega^{j} : \underline{\mathcal{A}} \to \underline{\mathcal{A}}\) , which coincides with the composition of \( j\) copies of \( \Omega\) .

2.5 Higher homological algebra

We recall some basic definitions from [2].

Let \( f \in \mathcal{C}(X,Y)\) be a morphism in \( \mathcal{C}\) . An \( n\) -kernel of \( f\) is a sequence

of morphisms in \( \mathcal{C}\) with the property that

is exact in \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}\) . Dually, an \( n\) -cokernel of \( f\) is a sequence

of morphisms in \( \mathcal{C}\) for which

is exact in \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) .

We say that \( \mathcal{C}\) has \( n\) -kernels if every morphism in \( \mathcal{C}\) has an \( n\) -kernel, and that \( \mathcal{C}\) has \( n\) -cokernels if every morphism in \( \mathcal{C}\) has an \( n\) -cokernel.

An additive and idempotent complete category \( \mathcal{C}\) is called \( n\) -abelian if it satisfies the following axioms:

1. (A1)

   \( \mathcal{C}\) has \( n\) -kernels.
2. (A1\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) )

   \( \mathcal{C}\) has \( n\) -cokernels.
3. (A2)

   For every monomorphism \( f \in \mathcal{C}(X,Y)\) in \( \mathcal{C}\) and for every \( n\) -cokernel

   

   of \( f\) , the sequence

   

   is an \( n\) -kernel of \( g_{n}\) .
4. (A2\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) )

   For every epimorphism \( f \in \mathcal{C}(X,Y)\) in \( \mathcal{C}\) and for every \( n\) -kernel

   

   of \( f\) , the sequence

   

   is an \( n\) -cokernel of \( f_{n}\) .

Rigorously, we should label the above axioms with the positive integer \( n\) . However, \( n\) is fixed throughout this text, so we feel comfortable not doing so.

Note that \( 1\) -kernels, \( 1\) -cokernels and \( 1\) -abelian categories coincide with kernels, cokernels and abelian categories, respectively. Hence \( n = 1\) recovers the classical case.

Finally, recall that an \( n\) -exact sequence in \( \mathcal{C}\) is a sequence

of morphisms in \( \mathcal{C}\) with the property that {

} and {

} are exact sequences in \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}\) and in \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) , respectively. Observe that \( 1\) -exact sequences are the same as kernel-cokernel pairs (which are also known as short exact sequences). Thus, we might think of \( n\) -exact sequences as “\( n\) -kernel-\( n\) -cokernel pairs”.

The idea behind the functorial approach is that “representations” of a category \( \mathcal{C}\) , which are modules over \( \mathcal{C}\) , can be used to understand \( \mathcal{C}\) . Following this perspective, we might also choose to restrict our attention to modules that are finitely presented, and then aim to understand \( \mathcal{C}\) by investigating the categories \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) and \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) . The goal of this paper is to develop this idea for the case when \( \mathcal{C}\) is an \( n\) -abelian category. In this section, we take the first steps into this direction, and we reformulate the axioms for a category \( \mathcal{C}\) to be \( n\) -abelian in terms of \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) and \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) .

We begin by giving equivalent statements for the axioms (A1) and (A1\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ) of an \( n\) -abelian category. Later on, we will do the same for the axioms (A2) and (A2\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ).

Let \( f \in \mathcal{C}(X,Y)\) and \( g \in \mathcal{C}(Y,Z)\) . Recall that \( f\) is a weak kernel of \( g\) if

is exact in \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}\) . Dually, \( g\) is a weak cokernel of \( f\) if

is exact in \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) .

We say that \( \mathcal{C}\) has weak kernels if every morphism in \( \mathcal{C}\) has a weak kernel, and that \( \mathcal{C}\) has weak cokernels if every morphism in \( \mathcal{C}\) has a weak cokernel.

Note that if \( \mathcal{C}\) has \( n\) -kernels, then \( \mathcal{C}\) has weak kernels. Dually, if \( \mathcal{C}\) has \( n\) -cokernels, then \( \mathcal{C}\) has weak cokernels. It is, therefore, of our interest to consider categories having weak kernels and weak cokernels. Regarding these properties, we have the following well known result:

Observe that, by taking \( \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) in place of \( \mathcal{C}\) in Proposition 3, we conclude that \( \mathcal{C}\) has weak cokernels if and only if \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) is an abelian category.

Before we continue, let us introduce some nomenclature. We say that \( \mathcal{C}\) is right coherent if the category \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) is abelian. Dually, \( \mathcal{C}\) is called left coherent if the category \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) is abelian. If \( \mathcal{C}\) is both right and left coherent, then we say that \( \mathcal{C}\) is coherent. We refer the reader to [9, page 68] for equivalent definitions.

It follows from the Yoneda lemma that if \( \mathcal{C}\) is right coherent, then a sequence in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) is exact in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) if and only if it is exact in \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}\) . Similarly, if \( \mathcal{C}\) is left coherent, then a sequence in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) is exact in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) if and only if it is exact in \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) .

We can now describe the axioms (A1) and (A1\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ) in terms of the categories \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) and \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) , respectively. In fact, consider the following axioms:

1. (F1)

   \( \mathcal{C}\) is right coherent and \( \mathsf {gl.dim} (\mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}) \leqslant n+1\) .
2. (F1\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) )

   \( \mathcal{C}\) is left coherent and \( \mathsf {gl.dim} (\mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}) \leqslant n+1\) .

Proof

We only prove that (A1) and (F1) are equivalent. Then, by taking \( \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) in place of \( \mathcal{C}\) , we can deduce that (A1\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ) and (F1\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ) are equivalent.

Suppose that \( \mathcal{C}\) satisfies the axiom (A1). Then \( \mathcal{C}\) has weak kernels, and we conclude that \( \mathcal{C}\) is right coherent, by Proposition 3. Moreover, let \( F \in \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) be arbitrary, and take a projective presentation

of \( F\) in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) with \( f \in \mathcal{C}(X,Y)\) . Then, by taking an \( n\) -kernel of \( f\) , we get a projective resolution

of \( F\) in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) , so that \( \mathsf {pd} F \leqslant n + 1\) . Therefore, \( \mathsf {gl.dim} (\mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}) \leqslant n + 1\) .

Conversely, assume that \( \mathcal{C}\) satisfies the axiom (F1). Given a morphism \( f \in \mathcal{C}(X,Y)\) , let \( F \in \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) be the cokernel of \( \mathcal{C}(-,f)\) , and consider the projective presentation

of \( F\) in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) induced by \( f\) . Because \( \mathsf {gl.dim} (\mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}) \leqslant n + 1\) , we can extend this projective presentation to a projective resolution of \( F\) in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) as the one in the previous paragraph, which gives an \( n\) -kernel of \( f\) , by the Yoneda lemma.

We define a pre-\( n\) -abelian category to be an additive and idempotent complete category that satisfies the axioms (A1) and (A1\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ). By Proposition 4, an additive and idempotent complete category is pre-\( n\) -abelian if and only if it satisfies the axioms (F1) and (F1\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ).

At this point, an intriguing phenomenon is brought to light. By Theorem 12, if \( \mathcal{C}\) is coherent, then the global dimensions of \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) and \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) coincide. Thus, if \( \mathcal{C}\) is coherent, then \( \mathcal{C}\) satisfies (F1) if and only if \( \mathcal{C}\) satisfies (F1\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ). By Propositions 3 and 4, this means that if \( \mathcal{C}\) has weak kernels and weak cokernels, then \( \mathcal{C}\) satisfies (A1) if and only if \( \mathcal{C}\) satisfies (A1\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ). There is, therefore, a redundancy in the definition of a pre-\( n\) -abelian category (and also in the definition of an \( n\) -abelian category).

Before moving on to the axioms (A2) and (A2\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), let us pause to ponder on how \( n\) -kernels and \( n\) -cokernels were considered in the proof of Proposition 4.

Given a morphism \( f\) in \( \mathcal{C}\) , let us define \( \mathsf {m}(f) = \mathsf {Coker} \mathcal{C}(-,f)\) , which belongs to \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) , and \( \mathsf {m}(f) = \mathsf {Coker} \mathcal{C}(f,-)\) , which lies in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) . The proof of Proposition 4 shows that if \( \mathcal{C}\) has \( n\) -kernels, then the \( n\) -kernels of \( f\) are obtained by taking projective resolutions of \( \mathsf {m}(f)\) in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) that extend the projective presentation of \( \mathsf {m}(f)\) induced by \( f\) . Dually, if \( \mathcal{C}\) has \( n\) -cokernels, then the \( n\) -cokernels of \( f\) are obtained by taking projective resolutions of \( \mathsf {m}(f)\) in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) that extend the projective presentation of \( \mathsf {m}(f)\) induced by \( f\) . With this perspective, we see that \( n\) -kernels and \( n\) -cokernels are not unique if \( n \geqslant 2\) , as it was observed in [2, Remark 2.3]. Clearly, this is the case because projective resolutions are not unique. One way of achieving uniqueness for \( n\) -kernels and \( n\) -cokernels would be by considering minimal projective resolutions of objects in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) and in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) , respectively. We do not explore this subject in this paper, but we refer the reader to [9, Section 3.2] for some insights on it.

Observe how in the above paragraph we insisted that \( n\) -kernels of \( f\) do not come from arbitrary projective resolutions of \( \mathsf {m}(f)\) , but by those extending the projective presentation of \( \mathsf {m}(f)\) induced by \( f\) . Dually, for \( n\) -cokernels of \( f\) . This is because \( \mathsf {m}(f)\) and \( \mathsf {m}(f)\) also have projective presentations induced by morphisms other than \( f\) . Motivated by [6, Chapter 3] and [11, Section 3], let us elaborate this comment.

Let \( \mathsf {Mor} \mathcal{C}\) be the category of morphisms in \( \mathcal{C}\) . Given \( f \in \mathcal{C}(X,Y)\) , \( g \in \mathcal{C}(Z,W)\) and a morphism \( (x,y) : f \to g\) in \( \mathsf {Mor} \mathcal{C}\) , that is, a commutative square

in \( \mathcal{C}\) , we define \( \mathsf {m}(x,y)\) to be the unique morphism \( \mathsf {m}(f) \to \mathsf {m}(g)\) in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) which makes the diagram with exact rows below commute.

It is easy to see that this defines an additive functor \( \mathsf {m} : \mathsf {Mor} \mathcal{C} \to \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) , which is dense and full. However, the functor \( \mathsf {m}\) is not an equivalence of categories, because it is not faithful. In fact, we can check that the following are equivalent for a morphism \( (x,y)\) in \( \mathsf {Mor} \mathcal{C}\) as above:

1. (a)

   \( \mathsf {m}(x,y) = 0\) .
2. (b)

   There is some \( r \in \mathcal{C}(Y,Z)\) with \( y = gr\) .
3. (c)

   \( (x,y)\) factors in \( \mathsf {Mor} \mathcal{C}\) through a split epimorphism in \( \mathcal{C}\) .

Nonetheless, if we let \( \mathsf {Split \text{ } Epi}\) be the subcategory of \( \mathsf {Mor} \mathcal{C}\) consisting of the split epimorphisms in \( \mathcal{C}\) , then, by the above discussion, the functor \( \mathsf {m}\) induces an equivalence of categories \( \mathsf {Mor} \mathcal{C} / \langle \mathsf {Split \text{ } Epi} \rangle \to \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) , which we also denote by \( \mathsf {m}\) .

Dually, there is also an additive (but contravariant) functor \( \mathsf {m} : \mathsf {Mor} \mathcal{C} \to \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) , which is dense and full. Under the previous settings, we can verify that the following are equivalent:

1. (a)

   \( \mathsf {m}(x,y) = 0\) .
2. (b)

   There is some \( r \in \mathcal{C}(Y,Z)\) with \( x = rf\) .
3. (c)

   \( (x,y)\) factors in \( \mathsf {Mor} \mathcal{C}\) through a split monomorphism in \( \mathcal{C}\) .

Consequently, by letting \( \mathsf {Split \text{ } Mono}\) be the subcategory of \( \mathsf {Mor} \mathcal{C}\) consisting of the split monomorphisms in \( \mathcal{C}\) , we conclude that \( \mathsf {m}\) induces an anti-equivalence of categories \( \mathsf {Mor} \mathcal{C} / \langle \mathsf {Split \text{ } Mono} \rangle \to \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) , which we also denote by \( \mathsf {m}\) .

We can now compare how different the projective presentations of objects in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) and in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) are. Let \( F \in \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) and suppose that \( f,g \in \mathsf {Mor} \mathcal{C}\) are such that \( \mathsf {m}(f) \simeq F\) and \( \mathsf {m}(g) \simeq F\) . Then Recall the notation introduced in Subsection 2.3. \( \mathsf {m}(f \oplus \mathsf {Split \text{ } Epi}) \simeq \mathsf {m}(g \oplus \mathsf {Split \text{ } Epi})\) , which implies that \( f \oplus \mathsf {Split \text{ } Epi} \simeq g \oplus \mathsf {Split \text{ } Epi}\) . Hence it follows from Theorem 1 that there are \( s,t \in \mathsf {Split \text{ } Epi}\) such that \( f \oplus s \simeq g \oplus t\) in \( \mathsf {Mor} \mathcal{C}\) . Therefore, \( f\) and \( g\) differ up to direct sums of split epimorphisms in \( \mathcal{C}\) . Dually, if \( F \in \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) and \( f,g \in \mathsf {Mor} \mathcal{C}\) satisfy \( \mathsf {m}(f) \simeq F\) and \( \mathsf {m}(g) \simeq F\) , then there are \( s,t \in \mathsf {Split \text{ } Mono}\) with \( f \oplus s \simeq g \oplus t\) in \( \mathsf {Mor} \mathcal{C}\) . In this case, \( f\) and \( g\) differ up to direct sums of split monomorphisms in \( \mathcal{C}\)

To summarize our pondering, we can say that \( n\) -kernels and \( n\) -cokernels in \( \mathcal{C}\) are given by well-chosen projective resolutions of objects in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) and in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) , respectively. But there seems to be an issue with this approach to \( n\) -kernels and \( n\) -cokernels: it relies on two distinct categories, namely, \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) and \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) . In view of this apparent issue, it would be interesting to have a tool which could enable us to transit between \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) and \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) in such a way that for a morphism \( f\) in \( \mathcal{C}\) , the morphism \( \mathcal{C}(-,f)\) in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) would be sent to \( \mathcal{C}(f,-)\) in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) , and vice versa. Let us explain how we can obtain such a tool.

Given \( F \in \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) , let \( F^{\ast}\) be the \( \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) -module defined by \( F^{\ast}(X) = \mathsf {Hom}(F,\mathcal{C}(-,X))\) for each \( X \in \mathcal{C}\) and \( F^{\ast}(f) = \mathsf {Hom}(F,\mathcal{C}(-,f))\) for each morphism \( f\) in \( \mathcal{C}\) . We call \( F^{\ast}\) the dual of \( F\) . If \( \alpha \in \mathsf {Hom}(F,G)\) for \( F,G \in \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) , then we let \( \alpha^{\ast} : G^{\ast} \to F^{\ast}\) be the morphism of \( \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) -modules given by \( (\alpha^{\ast})_{X} = \mathsf {Hom}(\alpha, \mathcal{C}(-,X))\) for each \( X \in \mathcal{C}\) . This defines a contravariant functor \( (-)^{\ast} : \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C} \to \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) .

It follows from the Yoneda lemma that \( \mathcal{C}(-,X)^{\ast} \simeq \mathcal{C}(X,-)\) for each \( X \in \mathcal{C}\) , and also that, for each \( f \in \mathcal{C}(X,Y)\) , there is a commutative diagram

in \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) whose vertical arrows are the isomorphisms given by the Yoneda lemma. Thus, \( (-)^{\ast}\) sends \( \mathcal{C}(-,X)\) to \( \mathcal{C}(X,-)\) , and \( \mathcal{C}(-,f)\) to \( \mathcal{C}(f,-)\) , up to isomorphisms.

It is not hard to see that if

is a sequence in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) which is exact in \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}\) , then

is exact in \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) . Therefore, if \( F \in \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) and if

is an exact sequence in \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}\) with \( f \in \mathcal{C}(X,Y)\) , then, from this and the previous paragraph, we conclude that there is an exact sequence

in \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) . Consequently, if \( \mathcal{C}\) is left coherent, then \( F^{\ast} \in \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) . Thus, when \( \mathcal{C}\) is left coherent, we can consider \( (-)^{\ast}\) as a functor from \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) to \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) .

By taking \( \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) in place of \( \mathcal{C}\) in the above discussion, we also obtain a contravariant functor \( (-)^{\ast} : \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}} \to \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}\) . In this case, it follows from the Yoneda lemma that, for each \( X \in \mathcal{C}\) and each morphism \( f\) in \( \mathcal{C}\) , the functor \( (-)^{\ast}\) sends \( \mathcal{C}(X,-)\) to \( \mathcal{C}(-,X)\) , and \( \mathcal{C}(f,-)\) to \( \mathcal{C}(-,f)\) , up to isomorphisms. Moreover, when \( \mathcal{C}\) is right coherent, we can consider \( (-)^{\ast}\) as a functor from \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) to \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) .

