Comparing $\mathrm{Add}(M)$ with $\mathrm{Prod}(M)$

Cristian Rafiliu; Simion Breaz

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 31 references

Comparing $\mathrm{Add}(M)$ with $\mathrm{Prod}(M)$

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Add(M)⊆Prod(M) iff M is Σ-pure-injective, in locally finitely presented and compactly generated triangulated categories, when Hom-sets are non-ω-measurable; Prod(M) is then (pre)covering and covering-closure follows.

desk verdict The paper has a genuinely useful new Chase-type lemma and a plausible transfer of the Add/Prod characterizations to locally finitely presented and triangulated categories, but Theorem 3.6 as written has a real, likely fixable gap: the index set I is never shown to be non-omega-measurable before invoking Proposition 2.6. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.08993 v2 pith:QC2FVIOL submitted 2025-01-15 math.CT

Simion Breaz , Cristian Rafiliu This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.CT MSC 18G8018A2518G0520K25

keywords locallyfinitelypresentedcategoriesΣ-pure-injectiveobjectsproduct-completeChase'sLemmaprecoveringclassespreenvelopingcompactlygeneratedtriangulatedω-measurablecardinals

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks when the two closure classes generated by a single object $M$—direct summands of direct sums, $\mathrm{Add}(M)$, and direct summands of direct products, $\mathrm{Prod}(M)$—contain one another. Its main theorem says that in a locally finitely presented additive category, if $|\mathrm{Hom}(X,M)|$ is not $\omega$-measurable for every finitely presented $X$, then $\mathrm{Add}(M)\subseteq\mathrm{Prod}(M)$ holds exactly when $M$ is $\Sigma$-pure-injective. The same characterization is proved for compactly generated triangulated categories via the restricted Yoneda functor. Because $\Sigma$-pure-injectivity also forces $\mathrm{Prod}(M)$ to be closed under direct sums and pure quotients, the equivalence turns into concrete approximation-theoretic consequences: $\mathrm{Prod}(M)$ is a (pre)covering class precisely in that case, and, assuming there are no $\omega$-measurable cardinals, such covering classes are closed under directed limits.

What carries the argument

The engine is the generalized Chase lemma, Lemma 2.4. A Chase system is a homomorphism $\varphi:\prod_{i\in I}A_i\to\bigoplus_{j\in J}B_j$ of abelian groups together with descending chains of subgroups $A_{i,k}$ and $B_{j,k}$ such that $\varphi$ sends $\prod_i A_{i,k}$ into $\bigoplus_j B_{j,k}$; the lemma asserts that if $I$ is not $\omega$-measurable, then $\varphi$ maps the product of sufficiently deep subgroups over all but finitely many coordinates into a finite direct sum plus the intersection over $n$ of the direct sums of the $B_{j,n}$. Proposition 2.6 converts this into a descending-chain stationarity result under surjectivity and cardinality hypotheses, and Theorem 3.4 identifies that stationarity with $\Sigma$-pure-injectivity. In the triangulated half, the restricted Yoneda functor $H:T\to\mathrm{Mod}\text{-}T^c$ moves the question into a locally finitely presented Grothendieck category, where the same machinery applies.

What would settle it

Search for an object $M$ in a locally finitely presented category such that $|\mathrm{Hom}(X,M)|$ is non-$\omega$-measurable for every finitely presented $X$, $\mathrm{Add}(M)\subseteq\mathrm{Prod}(M)$ holds, yet some $\mathrm{Hom}(X,M)$ has a strictly descending chain of subgroups of finite definition. By Theorem 3.4 that chain is exactly the failure of $\Sigma$-pure-injectivity, so its existence would refute Theorem 3.6; the proof's own Proposition 2.6 would be the step forced to fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is Theorem 3.6: for an object $M$ in a locally finitely presented category $\mathcal{A}$ with $|\mathrm{Hom}(X,M)|$ non-$\omega$-measurable for every finitely presented $X$, the inclusion $\mathrm{Add}(M)\subseteq\mathrm{Prod}(M)$ is equivalent to $M$ being $\Sigma$-pure-injective. The forward direction formalizes a split epimorphism $M^I\to M^{(J)}$ as a Chase system and applies the generalized Chase lemma to show that all descending chains of subgroups of finite definition in $\mathrm{Hom}(X,M)$ are stationary, which is the standard certificate of $\Sigma$-pure-injectivity. The reverse direction observes that $\Sigma$-pure-injectivity makes the summation map from a direct sum of copies of $M$ into a product a split monomorphism. Theorem 4.4 repeats the equivalence in compactly generated triangulated categories, and Corollaries 3.10 and 4.8 convert it into the statement that $\mathrm{Prod}(M)$ is precovering, covering, or definable exactly under the same condition.

