Snake lemma
From a commutative diagram with exact rows, produces an exact sequence of kernels and cokernels with a canonical connecting map.
Snake lemma: Let be a ring, and suppose a commutative diagram of -modules has exact rows
Then there is a homomorphism , the connecting homomorphism, such that the sequence
is exact. The maps other than are induced by , and is the cokernel.
The name comes from the picture: the kernels sit above the rows, the cokernels below, and snakes from down to :
The same statement holds in any abelian category, with kernels and cokernels taken in the categorical sense.
Construction of the connecting homomorphism
Given :
- pick with ;
- since , commutativity implies , hence ;
- choose with ;
- define to be the class of in .
A standard diagram chase shows this is well-defined (independent of choices) and gives exactness.
The map is natural in the diagram, and it is the prototype for the connecting homomorphism appearing in long exact sequences.
Examples
- Induced map on quotients: the “kernel–cokernel” exact sequence. Let be an -linear map, and let , satisfy . Consider the commutative diagram with exact rows: The snake lemma produces the exact sequencewhich cleanly measures how kernels/cokernels change when passing to quotients.
- Boundary map in homology from a short exact sequence of complexes. Given a degreewise short exact sequence of chain complexes one applies the snake lemma to the diagram of cycles and boundaries in each degree to construct the connecting mapyielding the usual long exact sequence in homology. (This is the chain-complex analogue of long exact sequences from derived functors.)
- Computing a boundary map concretely (multiplication on a quotient). Fix integers and consider the diagram The connecting map sends a class with to the class of in . This is a concrete instance of how encodes the failure of lifting across the diagram.