To conclude, the tool we have mentioned before is the contravariant functor \( (-)^{\ast}\) . It gives dualities \( (-)^{\ast} : \mathsf {proj} \mathcal{C} \leftrightarrow \mathsf {proj} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) and, when \( \mathcal{C}\) is coherent, it gives contravariant additive functors \( (-)^{\ast} : \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C} \leftrightarrow \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) .

Next, we move towards the axioms (A2) and (A2\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ). In order to understand these axioms in terms of the categories \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) and \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) , first we need to define a “transpose” of a module.

Following [12], given \( F \in \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) , if \( f\) is a morphism in \( \mathcal{C}\) for which \( \mathsf {m}(f) \simeq F\) , then \( \mathsf {m}(f)\) is called a transpose of \( F\) . Note that transposes are not unique. Indeed, if \( f\) is a morphism in \( \mathcal{C}\) with \( \mathsf {m}(f) \simeq F\) and if \( s\) is a split epimorphism in \( \mathcal{C}\) , then \( \mathsf {m}(f \oplus s) \simeq F\) , but \( \mathsf {m}(f \oplus s) \simeq \mathsf {m}(f) \oplus \mathsf {m}(s)\) and \( \mathsf {m}(s) \neq 0\) if \( s\) is not an isomorphism. However, if \( f\) and \( g\) are morphisms in \( \mathcal{C}\) such that \( \mathsf {m}(f) \simeq F\) and \( \mathsf {m}(g) \simeq F\) , then we know from previous discussions that there are \( s,t \in \mathsf {Split \text{ } Epi}\) with \( f \oplus s \simeq g \oplus t\) in \( \mathsf {Mor} \mathcal{C}\) . Hence \( \mathsf {m}(f) \oplus \mathsf {m}(s) \simeq \mathsf {m}(g) \oplus \mathsf {m}(t)\) , and we can check that \( \mathsf {m}(r) \in \mathsf {proj} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) for all \( r \in \mathsf {Split \text{ } Epi}\) . Consequently, by Theorem 1, there is an isomorphism \( \mathsf {m}(f) \oplus \mathsf {proj} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}} \simeq \mathsf {m}(g) \oplus \mathsf {proj} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) in the projectively stable category \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) . Thus, a transpose of \( F\) is unique up to isomorphism in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) .

For \( F \in \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) , we use the notation \( \mathsf {Tr} F\) to denote a transpose of \( F\) . By the above paragraph, \( \mathsf {Tr} F \oplus \mathsf {proj} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) is unique up to isomorphism. We also remark that, from the previous discussion concerning the functor \( (-)^{\ast}\) , for a morphism \( f \in \mathcal{C}(X,Y)\) , there is an exact sequence

in \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) . If \( \mathsf {m}(f) \simeq F\) , then we might use the notation \( \mathsf {Tr} F\) for \( \mathsf {m}(f)\) , and the above exact sequence becomes

.

By interchanging the roles of \( \mathcal{C}\) and \( \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) , we see that if \( F \in \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) , then a transpose of \( F\) is given by \( \mathsf {m}(f)\) , where \( f\) is a morphism in \( \mathcal{C}\) for which \( \mathsf {m}(f) \simeq F\) . In this case, \( \mathsf {Tr} F \oplus \mathsf {proj} \mathcal{C}\) is unique up to isomorphism. Furthermore, for a morphism \( f \in \mathcal{C}(X,Y)\) , there is an exact sequence

in \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}\) . If \( \mathsf {m}(f) \simeq F\) , then we might write the above exact sequence as

.

We remark that the transpose defines contravariant functors \( \mathsf {Tr} : \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C} \to \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) and \( \mathsf {Tr} : \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}} \to \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) in the obvious ways. Moreover, it is not difficult to check that \( \mathsf {Tr}^{2} = \mathsf {Tr} \circ \mathsf {Tr} \simeq 1\) , hence \( \mathsf {Tr}\) is a duality between the projectively stable categories \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) and \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) . We will not use these facts in this paper, though.

Now, if \( F \in \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) and if \( \mathcal{C}\) is left coherent, then, for each positive integer \( i\) , define \( \mathsf {E}^{i}(F)\) to be the \( \mathcal{C}\) -module given by \( \mathsf {E}^{i}(F)(X) = \mathsf {Ext}^{i}(\mathsf {Tr} F, \mathcal{C}(X,-))\) for \( X \in \mathcal{C}\) and \( \mathsf {E}^{i}(F)(f) = \mathsf {Ext}^{i}(\mathsf {Tr} F, \mathcal{C}(f,-))\) for a morphism \( f\) in \( \mathcal{C}\) . Here, \( \mathsf {Ext}^{i}\) is taken in the abelian category \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) . Observe that, even though \( \mathsf {Tr} F\) is not uniquely determined by \( F\) , we know that transposes of \( F\) differ only up to direct sums with projectives, hence \( \mathsf {E}^{i}(F)\) is well defined (up to isomorphism). As in [12], for a positive integer \( k\) , we say that \( F\) is \( k\) -torsion free if \( \mathsf {E}^{i}(F) = 0\) for all \( 1 \leqslant i \leqslant k\) . We remark that if \( F \in \mathsf {proj} \mathcal{C}\) , then \( F\) is \( k\) -torsion free for every positive integer \( k\) .

By taking \( \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) in place of \( \mathcal{C}\) , note that if \( F \in \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) and if \( \mathcal{C}\) is right coherent, then \( \mathsf {E}^{i}(F)\) is the \( \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) -module given by \( \mathsf {E}^{i}(F)(X) = \mathsf {Ext}^{i}(\mathsf {Tr} F, \mathcal{C}(-,X))\) for \( X \in \mathcal{C}\) and \( \mathsf {E}^{i}(F)(f) = \mathsf {Ext}^{i}(\mathsf {Tr} F, \mathcal{C}(-,f))\) for a morphism \( f\) in \( \mathcal{C}\) . In this case, \( F\) is \( k\) -torsion free when \( \mathsf {E}^{i}(F) = 0\) for all \( 1 \leqslant i \leqslant k\) , and if \( F \in \mathsf {proj} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) , then \( F\) is \( k\) -torsion free for every positive integer \( k\) .

In the next result, we describe how we can determine when a finitely presented \( \mathcal{C}\) -module \( F\) is \( k\) -torsion free by making use of a morphism \( f\) in \( \mathcal{C}\) for which \( \mathsf {m}(f) \simeq F\) . Of course, there is also such a result for the case of finitely presented \( \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) -modules.

Proof

Let

be an exact sequence in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) . Such a sequence can be considered as the beginning of a projective resolution of \( \mathsf {m}(f)\) in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) . If \( Z \in \mathcal{C}\) , then, by applying \( \mathsf {Hom}(-,\mathcal{C}(Z,-))\) to the above sequence Observe that this is the same as applying the functor \( (-)^{\ast}\) and then evaluating at \( Z\) ., we get a complex in \( \mathsf {Ab}\) which is, by the Yoneda lemma, isomorphic to

. This complex is an exact sequence in \( \mathsf {Ab}\) if and only if \( \mathsf {Ext}^{i}(\mathsf {m}(f),\mathcal{C}(Z,-)) = 0\) for all \( 1 \leqslant i \leqslant k\) . Therefore, the sequence

is exact in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) if and only if \( \mathsf {m}(f)\) is \( k\) -torsion free.

From the above paragraph, we deduce that (a) implies (b), and that (c) implies (a). Next, we show that (b) implies (c).

Suppose that item (b) holds. Since \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) is an abelian category with enough projectives, there is an exact sequence

in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) . In this case, it follows from item (b) that

is exact in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) .

Finally, observe that if \( \mathsf {pd} \mathsf {m}(f) \leqslant k + 1\) , then the above sequence in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) can be chosen so that \( \mathcal{C}(g_{k},-)\) is a monomorphism. In fact, it suffices to take a projective resolution of \( \mathsf {m}(f)\) in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) with the smallest length as possible.

We are ready to describe the axioms (A2) and (A2\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ) of an \( n\) -abelian category in terms of \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) and \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) , respectively. For a coherent category \( \mathcal{C}\) , consider the following axioms:

1. (F2)

   Every \( F \in \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) with \( \mathsf {pd} F \leqslant 1\) is \( n\) -torsion free.
2. (F2\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) )

   Every \( F \in \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) with \( \mathsf {pd} F \leqslant 1\) is \( n\) -torsion free.

Proof

Assume that \( \mathcal{C}\) is a pre-\( n\) -abelian category. We only prove that (A2) and (F2) are equivalent. By duality, we obtain that (A2\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ) and (F2\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ) are also equivalent.

To begin with, recall from Proposition 4 that both \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) and \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) are abelian categories of global dimension at most \( n+1\) .

Suppose that \( \mathcal{C}\) satisfies the axiom (A2). Let \( F \in \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) be such that \( \mathsf {pd} F \leqslant 1\) . Then there is a projective resolution

of \( F\) in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) with \( f \in \mathcal{C}(X,Y)\) , so that \( \mathsf {m}(f) \simeq F\) . Note that \( f\) is a monomorphism in \( \mathcal{C}\) . Since \( \mathsf {gl.dim} (\mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}) \leqslant n + 1\) , we can extend the projective presentation

of \( \mathsf {m}(f)\) in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) to a projective resolution {

} of \( \mathsf {m}(f)\) in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) . In this case,

is an \( n\) -cokernel of \( f\) . From the axiom (A2), we conclude that

is an \( n\) -kernel of \( g_{n}\) . Therefore, the sequence

is exact in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) . Thus, it follows from Proposition 6 that \( \mathsf {m}(f)\) is \( n\) -torsion free, hence so is \( F\) .

Conversely, suppose that \( \mathcal{C}\) satisfies the axiom (F2). If \( f \in \mathcal{C}(X,Y)\) is a monomorphism in \( \mathcal{C}\) , then the sequence

is exact in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) . Hence \( \mathsf {pd} \mathsf {m}(f) \leqslant 1\) , which implies that \( \mathsf {m}(f)\) is \( n\) -torsion free. If

is an \( n\) -cokernel of \( f\) , then

is an exact sequence in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) . By Proposition 6, the sequence

is exact in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) . Consequently,

is an \( n\) -kernel of \( g_{n}\) .

We can now state the main result of this paper.

From now on, we focus on the axioms presented in Theorem 2 to study \( n\) -abelian categories. We call them the functorial axioms of an \( n\) -abelian category. Two remarks about these axioms are worth mentioning. First, note that we could replace the condition \( \mathsf {pd} F \leqslant 1\) by \( \mathsf {pd} F = 1\) in the axioms (F2) and (F2\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ) since projective modules are always \( n\) -torsion free. Second, although the axioms (F1) and (F1\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ) state that the global dimensions of \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) and \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) are at most \( n+1\) , we prove in Corollary 1 that, except for a trivial case, if \( \mathcal{C}\) is an \( n\) -abelian category, then these global dimensions are actually equal to \( n+1\) . This trivial case is when the category is “von Neumann regular”, and we devote the next section to analyze it.

When investigating whether a category is \( n\) -abelian or not, it can happen that it is \( n\) -abelian for every positive integer \( n\) . This is the case precisely when the category is “von Neumann regular”. In this section, we prove this statement, and we give several characterizations of these categories.

An additive and idempotent complete category \( \mathcal{C}\) is called von Neumann regular if every morphism \( f\) in \( \mathcal{C}\) can be written as \( f = jp\) in \( \mathcal{C}\) , where \( p\) is a split epimorphism and \( j\) is a split monomorphism. Although such categories are usually called “semisimple”, as in [2], for example, we believe that our choice of nomenclature is more appropriate since these categories can be thought of as generalizations of von Neumann regular rings. In fact, \( \mathcal{C}\) is von Neumann regular if and only if every morphism \( f\) in \( \mathcal{C}\) can be written as \( f = fgf\) for some morphism \( g\) in \( \mathcal{C}\) , see [13, Proposition 3.4].

In the next result, we characterize when a category \( \mathcal{C}\) is von Neumann regular in terms of \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) and \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) .

Proof

We only prove the equivalences between (a), (b) and (c). By duality, we can deduce that (a), (d) and (e) are equivalent, as \( \mathcal{C}\) is von Neumann regular if and only if \( \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) is von Neumann regular. It is also possible to prove directly that item (b) implies item (d), and vice versa, by making use of the functor \( (-)^{\ast}\) .

Assume that \( \mathcal{C}\) is von Neumann regular. Then we can verify that \( \mathcal{C}\) has kernels, so that it follows from Proposition 4 that \( \mathcal{C}\) is right coherent and \( \mathsf {gl.dim} (\mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}) \leqslant 2\) . Furthermore, it is easy to see that every monomorphism in \( \mathcal{C}\) is a split monomorphism. Consequently, every monomorphism in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) whose domain and codomain are in \( \mathsf {proj} \mathcal{C}\) is a split monomorphism. Therefore, as the projective objects of \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) are given by \( \mathsf {proj} \mathcal{C}\) , and \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) is an abelian category with enough projectives and finite global dimension, it is straightforward to conclude that \( \mathsf {gl.dim} (\mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}) = 0\) .

Hence (a) implies (b). Moreover, it is clear that (b) implies (c), and we prove below that (c) implies (a).

Suppose that \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C} = \mathsf {proj} \mathcal{C}\) . Let \( f \in \mathcal{C}(X,Y)\) be an arbitrary morphism in \( \mathcal{C}\) . Because \( \mathsf {m}(f) \in \mathsf {proj} \mathcal{C}\) , there is some \( Z \in \mathcal{C}\) for which \( \mathsf {m}(f) \simeq \mathcal{C}(-,Z)\) . Thus, there is an exact sequence

in \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}\) , where \( g \in \mathcal{C}(Y,Z)\) . By taking the kernel of \( \mathcal{C}(-,g)\) in \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}\) , we get exact sequences

and

in \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}\) , where \( \mathcal{C}(-,f) = \alpha \beta\) . Because \( \mathcal{C}(-,Z)\) is projective in \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}\) , it follows that \( \mathcal{C}(-,g)\) is a split epimorphism, and then \( \alpha\) is a split monomorphism. Therefore, \( H \in \mathsf {proj} \mathcal{C}\) , so that there is some \( W \in \mathcal{C}\) such that \( H \simeq \mathcal{C}(-,W)\) . Consequently, we obtain exact sequences

and

in \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}\) , where \( j \in \mathcal{C}(W,Y)\) , \( p \in \mathcal{C}(X,W)\) and \( \mathcal{C}(-,f) = \mathcal{C}(-,j)\mathcal{C}(-,p)\) . In this case, \( \mathcal{C}(-,j)\) is a split monomorphism, and \( \mathcal{C}(-,p)\) is a split epimorphism since \( \mathcal{C}(-,W)\) is projective in \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}\) . By the Yoneda lemma, we get that \( f = jp\) , where \( p\) is a split epimorphism and \( j\) is a split monomorphism.

In particular, Proposition 8 tells us that \( \mathcal{C}\) is von Neumann regular if and only if every finitely presented \( \mathcal{C}\) -module is projective. This is analogous to the fact that a ring \( \Lambda\) is von Neumann regular if and only if every finitely presented \( \Lambda\) -module is projective, see [14, Section 4], which supports our choice of nomenclature.

Let us also mention a few other characterizations of von Neumann regular categories, which are given in terms of their intrinsic properties.

It follows from Proposition 8 and Theorem 2 that if a category is von Neumann regular, then it is \( n\) -abelian for every positive integer \( n\) . Our goal now is to show that von Neumann regular categories are the only categories with this property. In fact, we prove in Proposition 11 that if a category is \( n\) -abelian for more than one positive integer \( n\) , then it must be von Neumann regular.

Before we prove Proposition 11, we need to state a few results. We begin with some well known lemmas.

Proof

Assume that \( 1 \leqslant d < \infty\) and let

be a projective resolution of \( X\) in \( \mathcal{A}\) . Then \( \mathsf {Ext}_{\mathcal{A}}^{d}(X,P_{d}) \neq 0\) , otherwise \( P_{d} \to P_{d-1}\) would be a split monomorphism, which would imply that \( \mathsf {pd} X \leqslant d - 1\) .