Load-bearing premise

The characterization rests on the generalized Chase lemma's claim that a homomorphism from a product of abelian groups over a non-$\omega$-measurable index set into a direct sum almost factors through finitely many coordinates; if that set-theoretic factorization fails, the proof that $\mathrm{Add}(M)\subseteq\mathrm{Prod}(M)$ forces $\Sigma$-pure-injectivity collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If every $\mathrm{Hom}(X,M)$ has non-$\omega$-measurable cardinality, then $\mathrm{Prod}(M)$ is a precovering class exactly when it is a covering class, and exactly when $M$ is $\Sigma$-pure-injective.
Assuming no $\omega$-measurable cardinals exist, any precovering class of the form $\mathrm{Prod}(M)$ is closed under directed limits, a positive case of the conjecture that every covering class is closed under directed limits.
The equality $\mathrm{Prod}(M)=\mathrm{Add}(M)$ holds exactly when $M$ is $\Sigma$-pure-injective and product-rigid (every local-endomorphism-ring direct summand of a product of copies of $M$ is a direct summand of $M$); consequently $M$ is product-complete exactly when $\mathrm{Add}(M)$ is a (pre)enveloping class.
In algebraic compactly generated triangulated categories, $\mathrm{Prod}(M)$ is definable, precovering, or covering exactly when $M$ is $\Sigma$-pure-injective, giving the triangulated analogue of the approximation consequences.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A reusable consequence the paper leaves implicit is that any proof built on Chase's lemma over countable index sets can be rerun over non-$\omega$-measurable index sets whenever the Hom-groups involved have non-$\omega$-measurable cardinality, which broadens the range of module-theoretic arguments that transfer to larger products.
The set-theoretic boundary is sharp: because a known construction under large-cardinal assumptions produces a non-$\Sigma$-pure-injective free module with $\mathrm{Add}(F)\subseteq\mathrm{Prod}(F)$, the theorem's equivalence cannot be a theorem of ZFC; the non-$\omega$-measurability hypothesis is what keeps the proof inside ZFC.
For objects $M$ whose Hom-sets $\mathrm{Hom}(X,M)$ are all countable—or more generally below the first measurable cardinal—the characterization applies unconditionally, making the $\mathrm{Add}(M)\subseteq\mathrm{Prod}(M)$ condition a directly checkable test for $\Sigma$-pure-injectivity in many concrete categories.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

The short version: this paper has a nice new Chase-type lemma and a sensible extension of known module-theoretic results to locally finitely presented and compactly generated triangulated categories, but the main theorem as written rests on an unverified set-theoretic hypothesis. It deserves a serious referee, but the authors need to fill a gap before the result is established.

What's actually new: Lemma 2.4 is a genuinely useful generalization of Chase's lemma to non-omega-measurable index sets, proved by a clean induction using Lemma 2.3. The characterizations in Theorem 3.6 and Theorem 4.4 (Add(M) ⊆ Prod(M) iff M is Sigma-pure-injective, under non-omega-measurable Hom sets) extend known module-level results to broader categories, and the applications to covering/enveloping classes (Corollaries 3.10–3.14 and 4.8–4.12) are well motivated. The paper is honest about the set-theoretic dependence, noting Remark 3.7 and citing Saroch's counterexample. I saw no circularity.

The soft spot is exactly where the stress-test note points. In Theorem 3.6(i)⇒(ii), the proof takes Add(M) ⊆ Prod(M), fixes X and a descending chain of subgroups of finite definition, and from a split epimorphism f: ∏_{i∈I} M → ⊕_{j∈J} M obtains a Chase system. It then applies Proposition 2.6, which requires I to be non-omega-measurable. But nothing in the proof shows that the I produced by the split epimorphism can be chosen with non-omega-measurable cardinality. The theorem's hypothesis only bounds Hom(X,M), not I. The reader's note flagged this too, and the stress-test note is right that this is the load-bearing issue. It looks fixable—one might enlarge I or chase through the construction—but as written the implication is not proved. The same issue might affect the triangulated analogue, Theorem 4.4.

Also, Corollary 4.8 asserts finite generation of the right ideal Ker(Hom(M^J, α)) without a clear argument; that's a less central concern but worth tightening.