Proof

Let \( F \in \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) . If \( F \in \mathsf {proj} \mathcal{C}\) , then it is easy to see that \( \mathsf {Tr} F \in \mathsf {proj} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) . Thus, assume that \( \mathsf {Tr} F \in \mathsf {proj} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) . Let \( f \in \mathcal{C}(X,Y)\) be a morphism in \( \mathcal{C}\) such that \( \mathsf {m}(f) \simeq F\) , and consider the exact sequence

in \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}\) . By applying \( (-)^{\ast}\) in this sequence, we get an exact sequence

in \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) . By assumption, \( \mathsf {m}(f) \in \mathsf {proj} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) , hence there is \( Z \in \mathcal{C}\) and a morphism \( g \in \mathcal{C}(Z,X)\) such that

is exact in \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) . In particular, \( \mathcal{C}(g,-)\) is a split epimorphism. Therefore, if we apply \( (-)^{\ast}\) in the above sequence, then we obtain an exact sequence

in \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}\) , where \( \mathcal{C}(-,g)\) is a split monomorphism. If we take the cokernel of \( \mathcal{C}(-,g)\) in \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}\) , then we get exact sequences

and

in \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}\) . But as \( \mathcal{C}(-,g)\) is a split monomorphism, we conclude that \( H \in \mathsf {proj} \mathcal{C}\) . Hence there is \( W \in \mathcal{C}\) and a morphism \( h \in \mathcal{C}(W,Y)\) for which

is exact in \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}\) , so that \( \mathsf {m}(h) \simeq F\) . By applying \( (-)^{\ast}\) in this sequence, we get an exact sequence

in \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) . But again, by our assumption, \( \mathsf {m}(h) \in \mathsf {proj} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) , hence there is \( V \in \mathcal{C}\) for which

is an exact sequence in \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) . Finally, by applying \( (-)^{\ast}\) in this sequence, we get an exact sequence

in \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}\) . Consequently, \( \mathcal{C}(-,V) = 0\) , and then \( \mathcal{C}(V,-) = 0\) . From the previous exact sequence in \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) , we conclude that \( \mathcal{C}(h,-)\) is a split epimorphism, which implies that \( \mathcal{C}(-,h)\) is a split monomorphism. Therefore, \( F \in \mathsf {proj} \mathcal{C}\) .

It follows from Corollary 1 that if a category is not von Neumann regular, then it cannot be \( m\) -abelian and \( n\) -abelian for two distinct positive integers \( m\) and \( n\) . This argument allows us to characterize von Neumann regular categories as the categories that are \( n\) -abelian for more than one (or for every) positive integer \( n\) . Let us state this characterization, which was first proved by Jasso in [2, Corollary 3.10].

As we see from the characterizations of von Neumann regular categories given in this section, such categories can be considered to be trivial from the point of view of (classical and higher) homological algebra. In Appendix B, we give more evidence for this claim, and we also present another proof of Proposition 11.

In this section, we prove the existence of the “double dual sequence” of a finitely presented module, and we explore some of its properties, which will be important for the development of the rest of this paper.

Recall from Section 3 that if \( F\) is a finitely presented \( \mathcal{C}\) -module or \( \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) -module, then we can consider its dual \( F^{\ast}\) . As we have already observed, when \( \mathcal{C}\) is coherent, the dual of a module defines contravariant additive functors \( (-)^{\ast} : \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C} \leftrightarrow \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) . If \( \mathcal{C}\) is coherent, we define the double dual of \( F\) to be \( (F^{\ast})^{\ast}\) , which we denote by \( F^{\ast \ast}\) . Clearly, there is a canonical morphism \( F \to F^{\ast \ast}\) , and \( F\) is called reflexive when this morphism is an isomorphism.

The next result, which was proved by Auslander in [5], offers a way to understand when a finitely presented module \( F\) is reflexive. Following [15], we call the exact sequence in the proposition below the double dual sequence of \( F\) . Some authors call it the Auslander–Bridger sequence of \( F\) , due to its appearance in [12].

Proposition 12

Assume that \( \mathcal{C}\) is coherent. For each \( F \in \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) , there is an exact sequence

in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) , where \( F \to F^{\ast \ast}\) is the canonical morphism. Moreover, the morphisms in this sequence are natural in \( F\) .

Proof

Let

be a projective presentation of \( F\) in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) with \( f \in \mathcal{C}(X,Y)\) . By applying \( (-)^{\ast}\) to this projective presentation, we get an exact sequence

in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) . Write this sequence as the splice of two short exact sequences

and

in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) . By applying \( (-)^{\ast}\) to these short exact sequences, we obtain two exact sequences

and

in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) . We can see that the cokernels of \( \mathcal{C}(-,Y) \to F^{\ast \ast}\) and \( \mathcal{C}(-,X) \to G^{\ast}\) are given by \( \mathsf {E}^{2}(F)\) and \( \mathsf {E}^{1}(F)\) , respectively, by applying \( \mathsf {Hom}(-,\mathcal{C}(Z,-))\) in the previous short exact sequences in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) and then considering the induced long exact sequences, for each \( Z \in \mathcal{C}\) , and by using the fact that \( \mathsf {Ext}^{1}(G,-) \simeq \mathsf {Ext}^{2}(\mathsf {m}(f),-)\) .

Next, we apply \( (-)^{\ast}\) to

and we get morphisms

in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) whose composition is zero, so that there is a unique morphism \( F \to F^{\ast \ast}\) in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) which makes the diagram

commute. In this case, \( F \to F^{\ast \ast}\) is the canonical morphism from a module to its double dual. The details are left to the reader.

Finally, we put the previous exact sequences in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) into a commutative diagram

where \( F \to F^{\ast \ast}\) is the canonical morphism. By filling this diagram with zeros, we conclude from the \( 4 \times 4\) lemma that its fourth column is exact in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) .

Lastly, given that the canonical morphism \( F \to F^{\ast \ast}\) is natural in \( F\) , so are the other morphisms in the double dual sequence of \( F\) .

Observe that, by Proposition 12, if \( \mathcal{C}\) is coherent and \( F \to G\) is a morphism in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) , then it induces a commutative diagram

in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) , where the horizontal arrows are monomorphisms. In particular, note that if \( F \to G\) is a monomorphism, then so is \( \mathsf {E}^{1}(F) \to \mathsf {E}^{1}(G)\) . Therefore, if \( F \to G\) is a monomorphism and \( G\) is \( 1\) -torsion free, then so is \( F\) .

Recall that an object \( X\) in an abelian category \( \mathcal{A}\) is called a syzygy if it embeds into a projective, that is, if there is a monomorphism \( X \to P\) in \( \mathcal{A}\) with \( P\) projective.

Because of Corollary 2, we can reformulate the functorial axioms (F2) and (F2\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ) of an \( n\) -abelian category for the cases \( n = 1\) and \( n = 2\) in terms of certain modules being syzygies and reflexive, respectively. Furthermore, as we show in Theorems 3 and 6, the conditions of being syzygies and reflexive can actually be used to describe the axioms (F2) and (F2\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ) for every positive integer \( n \geqslant 2\) .

It is also interesting to remark the following:

It is not hard to prove that if \( \mathcal{C}\) is \( 1\) -abelian, then every \( F \in \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) with \( \mathsf {pd} F \leqslant 1\) is reflexive if and only if \( \mathcal{C}\) is von Neumann regular. We can verify this by using similar arguments to those in the proof of Proposition 10. Therefore, Corollary 3 highlights a distinction between \( 1\) -abelian categories and \( n\) -abelian categories with \( n \geqslant 2\) that are not von Neumann regular.

Motivated by [16, Proposition 2.8], we end this section by recalling some well known properties of the double dual sequence, which will be used to prove Proposition 18.

Proposition 13

Assume that \( \mathcal{C}\) is coherent, and let \( F \in \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) . The double dual sequence

of \( F\) has the following properties:

1. (a)

   The image of \( F \to F^{\ast \ast}\) is isomorphic to \( \Omega \mathsf {Tr} \Omega \mathsf {Tr} F\) for suitable choices of transposes and syzygies. More precisely, we prove that if \( f\) is a morphism in \( \mathcal{C}\) and \( g\) is a weak cokernel of \( f\) , then the image of the canonical morphism \( \mathsf {m}(f) \to \mathsf {m}(f)^{\ast \ast}\) is isomorphic to the image of \( \mathcal{C}(-,g)\) .
2. (b)

   The dual of \( \mathsf {E}^{1}(F) \to F\) is the zero morphism. That is, when we apply \( (-)^{\ast}\) to \( \mathsf {E}^{1}(F) \to F\) , we obtain the zero morphism.

Proof

(a) This is similar to the proof of Proposition 12, so we will be more concise.

Let

be a projective presentation of \( F\) in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) with \( f \in \mathcal{C}(X,Y)\) , and consider the exact sequence

in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) . Since \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) has enough projectives, we can extend the above sequence to an exact sequence

in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) with \( g \in \mathcal{C}(Y,Z)\) . Now, write it as the splice of two exact sequences

and

in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) . By applying \( (-)^{\ast}\) to the last two sequences, we get exact sequences

and

in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) .

Next, observe that the composition

is zero, hence there is a unique morphism \( F \to \mathcal{C}(-,Z)\) in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) making the diagram

commute.

Finally, we put the previous exact sequences in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) into a commutative diagram

and by filling it with zeros, we conclude from the \( 4 \times 4\) lemma that its fourth column is exact in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) . Therefore, the cokernel of \( \mathsf {E}^{1}(F) \to F\) is of the form \( \Omega \mathsf {Tr} \Omega \mathsf {Tr} F\) since it coincides with a syzygy of \( \mathsf {m}(g)\) , and \( \mathsf {m}(g)\) is a transpose of \( G\) , which is a syzygy of a transpose of \( F\) . Because the cokernel of \( \mathsf {E}^{1}(F) \to F\) is isomorphic to the image of the canonical morphism \( F \to F^{\ast \ast}\) , we are done.

(b) In what follows, we make use of the morphisms described above, in the proof of item (a). By definition, \( F^{\ast} \to \mathsf {E}^{1}(F)^{\ast}\) is zero if and only if for every \( W \in \mathcal{C}\) and every morphism \( F \to \mathcal{C}(-,W)\) in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) , the composition \( \mathsf {E}^{1}(F) \to F \to \mathcal{C}(-,W)\) is zero.

Well, take \( W \in \mathcal{C}\) , and consider a morphism \( F \to \mathcal{C}(-,W)\) in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) . By the Yoneda lemma, the composition \( \mathcal{C}(-,Y) \to F \to \mathcal{C}(-,W)\) is given by \( \mathcal{C}(-,h)\) for some morphism \( h \in \mathcal{C}(Y,W)\) . In this case, we have \( \mathcal{C}(-,h)\mathcal{C}(-,f) = 0\) , so that \( hf = 0\) . Then, because \( g\) is a weak cokernel of \( f\) , we conclude that \( h\) factors through \( g\) . Consequently, \( \mathcal{C}(-,h)\) factors through \( \mathcal{C}(-,g)\) . Since \( \mathcal{C}(-,g)\) coincides with the composition \( \mathcal{C}(-,Y) \to F \to \mathcal{C}(-,Z)\) and \( \mathcal{C}(-,Y) \to F\) is an epimorphism, we deduce that \( F \to \mathcal{C}(-,W)\) factors through \( F \to \mathcal{C}(-,Z)\) . Therefore, the composition \( \mathsf {E}^{1}(F) \to F \to \mathcal{C}(-,W)\) is zero.

The axioms (A2) and (A2\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ) of an \( n\) -abelian category were introduced by Jasso in [2, Definition 3.1] as generalizations of the axioms “every monomorphism is the kernel of its cokernel” and “every epimorphism is the cokernel of its kernel” of an abelian category. But, when defining an abelian category, it is also common to find these axioms in the form “every monomorphism is a kernel” and “every epimorphism is a cokernel”. Therefore, it is natural to ask if we could also generalize these latter axioms to the case of \( n\) -abelian categories. In this section, we present two possible such generalizations, which are achieved through the functorial approach.

Let us give an overview of the results of this section.

When contemplating the functorial axioms (F2) and (F2\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ) in Theorem 2, it is natural to ask if, for an \( n\) -abelian category \( \mathcal{C}\) , every finitely presented \( \mathcal{C}\) -module or \( \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) -module \( F\) with \( \mathsf {pd} F \leqslant m\) is \( (n+1-m)\) -torsion free, whenever \( m\) is a positive integer such that \( 1 \leqslant m \leqslant n\) . It turns out that this is indeed the case, as it was essentially proved by Iyama and Jasso in [16, Proposition 3.7]. We present this result in Proposition 18. In addition, we also prove directly a similar statement in Proposition 14, by replacing the condition “\( \mathsf {pd} F \leqslant m\) ” by “\( F\) is \( m\) -spherical”.

The two results mentioned above lead to a few equivalent axioms for (F2) and (F2\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), which are expressed in terms of categories of finitely presented functors, see Theorems 3 and 6. Once these axioms are obtained, we “translate” them to the language of higher homological algebra, thereby obtaining equivalent ways of stating the axioms (A2) and (A2\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), see Theorems 4 and 7. Among these, there are two possible generalizations of the axioms “every monomorphism is a kernel” and “every epimorphism is a cokernel”, and we use them to give two alternative (but equivalent) definitions of an \( n\) -abelian category in Theorems 5 and 8.

6.1 The spherical case

In this subsection, we start to investigate the question of whether finitely presented modules of projective dimension at most \( m\) over an \( n\) -abelian category are \( (n+1-m)\) -torsion free by considering the “\( m\) -spherical” case.

Let \( \mathcal{A}\) be an abelian category with enough projectives, and let \( m\) be a positive integer. Motivated by [12], we say that an object \( X \in \mathcal{A}\) is \( m\) -spherical if \( \mathsf {pd} X \leqslant m\) and \( \mathsf {Ext}_{\mathcal{A}}^{i}(X,P) = 0\) for every \( 1 \leqslant i \leqslant m - 1\) and every projective object \( P \in \mathcal{A}\) . Note that projective objects are \( m\) -spherical for every positive integer \( m\) . On the other hand, if \( X\) is \( m\) -spherical and not projective, then \( \mathsf {pd} X = m\) , by Lemma 1. We also remark that \( X\) is \( 1\) -spherical if and only if \( \mathsf {pd} X \leqslant 1\) .

In particular, if \( \mathcal{C}\) is right coherent, then \( F \in \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) is \( m\) -spherical when \( \mathsf {pd} F \leqslant m\) and \( \mathsf {Ext}^{i}(F,\mathcal{C}(-,X)) = 0\) for all \( 1 \leqslant i \leqslant m - 1\) and all \( X \in \mathcal{C}\) . Dually, if \( \mathcal{C}\) is left coherent, then \( F \in \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) is \( m\) -spherical when \( \mathsf {pd} F \leqslant m\) and \( \mathsf {Ext}^{i}(F,\mathcal{C}(X,-)) = 0\) for all \( 1 \leqslant i \leqslant m - 1\) and all \( X \in \mathcal{C}\) .

Lemma 3

Assume that \( \mathcal{C}\) is coherent, and let

be a short exact sequence in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) . If \( \mathsf {Ext}^{1}(F,\mathcal{C}(-,X)) = 0\) for all \( X \in \mathcal{C}\) , then

is exact in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) .

Proof

Follows by applying \( \mathsf {Hom}(-,\mathcal{C}(-,X))\) in

and by considering the induced long exact sequence, for each \( X \in \mathcal{C}\) .

Proposition 14

Assume that \( \mathcal{C}\) is coherent, and let \( m\) and \( k\) be positive integers, where \( k \geqslant 2\) . If every \( m\) -spherical object in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) is \( k\) -torsion free, then every \( (m+1)\) -spherical object in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) is \( (k-1)\) -torsion free.

Proof

Suppose that every \( m\) -spherical object in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) is \( k\) -torsion free.

Let \( F \in \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) be \( (m+1)\) -spherical, and let

be the beginning of a projective resolution of \( F\) in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) . Write it as the splice of two exact sequences

and

in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) . Observe that \( H\) is \( m\) -spherical, so that \( H\) is \( k\) -torsion free. Therefore, as \( H \simeq \mathsf {m}(f_{2})\) , it follows from Proposition 6 that there is an exact sequence

in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) for which

is exact in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) . In this case, if we consider the exact sequence

in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) , then we conclude from Proposition 6 that \( G\) is \( (k-1)\) -torsion free, given that \( G \simeq \mathsf {m}(g_{1})\) .

From the previous exact sequence in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) , we see that \( g_{1}\) is a weak cokernel of \( f_{2}\) . Thus, because \( f_{1}f_{2} = 0\) , it follows that \( f_{1}\) factors through \( g_{1}\) , so that \( \mathcal{C}(-,f_{1})\) factors through \( \mathcal{C}(-,g_{1})\) . Hence we get a commutative diagram

in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) , which leads to a commutative diagram

in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) . But then the rightmost square in the above diagram is a pullback diagram. Consequently, there is a short exact sequence

in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) .

Now, because \( F\) is \( (m+1)\) -spherical, it follows from Lemma 3 that, by applying \( (-)^{\ast}\) to the previous short exact sequence, we obtain a short exact sequence

in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) . Since \( \mathcal{C}(Y_{1},-)\) is projective, the above short exact sequence splits. Thus, if we apply \( (-)^{\ast}\) to this short exact sequence, we get that

is a split short exact sequence in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) . Hence \( G^{\ast \ast} \oplus \mathcal{C}(-,X_{0}) \simeq F^{\ast \ast} \oplus \mathcal{C}(-,Y_{1})\) .

Next, by considering the double dual sequences of the vertical arrows of the commutative diagram with exact rows

in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) , we deduce from the snake lemma that \( \mathsf {E}^{1}(G) \simeq \mathsf {E}^{1}(F)\) and \( \mathsf {E}^{2}(G) \simeq \mathsf {E}^{2}(F)\) .

Finally, recall that \( G\) is \( (k-1)\) -torsion free. If \( k = 2\) or \( k = 3\) , then we conclude from the previous isomorphisms that \( F\) is \( (k-1)\) -torsion free. If \( k \geqslant 4\) , then \( G\) is \( 2\) -torsion free, and by the previous isomorphisms, so is \( F\) . By Corollary 2, both \( G\) and \( F\) are reflexive, so that \( G \oplus \mathcal{C}(-,X_{0}) \simeq F \oplus \mathcal{C}(-,Y_{1})\) . Therefore, \( \mathsf {E}^{i}(G) \simeq \mathsf {E}^{i}(F)\) for all \( i \geqslant 1\) , hence \( F\) is \( (k-1)\) -torsion free.

It follows from Theorem 2 and Proposition 14 that if \( \mathcal{C}\) is an \( n\) -abelian category, then every \( m\) -spherical object in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) is \( (n+1-m)\) -torsion free, for all \( 1 \leqslant m \leqslant n\) . By replacing \( \mathcal{C}\) by \( \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) , we deduce that this property also holds for \( \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) -modules, when \( \mathcal{C}\) is \( n\) -abelian. We register these facts in Theorem 3. Furthermore, we can use Proposition 14 to state the axioms (F2) and (F2\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ) in a few different ways, as we show in Theorem 3. But before we do that, let us describe \( m\) -spherical modules in the same spirit that \( k\) -torsion free modules were described in Proposition 6.

Proposition 15

Assume that \( \mathcal{C}\) is coherent, let \( f \in \mathcal{C}(X,Y)\) be a morphism in \( \mathcal{C}\) , and let \( m\) be a positive integer. The following are equivalent:

1. (a)

   \( \mathsf {m}(f)\) is \( m\) -spherical.
2. (b)

   \( \mathsf {pd} \mathsf {m}(f) \leqslant m\) and for every exact sequence

   

   in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) , the sequence

   

   is exact in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) . We agree that \( X_{1} = X\) , \( X_{0} = Y\) and \( f_{1} = f\) .
3. (c)

   There is an exact sequence

   

   in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) for which

   

   is exact in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) . We agree that \( X_{1} = X\) , \( X_{0} = Y\) and \( f_{1} = f\) .

Proof

Let

be an exact sequence in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) , which can be regarded as the beginning of a projective resolution of \( \mathsf {m}(f)\) in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) . Given \( Z \in \mathcal{C}\) , by applying \( \mathsf {Hom}(-,\mathcal{C}(-,Z))\) to the above sequence, we get a complex in \( \mathsf {Ab}\) which is isomorphic to

, by the Yoneda lemma. The above complex is an exact sequence in \( \mathsf {Ab}\) if and only if \( \mathsf {Ext}^{i}(\mathsf {m}(f),\mathcal{C}(-,Z)) = 0\) for all \( 1 \leqslant i \leqslant m - 1\) . Consequently, the sequence

is exact in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) if and only if \( \mathsf {Ext}^{i}(\mathsf {m}(f),\mathcal{C}(-,Z)) = 0\) for all \( 1 \leqslant i \leqslant m - 1\) and all \( Z \in \mathcal{C}\) .

From the above paragraph, it follows that (a) implies (b), and that (c) implies (a). Below, we show that (b) implies (c).

Suppose that item (b) holds. Since \( \mathsf {pd} \mathsf {m}(f) \leqslant m\) , there is an exact sequence

in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) , which is obtained from a projective resolution of \( \mathsf {m}(f)\) in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) . Then it follows from item (b) that

is exact in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) .

We are now ready to show a few different ways of stating the axioms (F2) and (F2\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ). Given positive integers \( n\) and \( k\) with \( 1 \leqslant k \leqslant n\) , and a coherent category \( \mathcal{C}\) , consider the following axioms:

1. (F2\( _{a}\) )

   Every \( 1\) -spherical object in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) is \( n\) -torsion free.
2. (F2\( _{b}\) )

   Every \( m\) -spherical object in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) is \( (n+1-m)\) -torsion free, for all \( 1 \leqslant m \leqslant n\) .
3. (F2\( _{c}\) )

   Every \( m\) -spherical object in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) is a syzygy, for all \( 1 \leqslant m \leqslant n\) .
4. (F2\( _{d_{k}}\) )

   Every \( m\) -spherical object in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) is \( k\) -torsion free, for all \( 1 \leqslant m \leqslant n+1-k\) .

For the sake of completeness, let us also state the duals of the above axioms.

1. (F2\( _{a}^{\mathsf {op}}\) )

   Every \( 1\) -spherical object in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) is \( n\) -torsion free.
2. (F2\( _{b}^{\mathsf {op}}\) )

   Every \( m\) -spherical object in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) is \( (n+1-m)\) -torsion free, for all \( 1 \leqslant m \leqslant n\) .
3. (F2\( _{c}^{\mathsf {op}}\) )

   Every \( m\) -spherical object in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) is a syzygy, for all \( 1 \leqslant m \leqslant n\) .
4. (F2\( _{d_{k}}^{\mathsf {op}}\) )

   Every \( m\) -spherical object in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) is \( k\) -torsion free, for all \( 1 \leqslant m \leqslant n+1-k\) .

Theorem 3

Assume that \( \mathcal{C}\) is coherent. The axioms (F2) and (F2\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ) are equivalent to (F2\( _{a}\) ), (F2\( _{b}\) ), (F2\( _{c}\) ), (F2\( _{d_{k}}\) ) and (F2\( _{a}^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), (F2\( _{b}^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), (F2\( _{c}^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), (F2\( _{d_{k}}^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), respectively.

Proof

We only prove that (F2), (F2\( _{a}\) ), (F2\( _{b}\) ), (F2\( _{c}\) ) and (F2\( _{d_{k}}\) ) are equivalent. By duality, we conclude that their dual axioms are also equivalent to each other.

Trivially, (F2) is equivalent to (F2\( _{a}\) ). By Proposition 14, (F2\( _{a}\) ) implies (F2\( _{b}\) ). Now, fix a positive integer \( k\) such that \( 1 \leqslant k \leqslant n\) . Clearly, (F2\( _{b}\) ) implies (F2\( _{d_{k}}\) ). Below, we prove that (F2\( _{d_{k}}\) ) implies (F2\( _{a}\) ).

Suppose that \( \mathcal{C}\) satisfies the axiom (F2\( _{d_{k}}\) ). Let \( F \in \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) be \( 1\) -spherical, and take a projective resolution

of \( F\) in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) . Then the morphism \( f \in \mathcal{C}(X,Y)\) is such that \( \mathsf {m}(f) \simeq F\) . Consequently, \( \mathsf {m}(f)\) is \( k\) -torsion free, so that it is \( 1\) -torsion free. By Proposition 6, there is an exact sequence

in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) for which

is exact in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) . In this case, it follows from Proposition 15 that \( \mathsf {m}(g_{1})\) is \( 2\) -spherical. By repeating this argument consecutively, we obtain an exact sequence

in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) for which

is exact in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) , so that \( \mathsf {m}(g_{n-k})\) is \( (n+1-k)\) -spherical. Therefore, as \( \mathsf {m}(g_{n-k})\) is \( k\) -torsion free, from Proposition 6, we deduce the existence of an exact sequence

in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) for which

is exact in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) . By Proposition 6, \( \mathsf {m}(f)\) is \( n\) -torsion free, hence so is \( F\) . Thus, \( \mathcal{C}\) satisfies the axiom (F2\( _{a}\) ).

We have proved that, for a fixed positive integer \( k\) with \( 1 \leqslant k \leqslant n\) , the axioms (F2), (F2\( _{a}\) ), (F2\( _{b}\) ) and (F2\( _{d_{k}}\) ) are equivalent. Since we know from Corollary 2 that (F2\( _{c}\) ) corresponds to (F2\( _{d_{k}}\) ) when \( k = 1\) , we are done.

Observe that the axioms (F2\( _{c}\) ) and (F2\( _{c}^{\mathsf {op}}\) ) are stated only in terms of \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) and \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) , respectively, and do not depend on the transpose or on the dual of a module. Furthermore, note that, by Corollary 2, when \( n \geqslant 2\) and \( k = 2\) , the axioms (F2\( _{d_{k}}\) ) and (F2\( _{d_{k}}^{\mathsf {op}}\) ) can be rephrased as “\( m\) -spherical objects are reflexive, for all \( 1 \leqslant m \leqslant n - 1\) ”.

6.2 Segments and cosegments

Recall that, in Section 3, we reformulated the axioms (A1), (A1\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), (A2) and (A2\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ) of an \( n\) -abelian category in terms of its categories of finitely presented functors, thereby obtaining the functorial axioms (F1), (F1\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), (F2) and (F2\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ). Now, going in the opposite direction, we show how we can “translate” the axioms (F2\( _{a}\) ), (F2\( _{b}\) ), (F2\( _{c}\) ), (F2\( _{d_{k}}\) ), (F2\( _{a}^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), (F2\( _{b}^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), (F2\( _{c}^{\mathsf {op}}\) ) and (F2\( _{d_{k}}^{\mathsf {op}}\) ) to the language of higher homological algebra. But, in order to do that, we first need to define new terms in this language.

Let \( m\) be a positive integer. Motivated by Proposition 15, we define an \( m\) -segment in \( \mathcal{C}\) to be a sequence

of morphisms in \( \mathcal{C}\) for which

and

are exact sequences in \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}\) and in \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) , respectively. Dually, we define an \( m\) -cosegment in \( \mathcal{C}\) to be a sequence

in \( \mathcal{C}\) such that

and

are exact sequences in \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) and in \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}\) , respectively. Observe that a \( 1\) -segment is the same as a monomorphism, and a \( 1\) -cosegment is the same as an epimorphism.

Given two sequences of morphisms

and

in \( \mathcal{C}\) with \( X_{0} = Y_{0}\) , we define their concatenation to be the sequence

. Note that every \( n\) -exact sequence in \( \mathcal{C}\) is the concatenation of an \( m\) -segment in \( \mathcal{C}\) with an \( (n+1-m)\) -cosegment in \( \mathcal{C}\) , for each \( 1 \leqslant m \leqslant n\) .

For a positive integer \( m\) with \( 1 \leqslant m \leqslant n\) , we say that an \( m\) -segment

in \( \mathcal{C}\) fits into an \( n\) -exact sequence in \( \mathcal{C}\) if there is an \( (n+1-m)\) -cosegment

in \( \mathcal{C}\) with \( X_{0} = Y_{0}\) for which the concatenation

is an \( n\) -exact sequence in \( \mathcal{C}\) . Dually, we say that an \( m\) -cosegment

in \( \mathcal{C}\) fits into an \( n\) -exact sequence in \( \mathcal{C}\) if there is an \( (n+1-m)\) -segment

in \( \mathcal{C}\) with \( Y_{0} = X_{0}\) for which the concatenation

is an \( n\) -exact sequence in \( \mathcal{C}\) .

Proposition 16

Assume that \( \mathcal{C}\) is coherent, and let \( m\) and \( k\) be positive integers. The following are equivalent:

1. (a)

   Every \( m\) -spherical object in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) is \( k\) -torsion free.
2. (b)

   Every \( m\) -segment in \( \mathcal{C}\) can be extended to an \( (m+k)\) -segment in \( \mathcal{C}\) .

Furthermore, if \( \mathcal{C}\) is pre-\( n\) -abelian and \( m + k = n + 1\) , then the above items are also equivalent to:

1. (c)

   Every \( m\) -segment in \( \mathcal{C}\) fits into an \( n\) -exact sequence in \( \mathcal{C}\) .

Proof

Suppose that every \( m\) -spherical object in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) is \( k\) -torsion free. If

is an \( m\) -segment in \( \mathcal{C}\) , then it follows from Proposition 15 that \( \mathsf {m}(f_{1})\) is \( m\) -spherical. Therefore, \( \mathsf {m}(f_{1})\) is \( k\) -torsion free, and it follows from Proposition 6 that there is a sequence

of morphisms in \( \mathcal{C}\) for which

is an \( (m+k)\) -segment in \( \mathcal{C}\) .

Conversely, suppose that every \( m\) -segment in \( \mathcal{C}\) can be extended to an \( (m+k)\) -segment in \( \mathcal{C}\) . If \( F \in \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) is \( m\) -spherical, then it has a projective resolution

in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) , so that \( \mathsf {m}(f_{1}) \simeq F\) . By Proposition 15, the sequence

is exact in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) . Therefore,

is an \( m\) -segment in \( \mathcal{C}\) , and we can extend it to an \( (m + k)\) -segment

in \( \mathcal{C}\) . Then, by Proposition 6, \( \mathsf {m}(f_{1})\) is \( k\) -torsion free, hence so is \( F\) .

We have proved that the items (a) and (b) are equivalent. Now, assume that \( \mathcal{C}\) is pre-\( n\) -abelian and that \( m + k = n + 1\) . Clearly, (c) implies (b). Below, we show that (a) implies (c).

Suppose that every \( m\) -spherical object in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) is \( k\) -torsion free. If

is an \( m\) -segment in \( \mathcal{C}\) , then we know from Proposition 15 that \( \mathsf {m}(f_{1})\) is \( m\) -spherical, hence \( \mathsf {m}(f_{1})\) is \( k\) -torsion free. Moreover, observe that \( \mathsf {pd} \mathsf {m}(f_{1}) \leqslant n + 2 - m\) , that is, \( \mathsf {pd} \mathsf {m}(f_{1}) \leqslant k + 1\) . Thus, it follows from Proposition 6 that there is a \( k\) -cosegment

in \( \mathcal{C}\) for which

is an \( n\) -exact sequence in \( \mathcal{C}\) .

By using Proposition 16, we can now easily “translate” the axioms (F2\( _{a}\) ), (F2\( _{b}\) ), (F2\( _{c}\) ), (F2\( _{d_{k}}\) ), (F2\( _{a}^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), (F2\( _{b}^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), (F2\( _{c}^{\mathsf {op}}\) ) and (F2\( _{d_{k}}^{\mathsf {op}}\) ) to the language of higher homological algebra. For an additive and idempotent complete category \( \mathcal{C}\) , and positive integers \( n\) and \( k\) with \( 1 \leqslant k \leqslant n\) , consider the following axioms:

1. (A2\( _{a}\) )

   Every monomorphism in \( \mathcal{C}\) fits into an \( n\) -exact sequence in \( \mathcal{C}\) .
2. (A2\( _{b}\) )

   Every \( m\) -segment in \( \mathcal{C}\) fits into an \( n\) -exact sequence in \( \mathcal{C}\) , for all \( 1 \leqslant m \leqslant n\) .
3. (A2\( _{c}\) )

   Every \( m\) -segment in \( \mathcal{C}\) is an \( m\) -kernel in \( \mathcal{C}\) , for all \( 1 \leqslant m \leqslant n\) .
4. (A2\( _{d_{k}}\) )

   Every \( m\) -segment in \( \mathcal{C}\) can be extended to an \( (m+k)\) -segment in \( \mathcal{C}\) , for all \( 1 \leqslant m \leqslant n+1-k\) .

And their duals:

1. (A2\( _{a}^{\mathsf {op}}\) )

   Every epimorphism in \( \mathcal{C}\) fits into an \( n\) -exact sequence in \( \mathcal{C}\) .
2. (A2\( _{b}^{\mathsf {op}}\) )

   Every \( m\) -cosegment in \( \mathcal{C}\) fits into an \( n\) -exact sequence in \( \mathcal{C}\) , for all \( 1 \leqslant m \leqslant n\) .
3. (A2\( _{c}^{\mathsf {op}}\) )

   Every \( m\) -cosegment in \( \mathcal{C}\) is an \( m\) -cokernel in \( \mathcal{C}\) , for all \( 1 \leqslant m \leqslant n\) .
4. (A2\( _{d_{k}}^{\mathsf {op}}\) )

   Every \( m\) -cosegment in \( \mathcal{C}\) can be extended to an \( (m+k)\) -cosegment in \( \mathcal{C}\) , for all \( 1 \leqslant m \leqslant n+1-k\) .

Proposition 17

Assume that \( \mathcal{C}\) is coherent. The axioms (F2\( _{c}\) ), (F2\( _{c}^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), (F2\( _{d_{k}}\) ) and (F2\( _{d_{k}}^{\mathsf {op}}\) ) are equivalent to (A2\( _{c}\) ), (A2\( _{c}^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), (A2\( _{d_{k}}\) ) and (A2\( _{d_{k}}^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), respectively. Furthermore, if \( \mathcal{C}\) is pre-\( n\) -abelian, then the axioms (F2\( _{a}\) ), (F2\( _{a}^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), (F2\( _{b}\) ) and (F2\( _{b}^{\mathsf {op}}\) ) are equivalent to (A2\( _{a}\) ), (A2\( _{a}^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), (A2\( _{b}\) ) and (A2\( _{b}^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), respectively.