Who is this for: anyone working on purity, Sigma-pure-injectivity, or approximation theory in additive or triangulated categories. If the gap is repaired, this would be a solid contribution.

My recommendation: send it to peer review, with a referee who knows the set-theoretic background. The chase lemma and the applications are valuable enough that a good referee can help the authors fix the index-set issue. Worth engaging.

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper characterizes the inclusions Add(M) ⊆ Prod(M) and Prod(M) ⊆ Add(M) in locally finitely presented additive categories and in compactly generated triangulated categories. The main results are Theorem 3.6 and Theorem 4.4, which equate Add(M) ⊆ Prod(M) with Σ-pure-injectivity under the hypothesis that all relevant Hom-groups have non-omega-measurable cardinality; Corollaries 3.10 and 4.8 apply this to the question of when Prod(M) is a (pre)covering class, and Corollaries 3.14 and 4.12 give the dual statements for Add(M). Theorems 3.13 and 4.10 characterize product-complete objects. The technical engine is a generalized Chase-type lemma (Lemma 2.4) and a consequence, Proposition 2.6, which force descending chains of subgroups of finite definition to become stationary.

Significance. The results are significant: they extend classical module-theoretic characterizations of Σ-pure-injectivity and product-completeness to a categorical setting, and they connect these notions to approximation theory and to Enochs-type conjectures. The paper is careful about the set-theoretic hypotheses, and Remarks 3.7 and 4.5 explicitly acknowledge that the main implications cannot be proved in ZFC if omega-measurable cardinals are allowed. The categorical framework via the evaluation functor and the purity category is well chosen, and the transfer to compactly generated triangulated categories is a natural and useful extension. I found no circularity: the proofs build on the paper's Chase-type lemma together with cited external results. The main reservation concerns a load-bearing missing verification in the proof of Theorem 3.6, described below.

major comments (1)

[Theorem 3.6, proof of (i)⇒(ii), Section 3.3] The proof applies Proposition 2.6 to the Chase system indexed by the set I obtained from Add(M) ⊆ Prod(M), but Proposition 2.6 requires, as hypothesis (i), that I have non-omega-measurable cardinality. The only non-measurability assumption in Theorem 3.6 concerns the cardinalities of Hom(X,M) for X ∈ fpA; nothing in the proof controls the index set I. Indeed, Add(M) ⊆ Prod(M) asserts only that the direct sum ⊕_{j∈J} M is a direct summand of some product ∏_{i∈I} M, and the set I is otherwise arbitrary. No argument is given that I can be chosen non-omega-measurable, nor that |I| is bounded in terms of |Hom(X,M)|. Since Remark 2.5 records that Lemma 2.4 and hence Proposition 2.6 fail for omega-measurable index sets, the conclusion that the chain (Hom(Y_k,M)b_k) is stationary is not justified as written. This gap is load-bearing for Theorem 3.6 and propagates to Theorem 4.4 via the application of Theorem 3.6. The proof should either show that the existence of a split epimorphism ∏_{i∈I} M → ⊕_{j∈J} M with |J| > |Hom(X,M)| forces the existence of a non-omega-measurable I satisfying the same hypotheses, or modify the argument so that Proposition 2.6 is applied to an index set whose non-measurability is actually verified.

minor comments (4)