Proof

The assertions concerning the axioms (F2\( _{a}\) ), (F2\( _{b}\) ), (F2\( _{d_{k}}\) ) and their duals follow from Proposition 16. The claim concerning the axiom (F2\( _{c}\) ) and its dual is easily verified with the assistance of Proposition 15.

Next, we deduce that the previous axioms are indeed equivalent ways of stating the axioms (A2) and (A2\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), assuming that the category \( \mathcal{C}\) is pre-\( n\) -abelian. We remark that the equivalences between the axioms (A2) and (A2\( _{a}\) ) and between (A2\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ) and (A2\( _{a}^{\mathsf {op}}\) ) were already known, see [2, Remark 3.2].

Theorem 4

Let \( \mathcal{C}\) be a pre-\( n\) -abelian category. The axioms (A2) and (A2\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ) are equivalent to (A2\( _{a}\) ), (A2\( _{b}\) ), (A2\( _{c}\) ), (A2\( _{d_{k}}\) ) and (A2\( _{a}^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), (A2\( _{b}^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), (A2\( _{c}^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), (A2\( _{d_{k}}^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), respectively.

Proof

Follows from Theorem 3 and Propositions 7 and 17.

Observe that, when \( n = 1\) , the axioms (A2\( _{c}\) ) and (A2\( _{c}^{\mathsf {op}}\) ) can be rephrased as “every monomorphism is a kernel” and “every epimorphism is a cokernel”, respectively. Because of the fundamental importance of these axioms for the case \( n = 1\) , we present the following alternative definition of an \( n\) -abelian category:

Theorem 5

An additive and idempotent complete category \( \mathcal{C}\) is \( n\) -abelian if and only if \( \mathcal{C}\) satisfies the following axioms:

1. (A1)

   \( \mathcal{C}\) has \( n\) -kernels.
2. (A1\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) )

   \( \mathcal{C}\) has \( n\) -cokernels.
3. (A2\( _{c}\) )

   Every \( m\) -segment in \( \mathcal{C}\) is an \( m\) -kernel in \( \mathcal{C}\) , for all \( 1 \leqslant m \leqslant n\) .
4. (A2\( _{c}^{\mathsf {op}}\) )

   Every \( m\) -cosegment in \( \mathcal{C}\) is an \( m\) -cokernel in \( \mathcal{C}\) , for all \( 1 \leqslant m \leqslant n\) .

Proof

Follows from Theorem 4.

6.3 The general case

In this subsection, we prove that finitely presented modules of projective dimension at most \( m\) over an \( n\) -abelian category are \( (n+1-m)\) -torsion free, even if the modules are not \( m\) -spherical. Then, following Subsection 6.1, we present a few equivalent statements for the axioms (F2) and (F2\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ).

Lemma 4

Assume that \( \mathcal{C}\) is left coherent, let \( F \in \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) and let \( \mathsf {Tr} F\) be a transpose of \( F\) . If \( F^{\ast} = 0\) , then \( \mathsf {pd} \mathsf {Tr} F \leqslant 1\) .

Proof

This is straightforward and left to the reader.

The next result (and its proof) is essentially from [16, Proposition 3.7].

Proposition 18

Assume that \( \mathcal{C}\) is coherent, and let \( m\) and \( k\) be positive integers, where \( k \geqslant 2\) . If every object of projective dimension at most \( m\) in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) is \( k\) -torsion free, then every object of projective dimension at most \( m + 1\) in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) is \( (k-1)\) -torsion free.

Proof

Suppose that every object of projective dimension at most \( m\) in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) is \( k\) -torsion free.

Let \( F \in \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) be such that \( \mathsf {pd} F \leqslant m + 1\) . It follows from Proposition 13 that, for certain choices of transposes and syzygies, there is a transpose \( \mathsf {Tr} F\) of \( F\) for which its double dual sequence induces a short exact sequence

in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) . By applying the functor \( \mathsf {Hom}(-,\mathcal{C}(X,-))\) in the above sequence and considering the induced long exact sequence, for each \( X \in \mathcal{C}\) , then using the fact that \( \mathsf {Ext}^{i}(\Omega \mathsf {Tr} \Omega F, -) \simeq \mathsf {Ext}^{i+1}(\mathsf {Tr} \Omega F, -)\) , we deduce that there is a long exact sequence

in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) . Since the projective dimension of \( \Omega F\) is at most \( m\) , it is \( k\) -torsion free. Hence \( \mathsf {E}^{i}(\Omega F) = 0\) for all \( 1 \leqslant i \leqslant k\) , so that there is an exact sequence

in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) for each \( 1 \leqslant i \leqslant k - 1\) .

Now, because \( \mathsf {E}^{2}(\Omega F) = 0\) , the previous long exact sequence in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) leads to a short exact sequence

in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) . Moreover, by Proposition 13, \( (\mathsf {Tr} F)^{\ast} \to (\mathsf {E}^{1}(\mathsf {Tr} F))^{\ast}\) is the zero morphism. Thus, \( (\mathsf {E}^{1}(\mathsf {Tr} F))^{\ast} = 0\) , and it follows from Lemma 4 that \( \mathsf {pd} \mathsf {Tr} \mathsf {E}^{1}(\mathsf {Tr} F) \leqslant 1\) . Hence \( \mathsf {Tr} \mathsf {E}^{1}(\mathsf {Tr} F)\) is \( k\) -torsion free, that is, \( \mathsf {E}^{i}(\mathsf {Tr} \mathsf {E}^{1}(\mathsf {Tr} F)) = 0\) for all \( 1 \leqslant i \leqslant k\) . Therefore, we deduce from the previous paragraph that \( \mathsf {E}^{i}(F) = 0\) for all \( 1 \leqslant i \leqslant k - 1\) , that is, \( F\) is \( (k-1)\) -torsion free.

We conclude from Theorem 2 and Proposition 18 that if \( \mathcal{C}\) is an \( n\) -abelian category, then finitely presented \( \mathcal{C}\) -modules and \( \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) -modules of projective dimension at most \( m\) are \( (n+1-m)\) -torsion free, for all \( 1 \leqslant m \leqslant n\) . Moreover, Proposition 18 makes it possible to describe the axioms (F2) and (F2\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ) in a few equivalent ways, as we show next.

Given positive integers \( n\) and \( k\) with \( 1 \leqslant k \leqslant n\) , and a coherent category \( \mathcal{C}\) , consider the following axioms:

1. (F2\( _{e}\) )

   Every \( F \in \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) with \( \mathsf {pd} F \leqslant m\) is \( (n+1-m)\) -torsion free, for all \( 1 \leqslant m \leqslant n\) .
2. (F2\( _{f}\) )

   Every \( F \in \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) with \( \mathsf {pd} F \leqslant n\) is a syzygy.
3. (F2\( _{g_{k}}\) )

   Every \( F \in \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) with \( \mathsf {pd} F \leqslant n+1-k\) is \( k\) -torsion free.

And their duals:

1. (F2\( _{e}^{\mathsf {op}}\) )

   Every \( F \in \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) with \( \mathsf {pd} F \leqslant m\) is \( (n+1-m)\) -torsion free, for all \( 1 \leqslant m \leqslant n\) .
2. (F2\( _{f}^{\mathsf {op}}\) )

   Every \( F \in \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) with \( \mathsf {pd} F \leqslant n\) is a syzygy.
3. (F2\( _{g_{k}}^{\mathsf {op}}\) )

   Every \( F \in \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) with \( \mathsf {pd} F \leqslant n+1-k\) is \( k\) -torsion free.

Theorem 6

Assume that \( \mathcal{C}\) is coherent. The axioms (F2) and (F2\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ) are equivalent to (F2\( _{e}\) ), (F2\( _{f}\) ), (F2\( _{g_{k}}\) ) and (F2\( _{e}^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), (F2\( _{f}^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), (F2\( _{g_{k}}^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), respectively.

Proof

This is similar to the proof of Theorem 3, with the difference that it relies on Proposition 18 instead of Proposition 14. The details are left to the reader.

We remark that, as it was the case for the axioms (F2\( _{c}\) ) and (F2\( _{c}^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), the axioms (F2\( _{f}\) ) and (F2\( _{f}^{\mathsf {op}}\) ) do not depend on the transpose or on the dual of a module. Moreover, by Corollary 2, when \( n \geqslant 2\) and \( k = 2\) , the axioms (F2\( _{g_{k}}\) ) and (F2\( _{g_{k}}^{\mathsf {op}}\) ) can be stated as “finitely presented modules of projective dimension at most \( n - 1\) are reflexive”.

6.4 Pre-segments and pre-cosegments

As we saw in Proposition 15, when \( \mathcal{C}\) is coherent, \( m\) -spherical objects in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) and in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) correspond to \( m\) -segments in \( \mathcal{C}\) and \( m\) -cosegments in \( \mathcal{C}\) , respectively. This idea allowed us to describe the axioms (F2\( _{a}\) ), (F2\( _{b}\) ), (F2\( _{c}\) ), (F2\( _{d_{k}}\) ) and their duals in terms of \( m\) -segments and \( m\) -cosegments. Now, we could aim to proceed similarly with the axioms (F2\( _{e}\) ), (F2\( _{f}\) ), (F2\( _{g_{k}}\) ) and their duals. To achieve this goal, we rely on the idea that objects of projective dimension at most \( m\) in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) and in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) correspond to “pre-\( m\) -segments” in \( \mathcal{C}\) and “pre-\( m\) -cosegments” in \( \mathcal{C}\) , respectively, which are concepts that we now define.

Let \( m\) be a positive integer. We define a pre-\( m\) -segment in \( \mathcal{C}\) to be a sequence

of morphisms in \( \mathcal{C}\) for which

is an exact sequence in \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}\) . Dually, we define a pre-\( m\) -cosegment in \( \mathcal{C}\) to be a sequence

in \( \mathcal{C}\) such that

is an exact sequence in \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) . Note that every \( m\) -segment is a pre-\( m\) -segment as well as every \( m\) -cosegment is a pre-\( m\) -cosegment. Moreover, a pre-\( 1\) -segment is the same as a monomorphism, and a pre-\( 1\) -cosegment is the same as an epimorphism.

It is worth remarking that, when \( m \leqslant n\) , every pre-\( m\) -segment can be regarded as a pre-\( n\) -segment and every pre-\( m\) -cosegment can be regarded as a pre-\( n\) -cosegment, by adding zeros to their left and right, respectively. Furthermore, observe that every \( n\) -kernel is a pre-\( n\) -segment and every \( n\) -cokernel is a pre-\( n\) -cosegment. We can now understand the axioms (F2\( _{f}\) ) and (F2\( _{f}^{\mathsf {op}}\) ) as the converses of the these statements. In fact, consider the following axioms:

1. (A2\( _{f}\) )

   Every pre-\( n\) -segment in \( \mathcal{C}\) is an \( n\) -kernel in \( \mathcal{C}\) .
2. (A2\( _{f}^{\mathsf {op}}\) )

   Every pre-\( n\) -cosegment in \( \mathcal{C}\) is an \( n\) -cokernel in \( \mathcal{C}\) .

Proposition 19

Assume that \( \mathcal{C}\) is coherent. The axioms (F2\( _{f}\) ) and (F2\( _{f}^{\mathsf {op}}\) ) are equivalent to (A2\( _{f}\) ) and (A2\( _{f}^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), respectively.

Proof

This is straightforward and left to the reader.

We can also describe the axioms (F2\( _{e}\) ), (F2\( _{g_{k}}\) ) and their duals in terms of pre-\( m\) -segments and pre-\( m\) -cosegments, but we leave this task to the reader. Note that their descriptions would not involve \( n\) -exact sequences.

Let us conclude that the axioms (A2\( _{f}\) ) and (A2\( _{f}^{\mathsf {op}}\) ) are indeed equivalent statements for (A2) and (A2\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), when \( \mathcal{C}\) is pre-\( n\) -abelian.

Theorem 7

Let \( \mathcal{C}\) be a pre-\( n\) -abelian category. The axioms (A2) and (A2\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ) are equivalent to (A2\( _{f}\) ) and (A2\( _{f}^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), respectively.

Proof

Follows from Theorem 6 and Propositions 7 and 19.

Observe that, as it was the case for the axioms (A2\( _{c}\) ) and (A2\( _{c}^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), the axioms (A2\( _{f}\) ) and (A2\( _{f}^{\mathsf {op}}\) ) also generalize the statements “every monomorphism is a kernel” and “every epimorphism is a cokernel”, which are recovered when \( n = 1\) . For this reason, in addition to Theorem 5, we present another alternative definition of an \( n\) -abelian category:

Theorem 8

An additive and idempotent complete category \( \mathcal{C}\) is \( n\) -abelian if and only if \( \mathcal{C}\) satisfies the following axioms:

1. (A1)

   \( \mathcal{C}\) has \( n\) -kernels.
2. (A1\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) )

   \( \mathcal{C}\) has \( n\) -cokernels.
3. (A2\( _{f}\) )

   Every pre-\( n\) -segment in \( \mathcal{C}\) is an \( n\) -kernel in \( \mathcal{C}\) .
4. (A2\( _{f}^{\mathsf {op}}\) )

   Every pre-\( n\) -cosegment in \( \mathcal{C}\) is an \( n\) -cokernel in \( \mathcal{C}\) .

Proof

Follows from Theorem 7.

The axioms (A2\( _{f}\) ) and (A2\( _{f}^{\mathsf {op}}\) ) suggest that, perhaps, “pre-\( m\) -segments” and “pre-\( m\) -cosegments” should be called “\( m\) -monomorphisms” and “\( m\) -epimorphisms”, respectively. However, at the moment, it is not clear what higher (that is, longer) analogues of monomorphisms and epimorphisms should be in an \( n\) -abelian category, when \( n \geqslant 2\) . For example, due to the axioms (A2\( _{c}\) ) and (A2\( _{c}^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), other candidates for such analogues are “\( m\) -segments” and “\( m\) -cosegments”. The question of what these analogues should be requires, therefore, further investigation.

In this section, we describe when an additive and idempotent complete category \( \mathcal{C}\) that has enough injectives and enough projectives is \( n\) -abelian. This is done by expressing the axioms (F2) and (F2\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ) for \( \mathcal{C}\) in terms of the “dominant dimensions” of \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) and \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) , provided that \( \mathcal{C}\) is also coherent and “comprehensive”.

Since the “dominant dimension” of an abelian category is defined via projective injective objects, we first need to understand what these objects are in the categories \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) and \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) . In this direction, we have the following general result:

It follows from the proof of Proposition 20 that if \( X \in \mathcal{C}\) is such that \( \mathcal{C}(-,X)\) is injective in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) , then \( X\) is injective in \( \mathcal{C}\) . By taking \( \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) in place of \( \mathcal{C}\) , we also deduce that if \( X \in \mathcal{C}\) and \( \mathcal{C}(X,-)\) is injective in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) , then \( X\) is projective in \( \mathcal{C}\) .

We say that \( \mathcal{C}\) is right comprehensive if every object in \( \mathsf {proj} \mathcal{C}\) that is injective in \( \mathsf {proj} \mathcal{C}\) is injective in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) . Dually, \( \mathcal{C}\) is called left comprehensive if all the objects in \( \mathsf {proj} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) that are injective in \( \mathsf {proj} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) are also injective in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) . If \( \mathcal{C}\) is both right and left comprehensive, then we say that \( \mathcal{C}\) is comprehensive.

In summary, Proposition 20 says that the inclusion functor \( \mathsf {proj} \mathcal{C} \to \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) always reflects injectivity, and if it also preserves injectivity, we call \( \mathcal{C}\) right comprehensive. Dually, the inclusion \( \mathsf {proj} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}} \to \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) reflects injectivity, and when injectivity is also preserved, we call \( \mathcal{C}\) left comprehensive.

Due to Proposition 20, we also see that \( \mathcal{C}\) is right comprehensive precisely when the projective injective objects in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) coincide with the injective objects in \( \mathsf {proj} \mathcal{C}\) . Equivalently, \( \mathcal{C}\) is right comprehensive if and only if the projective injective objects in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) are given (up to isomorphism) by \( \mathcal{C}(-,I)\) , where \( I \in \mathcal{C}\) is injective in \( \mathcal{C}\) . Dually, \( \mathcal{C}\) is left comprehensive if and only if the projective injective objects in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) are given (up to isomorphism) by \( \mathcal{C}(P,-)\) , where \( P \in \mathcal{C}\) is projective in \( \mathcal{C}\) .

Trivially, by Proposition 8, every von Neumann regular category is comprehensive. Furthermore, we can conclude from the next proposition and a result of Jasso, [2, Theorem 3.12], that every \( n\) -abelian category is comprehensive.

Proposition 21

Assume that \( \mathcal{C}\) is right coherent. Then \( \mathcal{C}\) is right comprehensive if and only if for every sequence

in \( \mathcal{C}\) , where \( f\) is a weak kernel of \( g\) , and for every injective object \( I \in \mathcal{C}\) , the sequence

is exact in \( \mathsf {Ab}\) .

Proof

Let \( I \in \mathcal{C}\) be an injective object in \( \mathcal{C}\) and consider a sequence

in \( \mathcal{C}\) . Suppose that \( f\) is a weak kernel of \( g\) , which is equivalent to assuming that

is an exact sequence in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) . Then this sequence can be regarded as the beginning of a projective resolution of \( \mathsf {m}(g)\) in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) . By applying \( \mathsf {Hom}(-,\mathcal{C}(-,I))\) to this sequence, we get a complex in \( \mathsf {Ab}\) which is, by the Yoneda lemma, isomorphic to

. Thus, this complex is an exact sequence in \( \mathsf {Ab}\) if and only if \( \mathsf {Ext}^{1}(\mathsf {m}(g), \mathcal{C}(-,I)) = 0\) .

We can easily deduce our desired result from the above discussion, given that \( \mathcal{C}\) is right comprehensive if and only if \( \mathcal{C}(-,I)\) is injective in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) for every injective object \( I \in \mathcal{C}\) , that is, \( \mathsf {Ext}^{1}(-,\mathcal{C}(-,I)) = 0\) for every injective object \( I \in \mathcal{C}\) .

By taking \( \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) in place of \( \mathcal{C}\) in Proposition 21, we conclude that if \( \mathcal{C}\) is left coherent, then \( \mathcal{C}\) is left comprehensive if and only if for every sequence

in \( \mathcal{C}\) , where \( g\) is a weak cokernel of \( f\) , and for every projective object \( P \in \mathcal{C}\) , the sequence

is exact in \( \mathsf {Ab}\) .

Because we are interested in \( n\) -abelian categories, and these are comprehensive, for the rest of this section, we will focus on the case where \( \mathcal{C}\) is right or left comprehensive. Under such assumptions, we can characterize when \( \mathcal{C}\) has enough injectives and enough projectives in terms of \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) and \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) , respectively. Indeed, we have the following:

Proof

Suppose that \( \mathcal{C}\) is right comprehensive and has enough injectives. Given \( X \in \mathcal{C}\) , there is an injective object \( I \in \mathcal{C}\) and a monomorphism \( h \in \mathcal{C}(X,I)\) in \( \mathcal{C}\) . In this case,

is a monomorphism in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) , and \( \mathcal{C}(-,I)\) is injective in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) since \( \mathcal{C}\) is right comprehensive. Consequently, every object in \( \mathsf {proj} \mathcal{C}\) embeds into a projective injective object in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) .

Conversely, assume that every projective object in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) embeds into a projective injective object in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) . Then, given \( X \in \mathcal{C}\) , there is a monomorphism

in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) with \( f \in \mathcal{C}(X,Y)\) and \( \mathcal{C}(-,Y)\) injective in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) . In particular, \( \mathcal{C}(-,f)\) is a monomorphism in \( \mathsf {proj} \mathcal{C}\) , which implies that \( f\) is a monomorphism in \( \mathcal{C}\) since the Yoneda embedding induces an equivalence \( \mathcal{C} \approx \mathsf {proj} \mathcal{C}\) . Moreover, it follows from Proposition 20 that \( Y\) is injective in \( \mathcal{C}\) . Hence \( \mathcal{C}\) has enough injectives.

Now, in the above paragraph, assume that \( X\) is injective in \( \mathcal{C}\) . Then \( f\) is a split monomorphism, so that \( \mathcal{C}(-,f)\) is a split monomorphism. Thus, given that \( \mathcal{C}(-,Y)\) is injective in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) , we conclude that \( \mathcal{C}(-,X)\) is injective in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) . Therefore, \( \mathcal{C}\) is right comprehensive.

Next, we recall a classical definition. Let \( \mathcal{A}\) be an abelian category. Given \( X \in \mathcal{A}\) , the dominant dimension of \( X\) , denoted by \( \mathsf {dom.dim} X\) , is the supremum of the set of positive integers \( m\) for which there is an exact sequence

in \( \mathcal{A}\) with each \( Y_{i}\) being projective and injective in \( \mathcal{A}\) . If there is no such positive integer \( m\) , then we say that \( \mathsf {dom.dim} X = 0\) . The dominant dimension of \( \mathcal{A}\) , denoted by \( \mathsf {dom.dim} \mathcal{A}\) , is the supremum of the set of nonnegative integers \( m\) for which \( \mathsf {dom.dim} P \geqslant m\) for every projective object \( P \in \mathcal{A}\) . Equivalently, the dominant dimension of \( \mathcal{A}\) is the infimum of the dominant dimensions of projective objects in \( \mathcal{A}\) .

By duality, we can deduce from Corollary 4 that if \( \mathcal{C}\) is left coherent, then \( \mathcal{C}\) is left comprehensive and has enough projectives if and only if \( \mathsf {dom.dim} (\mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}) \geqslant 1\) .

Observe that if \( \mathcal{C}\) is coherent, then it is not always the case that the dominant dimensions of \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) and \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) coincide. Indeed, by Proposition 24, any abelian category that has enough injectives but not enough projectives (or vice versa) serves as a counterexample. Nonetheless, we will conclude in Corollary 5 that if the dominant dimensions of \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) and \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) are both at least one, then they coincide. This will follow from the next few results, which deal with the relation between these dimensions and the axioms (F2) and (F2\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ) for \( \mathcal{C}\) .

Proof

Suppose that \( \mathsf {dom.dim} (\mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}) \geqslant 1\) and that \( \mathcal{C}\) satisfies the axiom (F2). By Theorem 6, \( \mathcal{C}\) satisfies the axiom (F2\( _{f}\) ), that is, every object in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) of projective dimension at most \( n\) is a syzygy.

Let \( X \in \mathcal{C}\) be arbitrary. Since \( \mathsf {dom.dim} (\mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}) \geqslant 1\) , there is a monomorphism

in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) with \( \mathcal{C}(-,Y_{1})\) injective in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) for some \( Y_{1} \in \mathcal{C}\) . By taking the cokernel of the above morphism, we obtain an exact sequence

in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) , and because \( \mathsf {pd} F_{1} \leqslant 1\) , we conclude that \( F_{1}\) is a syzygy. Therefore, there is a monomorphism

in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) for some \( X_{2} \in \mathcal{C}\) . But \( \mathsf {dom.dim} (\mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}) \geqslant 1\) , hence there is a monomorphism

in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) with \( \mathcal{C}(-,Y_{2})\) injective in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) for some \( Y_{2} \in \mathcal{C}\) . By splicing these monomorphisms and the previous exact sequence, we obtain an exact sequence

in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) . If we continue the above process, we get an exact sequence

in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) with \( Y_{i} \in \mathcal{C}\) such that \( \mathcal{C}(-,Y_{i})\) is injective in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) for all \( 1 \leqslant i \leqslant n + 1\) . Therefore, \( \mathsf {dom.dim} (\mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}) \geqslant n + 1\) .

By taking \( \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) in place of \( \mathcal{C}\) in Proposition 25, we also deduce that if \( \mathcal{C}\) is coherent, \( \mathsf {dom.dim} (\mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}) \geqslant 1\) and \( \mathcal{C}\) satisfies the axiom (F2\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), then \( \mathsf {dom.dim} (\mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}) \geqslant n + 1\) . Moreover, when considering the reverse direction of Proposition 25, we can prove the following:

Proof

Suppose that \( \mathsf {dom.dim} (\mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}) \geqslant n + 1\) . Let \( F \in \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) be such that \( \mathsf {pd} F \leqslant 1\) , and take a projective resolution

of \( F\) in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) with \( f \in \mathcal{C}(X,Y)\) . Then \( \mathsf {m}(f) \in \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) is a transpose of \( F\) with the property that \( \mathsf {m}(f)^{\ast} = 0\) . Hence \( \mathsf {Hom} (\mathsf {m}(f) , \mathcal{C}(-,W)) = 0\) for all \( W \in \mathcal{C}\) . Now, let \( Z \in \mathcal{C}\) be arbitrary. Because \( \mathsf {dom.dim} (\mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}) \geqslant n + 1\) , there is an exact sequence

in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) with \( W_{i} \in \mathcal{C}\) such that \( \mathcal{C}(-,W_{i})\) is injective in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) for all \( 1 \leqslant i \leqslant n + 1\) . This exact sequence induces a short exact sequence

in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) for each \( 1 \leqslant i \leqslant n + 1\) , where \( G_{0} = \mathcal{C}(-,Z)\) . Thus, there is a long exact sequence

in \( \mathsf {Ab}\) for each \( 1 \leqslant i \leqslant n + 1\) . Therefore, given that \( \mathsf {Hom}(\mathsf {m}(f),\mathcal{C}(-,W_{i})) = 0\) and \( \mathsf {Ext}^{j}(\mathsf {m}(f),\mathcal{C}(-,W_{i})) = 0\) for all \( j \geqslant 1\) and all \( 1 \leqslant i \leqslant n + 1\) , we conclude that

\[ \mathsf {Ext}^{i}(\mathsf {m}(f), \mathcal{C}(-,Z)) \simeq \mathsf {Ext}^{1}(\mathsf {m}(f), G_{i-1}) \simeq \mathsf {Hom}(\mathsf {m}(f), G_{i}) = 0 \]

for each \( 1 \leqslant i \leqslant n\) . Hence \( F\) is \( n\) -torsion free, so that \( \mathcal{C}\) satisfies the axiom (F2\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ).

Dually, by Proposition 26, if \( \mathcal{C}\) is coherent and \( \mathsf {dom.dim} (\mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}) \geqslant n + 1\) , then \( \mathcal{C}\) satisfies the axiom (F2). Also, by combining the last two propositions, we obtain the following result:

It is worth noting that, because of Corollary 4, Proposition 27 says that if \( \mathcal{C}\) is coherent, comprehensive, has enough injectives and enough projectives, then \( \mathcal{C}\) satisfies the axiom (F2) if and only if \( \mathcal{C}\) satisfies the axiom (F2\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), which happens if and only if \( \mathsf {dom.dim} (\mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}) \geqslant n + 1\) , if and only if \( \mathsf {dom.dim} (\mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}) \geqslant n + 1\) .

We can now state and prove the main result of this section.

We remark that, when \( \mathcal{C}\) is \( n\) -abelian and has both enough injectives and enough projectives, then, although there are inequalities for the global and dominant dimensions of \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) , as in Theorem 9, there are only two possible cases. In fact, if \( \mathcal{C}\) is von Neumann regular, then it follows from Proposition 8 that \( \mathsf {gl.dim} (\mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}) = 0\) , which implies that \( \mathsf {dom.dim} (\mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}) = \infty\) . On the other hand, if \( \mathcal{C}\) is not von Neumann regular, then \( \mathsf {gl.dim} (\mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}) = n + 1\) , by Corollary 1, and we can also verify that \( \mathsf {dom.dim} (\mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}) = n + 1\) . Indeed, we already know that \( \mathsf {dom.dim} (\mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}) \geqslant n + 1\) , and if this inequality would be strict, then it would follow from Proposition 26 that every \( F \in \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) with \( \mathsf {pd} F \leqslant 1\) is \( (n+1)\) -torsion free. But then, as \( \mathsf {gl.dim} (\mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}) = n + 1\) , it would follow from Lemma 1 that \( \mathsf {Tr} F\) is projective for every \( F \in \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) with \( \mathsf {pd} F \leqslant 1\) , which, by Lemma 2, would imply that \( F\) is projective. Hence we would conclude that there is no \( F \in \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) with \( \mathsf {pd} F = 1\) , which is a contradiction since we know from Theorem 12 that \( \mathsf {gl.dim} (\mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}) = n + 1\) .

We also observe that Theorem 9 can be seen as a general case of a result due to Iyama and Jasso, which says that if \( \mathcal{C}\) is a “dualizing \( R\) -variety”, then \( \mathcal{C}\) is \( n\) -abelian if and only if \( \mathsf {gl.dim} (\mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}) \leqslant n + 1 \leqslant \mathsf {dom.dim} (\mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C})\) , see [16, Theorem 1.2]. The reader is also encouraged to compare Theorem 9 with [17, Theorems 8.23 and 9.6].

In this section, we specialize previous results to rings and modules over rings. This is done by considering additive and idempotent complete categories with additive generators. By doing so, we obtain a description of when the category of finitely generated projective modules over a ring is \( n\) -abelian. We also show that there is a correspondence between \( n\) -abelian categories with additive generators and rings under such a description, which extends the higher Auslander correspondence.

Throughout this paper, we have been following the philosophy that a module over an additive and idempotent complete category is analogous to a module over a ring. Moreover, we could have even considered the more general case of a module over a preadditive category, so that the case of a module over a ring would be recovered by considering a preadditive category with a single object, which is nothing but a ring. Thus, a ring is a particular case of the much more general notion of a preadditive category, which can be thought of as a “ring with several objects”, as supported by Mitchell in [3]. In view of these remarks, while working with modules over an additive and idempotent complete category, it would be natural to ask when it is the case that we are actually dealing with modules over a ring. Here is an answer to this question:

The functor \( \mathtt{e}_{X} : \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C} \to \mathsf {Mod} \Lambda\) that was mentioned in the proof of Proposition 28 is called the evaluation functor at \( X\) , and it can be defined for any object \( X \in \mathcal{C}\) . As we remarked above, when \( X\) is an additive generator of \( \mathcal{C}\) , the functor \( \mathtt{e}_{X}\) is an equivalence of categories, which induces an equivalence \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C} \to \mathsf {mod} \Lambda\) . In this case, it also induces an equivalence \( \mathsf {proj} \mathcal{C} \to \mathsf {proj} \Lambda\) , and by composing it with the equivalence \( \mathcal{C} \to \mathsf {proj} \mathcal{C}\) induced by the Yoneda embedding, we obtain an equivalence of categories \( \mathtt{p}_{X} : \mathcal{C} \to \mathsf {proj} \Lambda\) . Clearly, the functor \( \mathtt{p}_{X}\) is given by \( \mathtt{p}_{X}(Y) = \mathcal{C}(X,Y)\) for each \( Y \in \mathcal{C}\) and \( \mathtt{p}_{X}(f) = \mathcal{C}(X,f)\) for each morphism \( f\) in \( \mathcal{C}\) . We call \( \mathtt{p}_{X}\) the projectivization functor at \( X\) . Moreover, observe that if \( X\) is an additive generator of \( \mathcal{C}\) , then it is also an additive generator of \( \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) , and the endomorphism ring of \( X\) in \( \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) is given by \( \Lambda^{\mathsf {op}}\) . Therefore, we also get equivalences of categories \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}} \to \mathsf {Mod} \Lambda^{\mathsf {op}}\) , \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}} \to \mathsf {mod} \Lambda^{\mathsf {op}}\) and \( \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}} \to \mathsf {proj} \Lambda^{\mathsf {op}}\) . To summarize, if \( \mathcal{C}\) has an additive generator \( X\) , then we can assign the ring \( \Lambda = \mathsf {End}(X)\) to \( \mathcal{C}\) , modules over \( \mathcal{C}\) are essentially modules over \( \Lambda\) , and there are equivalences of categories \( \mathcal{C} \approx \mathsf {proj} \Lambda\) and \( \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}} \approx \mathsf {proj} \Lambda^{\mathsf {op}}\) .

Now, going in the opposite direction of the above paragraph, note that if \( \Lambda\) is an arbitrary ring, then \( \mathsf {proj} \Lambda\) is an additive and idempotent complete category which has \( \Lambda\) as an additive generator. Therefore, since \( \mathsf {End}(\Lambda) \simeq \Lambda\) , the evaluation functor at \( \Lambda\) gives equivalences of categories \( \mathsf {Mod} (\mathsf {proj} \Lambda) \to \mathsf {Mod} \Lambda\) and \( \mathsf {mod} (\mathsf {proj} \Lambda) \to \mathsf {mod} \Lambda\) as well as equivalences \( \mathsf {Mod} (\mathsf {proj} \Lambda)^{\mathsf {op}} \to \mathsf {Mod} \Lambda^{\mathsf {op}}\) and \( \mathsf {mod} (\mathsf {proj} \Lambda)^{\mathsf {op}} \to \mathsf {mod} \Lambda^{\mathsf {op}}\) . Thus, given any ring \( \Lambda\) , we can assign the category \( \mathsf {proj} \Lambda\) to it, and modules over \( \Lambda\) are essentially the same as modules over \( \mathsf {proj} \Lambda\) .

The moral is that every additive and idempotent complete category with an additive generator is (equivalent to) the category of finitely generated projective modules over a ring, and conversely. Moreover, the assignments of a category to a ring and of a ring to a category that were presented above are consistent in the sense that they preserve the corresponding categories of modules. Consequently, these assignments are inverses of each other, up to equivalences. Let us make this statement precise.