[Lemma 2.3, Section 2] The statement says "If there exists a subset I in the power-set of I"; it should say "If there exists a family \mathcal{I} of subsets of I". The overloaded notation I for both the set and the family makes the proof harder to read.
[Corollary 3.10, Section 3.3] The transfer from a Prod(ev(M))-cover to a Prod(M)-cover is compressed: a cover K is a direct summand of ev(M^I) (for some product), not of ev(X), so it would be clearer to state explicitly that Lemma 3.9 is applied with A = M^I.
[Theorem 3.13, Section 3.4] In the proof of (iii)⇒(i), the sentence "Since for A is Σ-pure-injective" should read "Since M is Σ-pure-injective".
[Theorem 4.4, Section 4.2] The step "From [12, Theorem 2.11], it follows that for every finitely presented object K from Mod-T^c the group Hom(K,HM) is not omega-measurable" relies on a nontrivial transfer from representable functors to all finitely presented functors; a brief explanation of how the cited theorem applies would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the main theorems are derived from Chase-type lemmas and independent purity/approximation results, with no step reducing the conclusion to its own input.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. Theorem 3.6 is proved using Proposition 2.6, which is obtained from the generalized Chase Lemma 2.4; Lemma 2.4 is proved by induction from Lemma 2.1 and the set-theoretic criterion Lemma 2.3, none of which presupposes that Add(M) subset Prod(M) implies Sigma-pure-injectivity. The external facts invoked, such as Theorem 3.4 characterising Sigma-pure-injective objects, [24] approximation-theoretic results, and [15] closure of precovering classes under direct sums, are independent of the target statements. The citation to [7, Proposition 2.3] inside the proof of Proposition 2.6 is a technical proof template from an earlier paper by the first author, but [7] is an independent published module-theoretic result, and the proposition's hypotheses are verified from the Chase system rather than assumed from the desired conclusion. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no definition is given in terms of the object it is used to characterise, and no uniqueness claim is imported from prior work to force the choice. The reviewer-noted issue in Theorem 3.6, namely that the index set I arising from Add(M) subset Prod(M) is not shown to be non-omega-measurable before applying Proposition 2.6, is a correctness or set-theoretic gap rather than a circularity, since the missing verification is a hypothesis of the proposition and not an input that already contains the theorem. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard purity theory via [19], [24], and [5], a set-theoretic non-omega-measurability hypothesis, and the paper's own generalized Chase Lemma. There are no fitted parameters and no invented physical or algebraic entities. The main burden is the set-theoretic assumption and the correctness of the Chase-type arguments.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The ambient category A is locally finitely presented, idempotent complete, with cokernels, filtered colimits, and products, as in [19].
Section 3 sets the entire framework on these properties; all arguments in Section 3 use them without proof.
domain assumption The purity embedding ev: A -> P(A) from [19, Lemma 12.1.4] is fully faithful and commutes with filtered colimits, direct products, and cokernels.
Used in Lemma 3.1, Lemma 3.9, Corollary 3.10, and Theorem 3.13 to transfer purity, products, sums, and idempotent splitting between A and the Grothendieck category P(A).
domain assumption Hom(X,M) has non-omega-measurable cardinality for every finitely presented (resp. compact) X, and in Corollaries 3.11 and 4.9 there are no omega-measurable cardinals at all.
This set-theoretic hypothesis is essential. Remark 3.7 and Saroch's example [27] show the implication (i) to (ii) in Theorem 3.6 fails in ZFC when omega-measurable cardinals exist.
domain assumption External approximation theorems: [24, Theorem 2.4] derives precovers from closure under direct sums and pure quotients, and [24, Corollary 4.7/4.8] does the same for definability in triangulated categories.
Corollary 3.10 and Corollary 4.8 rely on these external results to convert algebraic closure properties into existence of precovering and covering classes.
standard math Walker-Warfield theorem [30, Theorem 2]: in an additive category, a direct summand with local endomorphism ring of a direct sum of objects with local endomorphism rings is isomorphic to one of the summands.
Used in Lemma 3.12 to identify indecomposable summands of products of M; also implicit in the use of Theorem 3.4 and Theorem 4.2.
domain assumption [12, Theorem 2.11] transfers non-omega-measurability from Hom(HC,HM) for compact C to Hom(K,HM) for every finitely presented K in Mod-T^c.
This is needed in the proof of Theorem 4.4, implication (ii) to (iii), to apply the locally finitely presented category results to the purity category Mod-T^c.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Comparing $\mathrm{Add}(M)$ with $\mathrm{Prod}(M)$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QC2FVIOL

@misc{pith2026250108993,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Comparing $\mathrmAdd(M)$ with $\mathrmProd(M)$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QC2FVIOL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.08993}
}

abstract

We present characterizations for the inclusions $\mathrm{Add}(M)\subseteq \mathrm{Prod}(M)$ and $\mathrm{Prod}(M)\subseteq \mathrm{Add}(M)$ in locally finitely presented categories and in compactly generated triangulated categories. As applications, we describe the situations when the classes of the form $\mathrm{Prod}(M)$ and $\mathrm{Add}(M)$ are (pre)covering, respectively (pre)enveloping.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

[1]

Angeleri-H¨ ugel,Covers and envelopes via endoproperties of modules , Proc

L. Angeleri-H¨ ugel,Covers and envelopes via endoproperties of modules , Proc. London Math. Soc. 86 (2003), 649–665

work page 2003
[2]

Angeleri-H¨ ugel, Direct summands of products , Arch

L. Angeleri-H¨ ugel, Direct summands of products , Arch. Math. 78 (2002), 12–23

work page 2002
[3]

Angeleri-H¨ ugel, On some precovers and preenvelopes , Habilitationsschrift, 2000

L. Angeleri-H¨ ugel, On some precovers and preenvelopes , Habilitationsschrift, 2000. 15

work page 2000
[4]

Angeleri-H¨ ugel, J

L. Angeleri-H¨ ugel, J. ˇSaroch, J. Trlifaj, On the telescope conjecture for module categories , J. Pure Appl. Algebra 212 (2008), 297–310

work page 2008
[5]

Bennett-Tennenhaus, Characterisations of Σ -pure-injectivity in triangulated categories and applications to endoperfect objects , Fund

R. Bennett-Tennenhaus, Characterisations of Σ -pure-injectivity in triangulated categories and applications to endoperfect objects , Fund. Math. 261 (2023), No. 2, 133–155

work page 2023
[6]

I. Bird, J. Williamson, Duality pairs, phantom maps, and deﬁnability in triangulat ed cate- gories, to appear in Proc. R. Soc. Edinb. Sect. A., https://doi.org /10.1017/prm.2024.73

doi:10.1017/prm.2024.73 2024
[7]

Breaz, Σ -pure injectivity and Brown Representability , Proc

S. Breaz, Σ -pure injectivity and Brown Representability , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 143 (2015), No. 7, 2789–2794

work page 2015
[8]

Breaz, and J

S. Breaz, and J. Zemliˇ cka, The defect functor of a homomorphism and direct unions , Algebr. Represent. Theory 19 (2016), 181–208

work page 2016

Show all 31 references

[9]

Chase, On direct sums and products of modules , Paciﬁc J

S.U. Chase, On direct sums and products of modules , Paciﬁc J. Math. 12 (1962), No. 3, 847–854

1962
[10]

Cort´ es-Izurdiaga, J

M. Cort´ es-Izurdiaga, J. ˇSaroch, The cotorsion pair generated by the Gorenstein projective modules and λ -pure-injective modules, arXiv:2104.08602 [math.RT] (2021)

2021 arXiv
[11]

Dugas, B

M. Dugas, B. Zimmermann-Huisgen, Iterated direct sums and products of modules , Abelian group theory (Oberwolfach, 1981), Lecture Notes in Math., v ol. 874, Springer, Berlin, 1981, 179–193

1981
[12]

P. C. Eklof, A. H. Mekler. Almost free modules. Set-theo retic methods, volume 65 of North- Holland Mathematical Library. North-Holland Publishing C o., Amsterdam, revised edition, 2002

2002
[13]

Garkusha, M

G. Garkusha, M. Prest, Triangulated categories and Ziegler spectrum , Algebr. Represent. Theory 8 (2005), No. 4, 499–523

2005
[14]

G¨ obel, J

R. G¨ obel, J. Trlifaj, Approximations and Endomorphis m Algebras of Modules, de Gruyter Expositions in Mathematics 41, 2nd revised and extended edi tion, Berlin-Boston 2012

2012
[15]

Holm and P

H. Holm and P. Jørgensen, Covers, precovers, and purity , Illinois J. Math. 52 (2008), 691–703

2008
[16]

Hrbek, L

M. Hrbek, L. Martini. Product-complete tilting complexes and Cohen–Macaulay he arts, Re- vista Matem´ atica Iberoamericana 40 (2024), 2339–2369

2024
[17]

Huisgen-Zimmermann, Purity, algebraic compactness, direct sum decompositions , and representation type, in: Inﬁnite Length Modules (Bielefeld, 1998), Trends

B. Huisgen-Zimmermann, Purity, algebraic compactness, direct sum decompositions , and representation type, in: Inﬁnite Length Modules (Bielefeld, 1998), Trends. Mat h., Birkh¨ auser, Basel, 2000, 331–367

1998
[18]

Krause, Chase’s lemma and its context , Expo

H. Krause, Chase’s lemma and its context , Expo. Math. 39 (2021), No. 4, 583–589

2021
[19]

Krause, Homological Theory of Representations , Cambridge University Press, 2022

H. Krause, Homological Theory of Representations , Cambridge University Press, 2022

2022
[20]

Krause, Coherent functors in stable homotopy theory , Fundamenta Math

H. Krause, Coherent functors in stable homotopy theory , Fundamenta Math. 173 (2002), 33–56

2002
[21]

Krause, Smashing subcategories and the telescope and the telescope conjecture - an alge- braic approach, Invent

H. Krause, Smashing subcategories and the telescope and the telescope conjecture - an alge- braic approach, Invent. Math. 139 (2000), 99–133

2000
[22]