For the rest of this section, let \( \Lambda\) be a ring.

As it was previously mentioned, the evaluation functor at \( \Lambda\) induces equivalences of categories \( \mathsf {Mod} (\mathsf {proj} \Lambda) \to \mathsf {Mod} \Lambda\) and \( \mathsf {mod} (\mathsf {proj} \Lambda) \to \mathsf {mod} \Lambda\) as well as equivalences \( \mathsf {Mod} (\mathsf {proj} \Lambda)^{\mathsf {op}} \to \mathsf {Mod} \Lambda^{\mathsf {op}}\) and \( \mathsf {mod} (\mathsf {proj} \Lambda)^{\mathsf {op}} \to \mathsf {mod} \Lambda^{\mathsf {op}}\) . Therefore, we can use these equivalences to specialize previous definitions and results for \( \mathcal{C}\) and for modules over \( \mathcal{C}\) to \( \Lambda\) and modules over \( \Lambda\) , respectively, by taking \( \mathcal{C} = \mathsf {proj} \Lambda\) . By doing so, we recover classical definitions and results for rings and modules over rings. To help the reader feel more comfortable with this idea, let us mention a few instances of this procedure.

We can define a ring \( \Lambda\) to be right coherent, left coherent and coherent if \( \mathsf {proj} \Lambda\) is right coherent, left coherent and coherent, respectively. Due to the equivalences \( \mathsf {mod} (\mathsf {proj} \Lambda) \approx \mathsf {mod} \Lambda\) and \( \mathsf {mod} (\mathsf {proj} \Lambda)^{\mathsf {op}} \approx \mathsf {mod} \Lambda^{\mathsf {op}}\) , we see that \( \Lambda\) is right coherent and left coherent precisely when \( \mathsf {mod} \Lambda\) is abelian and when \( \mathsf {mod} \Lambda^{\mathsf {op}}\) is abelian, respectively. Hence our definitions coincide with the classical ones in ring theory. Moreover, because of the previous equivalences, it follows from Theorem 12 that if \( \Lambda\) is a coherent ring, then \( \mathsf {gl.dim} (\mathsf {mod} \Lambda) = \mathsf {gl.dim} (\mathsf {mod} \Lambda^{\mathsf {op}})\) . Also, we can use Corollary 7 to conclude that, when \( \Lambda\) is coherent, the global dimensions of \( \mathsf {mod} \Lambda\) and \( \mathsf {mod} \Lambda^{\mathsf {op}}\) coincide with the weak dimension of \( \Lambda\) . These are, of course, well known results.

Similarly, we can define a ring \( \Lambda\) to be von Neumann regular if \( \mathsf {proj} \Lambda\) is von Neumann regular. From Proposition 8 and the equivalence \( \mathsf {mod} (\mathsf {proj} \Lambda) \approx \mathsf {mod} \Lambda\) , we deduce that \( \Lambda\) is von Neumann regular if and only if every finitely presented \( \Lambda\) -module is projective, and as it was already mentioned in Section 4, this latter condition is equivalent to saying that \( \Lambda\) is von Neumann regular in the usual sense. Sometimes, however, the nomenclature for rings and categories may not match. For example, \( \Lambda\) is a semiperfect ring if and only if \( \mathsf {proj} \Lambda\) is a Krull–Schmidt category, see [18, Proposition 4.1].

We also say that a ring \( \Lambda\) is right comprehensive, left comprehensive and comprehensive when \( \mathsf {proj} \Lambda\) is right comprehensive, left comprehensive and comprehensive, respectively. Because of the equivalence \( \mathsf {mod} (\mathsf {proj} \Lambda) \approx \mathsf {mod} \Lambda\) , we conclude from Proposition 20 that the inclusion functor \( \mathsf {proj} \Lambda \to \mathsf {mod} \Lambda\) always reflects injectivity, and \( \Lambda\) is right comprehensive precisely when it also preserves injectivity. Dually, due to the equivalence \( \mathsf {mod} (\mathsf {proj} \Lambda)^{\mathsf {op}} \approx \mathsf {mod} \Lambda^{\mathsf {op}}\) , the inclusion \( \mathsf {proj} \Lambda^{\mathsf {op}} \to \mathsf {mod} \Lambda^{\mathsf {op}}\) reflects injectivity, and \( \Lambda\) is left comprehensive precisely when injectivity is also preserved. The author is not aware of any alternative characterization of such rings, though.

Now, by considering the equivalence \( \mathsf {mod} (\mathsf {proj} \Lambda) \approx \mathsf {mod} \Lambda\) , given \( M \in \mathsf {mod} \Lambda\) , let \( F \in \mathsf {mod} (\mathsf {proj} \Lambda)\) be such that \( F(\Lambda) \simeq M\) . We define a transpose of \( M\) , denoted by \( \mathsf {Tr} M\) , to be a \( \Lambda^{\mathsf {op}}\) -module which is obtained by evaluating \( \mathsf {Tr} F\) at \( \Lambda\) , where \( \mathsf {Tr} F\) is a transpose of \( F\) . It is not hard to see that this definition indeed coincides with the classical definition of a transpose of a module over a ring, introduced in [12]. Furthermore, if \( \Lambda\) is left coherent and \( k\) is a positive integer, then we can define \( M\) to be \( k\) -torsion free if \( F\) is \( k\) -torsion free. Observe that if \( \Lambda\) is left coherent, then, given a positive integer \( i\) , the \( (\mathsf {proj} \Lambda)\) -module \( \mathsf {E}^{i}(F)\) corresponds to the \( \Lambda\) -module \( \mathsf {E}^{i}(F)(\Lambda) = \mathsf {Ext}^{i}(\mathsf {Tr} F, \mathsf {Hom}_{\Lambda}(\Lambda,-))\) via the equivalence \( \mathsf {Mod} (\mathsf {proj} \Lambda) \approx \mathsf {Mod} \Lambda\) . But the latter is isomorphic to \( \mathsf {Ext}^{i}(\mathsf {Tr} F(\Lambda), \Lambda)\) , due to the equivalence \( \mathsf {mod} (\mathsf {proj} \Lambda)^{\mathsf {op}} \approx \mathsf {mod} \Lambda^{\mathsf {op}}\) . Therefore, \( M\) is \( k\) -torsion free if and only if \( \mathsf {Ext}^{i}(\mathsf {Tr} M, \Lambda) = 0\) for all \( 1 \leqslant i \leqslant k\) . Hence we recover the classical concept of a \( k\) -torsion free module, as given in [12]. By following similar arguments, we can also deduce that if \( \Lambda\) is coherent, then the double dual sequence of \( F\) induces an exact sequence

in \( \mathsf {mod} \Lambda\) , where \( M \to M^{\ast \ast}\) is the canonical morphism from a module to its double dual. We call the above sequence the double dual sequence of \( M\) .

Hopefully, the reader is now comfortable with the idea that we can specialize previous definitions and results to rings and modules over rings. Let us explore some consequences of this procedure, which leads to results concerning the category \( \mathsf {proj} \Lambda\) of finitely generated projective \( \Lambda\) -modules, for a given ring \( \Lambda\) .

For example, the next result is Proposition 3 specialized to rings.

We can also specialize the functorial axioms of an \( n\) -abelian category to axioms for a ring. Indeed, for a ring \( \Lambda\) , the axioms (F1) and (F1\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ) become:

1. (R1)

   \( \Lambda\) is right coherent and \( \mathsf {gl.dim} (\mathsf {mod} \Lambda) \leqslant n+1\) .
2. (R1\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) )

   \( \Lambda\) is left coherent and \( \mathsf {gl.dim} (\mathsf {mod} \Lambda^{\mathsf {op}}) \leqslant n+1\) .

And, under the assumption that \( \Lambda\) is coherent, the axioms (F2) and (F2\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ) become:

1. (R2)

   Every \( M \in \mathsf {mod} \Lambda\) with \( \mathsf {pd} M \leqslant 1\) is \( n\) -torsion free.
2. (R2\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) )

   Every \( M \in \mathsf {mod} \Lambda^{\mathsf {op}}\) with \( \mathsf {pd} M \leqslant 1\) is \( n\) -torsion free.

Precisely, we have that \( \mathsf {proj} \Lambda\) satisfies (F1) if and only if \( \Lambda\) satisfies (R1), and the same statement also holds for the dual axioms. Moreover, if \( \Lambda\) is coherent, then \( \mathsf {proj} \Lambda\) satisfies (F2) if and only if \( \Lambda\) satisfies (R2), and similarly for the dual axioms.

We can then conclude that the above axioms for \( \Lambda\) are equivalent to the axioms (A1), (A1\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), (A2) and (A2\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ) for \( \mathsf {proj} \Lambda\) . In fact, we have the following:

As a consequence, we can describe when the category of finitely generated projective modules over a ring is \( n\) -abelian. The next result is Theorem 2 specialized to rings.

It is worth mentioning that, by Theorem 10 and Corollary 1, if \( \Lambda\) satisfies the axioms (R1), (R1\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), (R2) and (R2\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), and if \( \Lambda\) is not von Neumann regular, then

We can also specialize the axioms (F2\( _{a}\) ), (F2\( _{b}\) ), (F2\( _{c}\) ), (F2\( _{d_{k}}\) ), (F2\( _{e}\) ), (F2\( _{f}\) ), (F2\( _{g_{k}}\) ) and their duals to axioms for rings, and specialize other previous results to rings and modules over rings. For example, consider the following axioms for a coherent ring \( \Lambda\) :

1. (R2\( _{c}\) )

   Every \( m\) -spherical object in \( \mathsf {mod} \Lambda\) is a syzygy, for all \( 1 \leqslant m \leqslant n\) .
2. (R2\( _{f}\) )

   Every \( M \in \mathsf {mod} \Lambda\) with \( \mathsf {pd} M \leqslant n\) is a syzygy.

And their duals:

1. (R2\( _{c}^{\mathsf {op}}\) )

   Every \( m\) -spherical object in \( \mathsf {mod} \Lambda^{\mathsf {op}}\) is a syzygy, for all \( 1 \leqslant m \leqslant n\) .
2. (R2\( _{f}^{\mathsf {op}}\) )

   Every \( M \in \mathsf {mod} \Lambda^{\mathsf {op}}\) with \( \mathsf {pd} M \leqslant n\) is a syzygy.

Then we can conclude the following:

We leave it to the reader the task of formulating the other axioms for rings, and also of specializing the results of Section 6 to rings. Next, let us consider some of the results of Section 7 in the ring case.

Observe that, by Propositions 29 and 22, if \( \Lambda\) is a ring such that \( \mathsf {proj} \Lambda\) is \( n\) -abelian for some positive integer \( n\) , then \( \Lambda\) is coherent and comprehensive.

Instead of giving a version of Theorem 9 for rings, let us state the following result:

Recall that an Artin algebra is an associative \( R\) -algebra with identity which is finitely generated as an \( R\) -module, where \( R\) is a fixed commutative artinian ring. The next result, due to Iyama and Jasso, gives a refinement of Proposition 35 in the case of Artin algebras.

We also recall that an Artin algebra \( \Lambda\) is called an \( n\) -Auslander algebra if the inequalities \( \mathsf {gl.dim} (\mathsf {mod} \Lambda) \leqslant n + 1 \leqslant \mathsf {dom.dim} (\mathsf {mod} \Lambda)\) are satisfied. Therefore, by Proposition 36, an Artin algebra \( \Lambda\) is an \( n\) -Auslander algebra if and only if \( \mathsf {proj} \Lambda\) is an \( n\) -abelian category, which is the case if and only if \( \Lambda\) satisfies the axioms (R1), (R1\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), (R2) and (R2\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), by Theorem 10. These facts offer an alternative perspective towards \( n\) -Auslander algebras, and support the idea that the class of rings satisfying the axioms (R1), (R1\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), (R2) and (R2\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ) generalizes the class of \( n\) -Auslander algebras. Furthermore, observe that the condition on the dominant dimension of an \( n\) -Auslander algebra can be replaced by the axioms (R2) and (R2\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), or by any of the other equivalent axioms covered in this paper, such as the axioms (R2\( _{c}\) ) and (R2\( _{c}^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), or (R2\( _{f}\) ) and (R2\( _{f}^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), as it was pointed out in Proposition 31.

Now, let us turn our attention to Lemma 5. The reader might have asked why we stated this result as a lemma and not as a proposition or a theorem. The reason is that the correspondence described in Lemma 5, in its full generality, is a source for several other correspondences which are obtained by restriction. For instance, by restricting it to \( n\) -abelian categories, we get the following correspondence:

Similarly, we can conclude from Lemma 5 and Proposition 30 that there is a correspondence between pre-\( n\) -abelian categories with additive generators and rings satisfying the axioms (R1) and (R1\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ). As another (ludic) example, by Lemma 5, Proposition 29 and [18, Proposition 4.1], there is a correspondence between categories with additive generators that have weak kernels and are Krull–Schmidt and rings that are right coherent and semiperfect. In general, any collection of properties for a category that are invariant under equivalence of categories leads to a correspondence, which is obtained by restricting the correspondence given in Lemma 5. Likewise, any collection of Morita invariant properties for a ring leads to a correspondence.

The celebrated Auslander correspondence and Morita–Tachikawa correspondence (and their higher versions) are also restrictions of the correspondence presented in Lemma 5. We refer the reader to [9, Sections 5.2 and 5.3] for details. Even more, the higher Auslander correspondence is actually a restriction of the correspondence described in Theorem 11. Indeed, the former is obtained by restricting the latter to “\( n\) -cluster tilting subcategories” (with additive generators) of categories of finitely presented modules over Artin algebras. By [2, Theorem 3.16], “\( n\) -cluster tilting subcategories” of abelian categories are \( n\) -abelian. Or, from a different point of view, we can say that the higher Auslander correspondence is obtained by restricting the correspondence given in Theorem 11 to Artin algebras. In fact, as it was observed in the paragraph proceeding Proposition 36, an Artin algebra is an \( n\) -Auslander algebra if and only if it satisfies the axioms (R1), (R1\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), (R2) and (R2\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ).

Observe that Theorem 11 also indicates how to find examples of \( n\) -abelian categories with additive generators: it suffices to find rings satisfying the axioms (R1), (R1\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), (R2) and (R2\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ). More than that, Theorem 11 guarantees that all such examples of \( n\) -abelian categories can be obtained this way. Hence the problem of finding a ring \( \Lambda\) satisfying the axioms (R1), (R1\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), (R2) and (R2\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ) is of particular interest since it corresponds to an \( n\) -abelian category, namely, the category \( \mathsf {proj} \Lambda\) .

Clearly, von Neumann regular rings are examples of rings with the properties mentioned above, but their corresponding \( n\) -abelian categories are again von Neumann regular, and hence not interesting. On the other hand, \( n\) -Auslander algebras (which are not semisimple) Recall that an Artin algebra is semisimple if and only if it is von Neumann regular. More generally, a ring is semisimple if and only if it is von Neumann regular and (left or right) noetherian. give interesting examples of \( n\) -abelian categories, which have both enough injectives and enough projectives, by Proposition 33. However, to the best knowledge of the author, there are no known examples of rings satisfying the axioms (R1), (R1\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), (R2) and (R2\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ) which are not von Neumann regular and not Artin algebras. The existence of such rings could possibly result in exotic examples of \( n\) -abelian categories, and bring new insights to the theory. Also, it would be even more interesting to have an example of such a ring \( \Lambda\) with \( \mathsf {dom.dim} (\mathsf {mod} \Lambda) = 0\) and \( \mathsf {dom.dim} (\mathsf {mod} \Lambda^{\mathsf {op}}) = 0\) , because then \( \mathsf {proj} \Lambda\) would be an \( n\) -abelian category that does not have enough injectives nor enough projectives, by Proposition 33.

As a motivation for the use of Theorem 11 as a source of possibly interesting examples of \( n\) -abelian categories, let us recall how Rump has used similar ideas to find a counterexample to Raikov’s conjecture. In [20], Rump characterized when a certain type of category \( \mathcal{C}\) is semi-abelian or quasi-abelian in terms of \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) and \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) . Then, by specializing his results to modules over rings, he was able to find an example of a ring \( \Lambda\) for which the category \( \mathsf {proj} \Lambda\) is semi-abelian but not quasi-abelian, thereby providing a negative answer to Raikov’s conjecture. This achievement brings hope that the same approach could be used to answer questions concerning \( n\) -abelian categories.

Nevertheless, let us end this section by showing that commutative rings do not produce interesting examples of \( n\) -abelian categories with additive generators.

Proof

Suppose that \( \mathsf {proj} \Lambda\) is \( n\) -abelian. By Theorem 10, \( \Lambda\) satisfies the axioms (R1), (R1\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), (R2) and (R2\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ). In particular, \( \Lambda\) is coherent and \( \mathsf {gl.dim} (\mathsf {mod} \Lambda) < \infty\) . Thus, it follows from [21, Theorem 4.2.2 and Corollary 4.2.4] that every principal ideal of \( \Lambda\) is projective.