Krause, M

H. Krause, M. Saor ´ ın, On minimal approximations of modules , in: E.L. Green, B. Huisgen- Zimmermann (Eds.), Trends in the Representation Theory of F inite Dimensional Algebras, Contemp. Math. 229 (1998), 227–236

1998
[23]

Laking, Purity in compactly generated derivators and t-structures with Grothendieck hearts, Math

R. Laking, Purity in compactly generated derivators and t-structures with Grothendieck hearts, Math. Z. 295 (2020), 1615–1641

2020
[24]

Laking and J

R. Laking and J. Vit´ oria, Deﬁnability and approximations in triangulated categorie s, Paciﬁc J. Math. 306 (2020), 557–586

2020
[25]

Prest, R

M. Prest, R. W agstaﬀe, Model theory in compactly generated (tensor-)triangulate d categories, Model Theory 3 (2024), 147–197

2024
[26]

ˇSaroch, Enochs’ conjecture for small precovering classes of module s, Israel J

J. ˇSaroch, Enochs’ conjecture for small precovering classes of module s, Israel J. Math. 255 (2023), 401–415

2023
[27]

ˇSaroch, Σ -algebraically compact modules and Lω 1ω -compact cardinals, Math

J. ˇSaroch, Σ -algebraically compact modules and Lω 1ω -compact cardinals, Math. Log. Quart. 61 (2015), No. 3, 196–201

2015
[28]

ˇSaroch, J

J. ˇSaroch, J. Trlifaj, Test sets for factorization properties of modules , Rendiconti Semin. Matem. Univ. Padova 144 (2020), 217–238

2020
[29]

Simson, On pure semi-simple Grothendieck categories I , Fund

D. Simson, On pure semi-simple Grothendieck categories I , Fund. Math., 100 (1978), 211–222

1978
[30]

W alker, R.B

C.L. W alker, R.B. W arﬁeld Jr., Unique decomposition and isomorphic reﬁnement theorems in additive categories , J. Pure Appl. Algebra 7 (1976), No. 3, 347–359

1976
[31]

Zimmermann-Huisgen, Rings whose right modules are direct sums of indecomposable mod- ules, Proc

B. Zimmermann-Huisgen, Rings whose right modules are direct sums of indecomposable mod- ules, Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 77 (1979), No. 2, 191–197. 16 SIMION BREAZ, CRISTIAN RAFILIU ”Babes ¸-Bolyai” University, F aculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, Str. Mi- hail Kog ˘alnicea...

1979

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Angeleri-H¨ ugel,Covers and envelopes via endoproperties of modules , Proc

L. Angeleri-H¨ ugel,Covers and envelopes via endoproperties of modules , Proc. London Math. Soc. 86 (2003), 649–665

work page 2003

[2] [2]

Angeleri-H¨ ugel, Direct summands of products , Arch

L. Angeleri-H¨ ugel, Direct summands of products , Arch. Math. 78 (2002), 12–23

work page 2002

[3] [3]

Angeleri-H¨ ugel, On some precovers and preenvelopes , Habilitationsschrift, 2000

L. Angeleri-H¨ ugel, On some precovers and preenvelopes , Habilitationsschrift, 2000. 15

work page 2000

[4] [4]

Angeleri-H¨ ugel, J

L. Angeleri-H¨ ugel, J. ˇSaroch, J. Trlifaj, On the telescope conjecture for module categories , J. Pure Appl. Algebra 212 (2008), 297–310

work page 2008

[5] [5]

Bennett-Tennenhaus, Characterisations of Σ -pure-injectivity in triangulated categories and applications to endoperfect objects , Fund

R. Bennett-Tennenhaus, Characterisations of Σ -pure-injectivity in triangulated categories and applications to endoperfect objects , Fund. Math. 261 (2023), No. 2, 133–155

work page 2023

[6] [6]

I. Bird, J. Williamson, Duality pairs, phantom maps, and deﬁnability in triangulat ed cate- gories, to appear in Proc. R. Soc. Edinb. Sect. A., https://doi.org /10.1017/prm.2024.73

doi:10.1017/prm.2024.73 2024

[7] [7]

Breaz, Σ -pure injectivity and Brown Representability , Proc

S. Breaz, Σ -pure injectivity and Brown Representability , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 143 (2015), No. 7, 2789–2794

work page 2015

[8] [8]

Breaz, and J

S. Breaz, and J. Zemliˇ cka, The defect functor of a homomorphism and direct unions , Algebr. Represent. Theory 19 (2016), 181–208

work page 2016