Take \( x \in \Lambda\) , and let \( \langle x \rangle\) be the ideal generated by \( x\) , which is projective, by our previous remark. Let \( f : \Lambda \to \Lambda\) be the multiplication by \( x\) and consider \( M = \Lambda / \langle x \rangle\) , so that we have an exact sequence

in \( \mathsf {mod} \Lambda\) . By applying \( (-)^{\ast}\) to it, we get an exact sequence

in \( \mathsf {mod} \Lambda\) , where \( \mathsf {Tr} M\) is a transpose of \( M\) . Since there is a commutative diagram

in \( \mathsf {mod} \Lambda\) whose vertical arrows are isomorphisms, we deduce that \( \mathsf {Tr} M \simeq M\) .

Now, consider the short exact sequence

in \( \mathsf {mod} \Lambda\) . Because \( \langle x \rangle\) is projective, we have \( \mathsf {pd} M \leqslant 1\) , hence \( M\) is \( n\) -torsion free. In particular, it follows that \( \mathsf {Ext}^{1}(M, \langle x \rangle) \simeq \mathsf {Ext}^{1}(\mathsf {Tr} M, \langle x \rangle) = 0\) . Therefore, the above short exact sequence splits, so that the inclusion \( \langle x \rangle \to \Lambda\) is a split monomorphism. As a left inverse \( \Lambda \to \langle x \rangle\) of \( \langle x \rangle \to \Lambda\) in \( \mathsf {mod} \Lambda\) is given by multiplication by \( xy\) for some \( y \in \Lambda\) , we conclude that \( xyx = x\) . Thus, \( \Lambda\) is von Neumann regular.

The converse follows from Proposition 11 since \( \Lambda\) is von Neumann regular if and only if \( \mathsf {proj} \Lambda\) is von Neumann regular.

As a final observation, note that, in the proof of Proposition 37, we only had to use the fact that \( M\) was \( 1\) -torsion free, rather than \( n\) -torsion free. Moreover, as \( \Lambda\) was assumed to be commutative, it would have been sufficient to assume that \( \Lambda\) satisfies either the axiom (R1) or (R1\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ). Thus, we can improve Proposition 37 as follows:

The purpose of this appendix is to prove that if \( \mathcal{C}\) is coherent, then the global dimensions of \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) and \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) coincide. The content of this appendix is mainly based on [11, Section 5].

Given an additive and idempotent complete category \( \mathcal{C}\) , let \( \mathsf {Y} : \mathcal{C} \to \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) be the Yoneda embedding, which is a covariant additive functor. Also, recall that \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) is an additive category that has cokernels. It turns out that this category is universal with respect to these properties, in the following sense:

Note that, by letting \( \mathsf {Y}^{\mathsf {op}} : \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}} \to \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) be the Yoneda embedding of \( \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) , which is a covariant additive functor, Although, usually, \( \mathsf {Y}^{\mathsf {op}}\) is regarded as a contravariant functor from \( \mathcal{C}\) to \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) . we deduce that the statement of Proposition 39 also holds for the category \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) , when considering \( \mathsf {Y}^{\mathsf {op}}\) instead of \( \mathsf {Y}\) .

Now, if \( G \in \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) , then \( G : \mathcal{C} \to \mathsf {Ab}\) is an additive functor and it follows from Proposition 39 that there is a unique (up to isomorphism) additive and cokernel preserving functor \( \widetilde{G} : \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C} \to \mathsf {Ab}\) such that \( \widetilde{G} \circ \mathsf {Y} \simeq G\) . Similarly, if \( F \in \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) , then \( F : \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}} \to \mathsf {Ab}\) is an additive functor, so that there is a unique (up to isomorphism) additive and cokernel preserving functor \( \widetilde{F} : \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}} \to \mathsf {Ab}\) such that \( \widetilde{F} \circ \mathsf {Y}^{\mathsf {op}} \simeq F\) . We denote \( \widetilde{G} = - \otimes G\) and \( \widetilde{F} = F \otimes -\) . These functors lead to a bifunctor

which we call the tensor product. In particular, the tensor product of \( F \in \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) and \( G \in \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) is given by the abelian group

which is unique up to isomorphism.

Next, suppose that \( \mathcal{C}\) is coherent, so that \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) and \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) are abelian categories with enough projectives. In this case, given \( F \in \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) and \( G \in \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) , for each \( i \geqslant 0\) , we can consider the \( i\) th left derived functors of \( F \otimes -\) and \( - \otimes G\) , which we denote by \( \mathsf {Tor}_{i}(F,-)\) and \( \mathsf {Tor}_{i}(-,G)\) , respectively. These functors lead to a bifunctor

for each \( i \geqslant 0\) , since the tensor product \( - \otimes -\) is a left balanced bifunctor.

Let us recall some well known results.

Proof

Let

be a projective presentation of \( H\) in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) with \( h \in \mathcal{C}(U,V)\) . Given that \( - \otimes F^{\ast}\) preserves cokernels and \( (- \otimes F^{\ast}) \circ \mathsf {Y} \simeq F^{\ast}\) , when applying \( - \otimes F^{\ast}\) to the above projective presentation of \( H\) , we obtain an exact sequence

in \( \mathsf {Ab}\) . On the other hand, by applying \( \mathsf {Hom}(F,-)\) to the same projective presentation of \( H\) , we get morphisms

in \( \mathsf {Ab}\) whose composition is zero. Consequently, there is a unique morphism \( H \otimes F^{\ast} \to \mathsf {Hom}(F,H)\) in \( \mathsf {Ab}\) which makes the diagram

commute. It is not difficult to verify that the morphism \( H \otimes F^{\ast} \to \mathsf {Hom}(F,H)\) obtained above does not depend on the choice of projective presentation of \( H\) , and we denote it by \( \varphi^{F}_{H}\) .

We leave it to the reader to check that \( \varphi^{F}_{H}\) is natural both in \( F\) and in \( H\) . Moreover, it is easy to conclude from the previous paragraph that if \( F\) or \( H\) is projective, then \( \varphi^{F}_{H}\) is an isomorphism.

Next, we show that \( \mathsf {Coker} \varphi^{F}_{H} = \mathsf {Hom} (F,H)\) . Since \( \mathsf {Coker} \varphi^{F}_{H}\) is given by the quotient of abelian groups \( \mathsf {Hom}(F,H) / \mathsf {Im} \varphi^{F}_{H}\) , it suffices to verify that \( \mathsf {Im} \varphi^{F}_{H} = \langle \mathsf {proj} \mathcal{C} \rangle (F,H)\) . Well, let \( \beta\) be the morphism \( \mathcal{C}(-,V) \to H\) from the previous projective presentation of \( H\) in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) . By naturality, the diagram

in \( \mathsf {Ab}\) is commutative. Furthermore, as \( \mathcal{C}(-,V)\) is projective, \( \varphi^{F}_{\mathcal{C}(-,V)}\) is an isomorphism, and because \( - \otimes F^{\ast}\) preserves cokernels, \( \beta \otimes F^{\ast}\) is an epimorphism. Consequently, \( \mathsf {Im} \varphi^{F}_{H} = \mathsf {Im} \mathsf {Hom}(F,\beta)\) , and it is easy to see that \( \mathsf {Im} \mathsf {Hom}(F,\beta) = \langle \mathsf {proj} \mathcal{C} \rangle (F,H)\) .

Observe that if we had considered \( \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) -modules in Lemma 6 instead of \( \mathcal{C}\) -modules, we would conclude that, for each \( G,H \in \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) , there is a canonical morphism \( G^{\ast} \otimes H \to \mathsf {Hom}(G,H)\) with the same properties that were claimed in Lemma 6.

Proof

Let

be a projective presentation of \( F\) in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) with \( f \in \mathcal{C}(X,Y)\) . By applying \( (-)^{\ast}\) to it, we obtain an exact sequence

in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) , where \( \mathsf {Tr} F\) is a transpose of \( F\) given by the cokernel of \( \mathcal{C}(-,f)^{\ast}\) . Since both \( \mathcal{C}(-,Y)^{\ast}\) and \( \mathcal{C}(-,X)^{\ast}\) are projective As we have seen in Section 3, they are isomorphic to \( \mathcal{C}(Y,-)\) and \( \mathcal{C}(X,-)\) , respectively., we can extend the above exact sequence to a projective resolution of \( \mathsf {Tr} F\) in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) , and use it to compute \( \mathsf {Tor}_{1}(H,\mathsf {Tr} F)\) . However, because \( H \otimes -\) preserves cokernels, we can easily see that

\[ \mathsf {Tor}_{1}(H,\mathsf {Tr} F) = \frac{\mathsf {Ker} H \otimes \mathcal{C}(-,f)^{\ast}}{\mathsf {Im} H \otimes \alpha^{\ast}}. \]

Now, by Lemma 6, there is a commutative diagram

in \( \mathsf {Ab}\) , where both \( \varphi^{\mathcal{C}(-,Y)}_{H}\) and \( \varphi^{\mathcal{C}(-,X)}_{H}\) are isomorphisms. Moreover, note that the bottom row of this diagram is exact. In this case, it is not difficult to deduce that

\[ \frac{\mathsf {Ker} H \otimes \mathcal{C}(-,f)^{\ast}}{\mathsf {Im} H \otimes \alpha^{\ast}} \simeq \frac{\mathsf {Hom}(F,H)}{\mathsf {Im} \varphi^{F}_{H}} = \mathsf {Coker} \varphi^{F}_{H}. \]

Therefore, it follows from Lemma 6 that \( \mathsf {Tor}_{1}(H, \mathsf {Tr} F) \simeq \mathsf {Hom} (F,H)\) , and we leave it to the reader to verify that this isomorphism is natural both in \( F\) and in \( H\) .

We remark that if we had chosen to work with \( \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) -modules in Proposition 40 instead of \( \mathcal{C}\) -modules, we would conclude that, for each \( G,H \in \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) , there is an isomorphism \( \mathsf {Tor}_{1}(\mathsf {Tr} G, H) \simeq \mathsf {Hom} (G,H)\) , which is natural both in \( G\) and in \( H\) .

Note that the corresponding result for \( \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) -modules in Corollary 7 is that if \( G \in \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) , then \( \mathsf {Tor}_{d+1}(-,G) = 0\) if and only if \( \mathsf {pd} G \leqslant d\) .

We can now prove the main result of this appendix, which is from [11, Corollary 5.6].

In this appendix, we use the functorial perspective to prove a few known results on \( n\) -abelian categories. Its purpose is to further expose the reader to the functorial approach, and also to offer an alternative proof of Proposition 11.

First, recall that a category is called balanced when all of its morphisms which are both monomorphisms and epimorphisms are isomorphisms.

Proof

Let \( \mathcal{C}\) be an \( n\) -abelian category, so that \( \mathcal{C}\) satisfies the axioms (F1), (F1\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), (F2) and (F2\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), by Theorem 2. Suppose that \( f \in \mathcal{C}(X,Y)\) is a morphism in \( \mathcal{C}\) which is both a monomorphism and an epimorphism. Since \( f\) is a monomorphism, the sequence

is exact in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) , and then \( \mathsf {pd} \mathsf {m}(f) \leqslant 1\) . Therefore, \( \mathsf {m}(f)\) is \( n\) -torsion free, and hence \( 1\) -torsion free. Now, as \( f\) is an epimorphism, the sequence

is exact in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) . Thus, it follows from Proposition 6 that

is exact in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) , which implies that \( f\) is a split epimorphism. By duality, we deduce that \( f\) is a split monomorphism. Consequently, \( f\) is an isomorphism.

Let \( m\) be a positive integer. We say that an \( m\) -exact sequence

in \( \mathcal{C}\) splits if \( h_{m+1}\) is a split monomorphism and \( h_{1}\) is a split epimorphism.

Proposition 42

Let \( \mathcal{C}\) be an additive and idempotent complete category, Actually, the proof we present only requires \( \mathcal{C}\) to be a preadditive category. let \( m\) be a positive integer, and let

be an \( m\) -exact sequence in \( \mathcal{C}\) . The following are equivalent:

1. (a)

   The above sequence splits.
2. (b)

   \( h_{1}\) is a split epimorphism.
3. (c)

   \( h_{m+1}\) is a split monomorphism.

Proof

Suppose that \( h_{1}\) is a split epimorphism. Then \( \mathcal{C}(-,h_{1})\) is a split epimorphism and the sequence

is exact in \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}\) . Since each \( \mathcal{C}(-,Z_{i})\) is projective in \( \mathsf {Mod} \mathcal{C}\) , it is easy to conclude that \( \mathcal{C}(-,h_{m+1})\) is a split monomorphism, which implies that \( h_{m+1}\) is a split monomorphism.

Therefore, (b) implies (c). By duality, (c) implies (b). Consequently, (a) is equivalent to both (b) and (c).

Observe that if we extend the notion of an \( m\) -exact sequence to include the case \( m = 0\) , then we obtain from Proposition 41 that \( 0\) -exact sequences split in \( n\) -abelian categories. In addition to this fact, we have the following result:

Proof

To begin with, recall that \( \mathcal{C}\) satisfies the axioms (F1), (F1\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), (F2) and (F2\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), by Theorem 2. Next, let

be an \( m\) -exact sequence in \( \mathcal{C}\) . By Proposition 15, \( \mathsf {m}(h_{1})\) is \( (m+1)\) -spherical.

If \( m < n\) , then we deduce from Theorem 3 that \( \mathsf {m}(h_{1})\) is \( (n-m)\) -torsion free, and hence \( 1\) -torsion free. Thus, as

is exact in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) , we conclude from Proposition 6 that

is exact in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) . Hence \( h_{1}\) is a split epimorphism, which implies that the above \( m\) -exact sequence splits, by Proposition 42.

Now, assume that \( n < m\) . Since \( \mathsf {m}(h_{1})\) is \( (m+1)\) -spherical, it follows from Lemma 1 that either \( \mathsf {m}(h_{1})\) is projective or \( \mathsf {pd} \mathsf {m}(h_{1}) = m + 1\) . But as \( n + 1 < m + 1\) and \( \mathsf {gl.dim} (\mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}) \leqslant n + 1\) , it is not possible that \( \mathsf {pd} \mathsf {m}(h_{1}) = m + 1\) , hence \( \mathsf {m}(h_{1})\) is projective. In this case, given that {

} is a projective resolution of \( \mathsf {m}(h_{1})\) in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) , we can easily conclude that \( \mathcal{C}(-,h_{m+1})\) is a split monomorphism, which implies that \( h_{m+1}\) is a split monomorphism. Therefore, the previous \( m\) -exact sequence splits, by Proposition 42.

The next result, which is essentially [2, Theorem 3.9], finalizes the discussion concerning the splitting of \( m\) -exact sequences in \( n\) -abelian categories.

Proof

Suppose that \( \mathcal{C}\) is \( n\) -abelian and every \( n\) -exact sequence in \( \mathcal{C}\) splits. Then, by Theorem 2, \( \mathcal{C}\) satisfies the axioms (F1), (F1\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ), (F2) and (F2\( ^{\mathsf {op}}\) ). Let \( f \in \mathcal{C}(X,Y)\) be a monomorphism in \( \mathcal{C}\) . Then \( \mathsf {pd} \mathsf {m}(f) \leqslant 1\) , so that \( \mathsf {m}(f)\) is \( n\) -torsion free. Therefore, we deduce from Proposition 6 that there is an exact sequence

in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}\) for which

is exact in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) . In this case,

is an \( n\) -exact sequence in \( \mathcal{C}\) , which, therefore, splits. Thus, we have proved that every monomorphism in \( \mathcal{C}\) is a split monomorphism. Consequently, every monomorphism in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) whose domain and codomain are projective is a split monomorphism. Since \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) has enough projectives and \( \mathsf {gl.dim} (\mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}) < \infty\) , we can then easily conclude that \( \mathsf {gl.dim} (\mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}) = 0\) . Hence \( \mathcal{C}\) is von Neumann regular, by Proposition 8.

Conversely, assume that \( \mathcal{C}\) is von Neumann regular. By Proposition 8, \( \mathcal{C}\) is coherent with \( \mathsf {gl.dim} (\mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}) = \mathsf {gl.dim} (\mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}^{\mathsf {op}}) = 0\) . Therefore, it follows from Theorem 2 that \( \mathcal{C}\) is \( n\) -abelian. Moreover, if

is an \( n\) -exact sequence in \( \mathcal{C}\) , then {

} is a projective resolution of \( \mathsf {m}(h_{1})\) in \( \mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}\) . However, \( \mathsf {gl.dim} (\mathsf {mod} \mathcal{C}) = 0\) , hence \( \mathsf {m}(h_{1})\) is projective, and then we can conclude that \( \mathcal{C}(-,h_{n+1})\) is a split monomorphism, which implies that \( h_{n+1}\) is a split monomorphism. Consequently, by Proposition 42, the above \( n\) -exact sequence splits.

Finally, note that Propositions 43 and 44 give another proof of Proposition 11.