The Stacks project

Proposition 7.9.1. The functors $\mathcal{F} \mapsto \mathcal{F}({}_ GG)$ and $S \mapsto \mathcal{F}_ S$ define quasi-inverse equivalences between $\mathop{\mathit{Sh}}\nolimits (\mathcal{T}_ G)$ and $G\textit{-Sets}$.

Proof. We have already seen that composing the functors one way around is isomorphic to the identity functor. In the other direction, for any sheaf $\mathcal{H}$ there is a natural map of sheaves

\[ can : \mathcal{H} \longrightarrow \mathcal{F}_{\mathcal{H}({}_ GG)}. \]

Namely, for any object $U$ of $\mathcal{T}_ G$ we let $can_ U$ be the map

\[ \begin{matrix} \mathcal{H}(U) & \longrightarrow & \mathcal{F}_{\mathcal{H}({}_ GG)}(U) = \mathop{\mathrm{Mor}}\nolimits _ G(U, \mathcal{H}({}_ GG)) \\ s & \longmapsto & (u \mapsto \alpha _ u^*s). \end{matrix} \]

Here $\alpha _ u : {}_ GG \to U$ is the map $\alpha _ u(g) = gu$ and $\alpha _ u^* : \mathcal{H}(U) \to \mathcal{H}({}_ GG)$ is the pullback map. A trivial but confusing verification shows that this is indeed a map of presheaves. We have to show that $can$ is an isomorphism. We do this by showing $can_ U$ is an isomorphism for all $U \in \mathop{\mathrm{Ob}}\nolimits (\mathcal{T}_ G)$. We leave the (important but easy) case that $U = {}_ GG$ to the reader. A general object $U$ of $\mathcal{T}_ G$ is a disjoint union of $G$-orbits: $U = \coprod _{i\in I} O_ i$. The family of maps $\{ O_ i \to U\} _{i \in I}$ is tautologically equivalent to a covering in $\mathcal{T}_ G$ (by the properties of $\mathcal{T}_ G$ listed at the beginning of this section). Hence by Lemma 7.8.4 the sheaf $\mathcal{H}$ satisfies the sheaf property with respect to $\{ O_ i \to U\} _{i \in I}$. The sheaf property for this covering implies $\mathcal{H}(U) = \prod _ i \mathcal{H}(O_ i)$. Hence it suffices to show that $can_ U$ is an isomorphism when $U$ consists of a single $G$-orbit. Let $u \in U$ and let $H \subset G$ be its stabilizer. Clearly, $\mathop{\mathrm{Mor}}\nolimits _ G(U, \mathcal{H}({}_ GG)) = \mathcal{H}({}_ GG)^ H$ equals the subset of $H$-invariant elements. On the other hand consider the covering $\{ {}_ GG \to U\} $ given by $g \mapsto gu$ (again it is just combinatorially equivalent to some covering of $\mathcal{T}_ G$, and again this doesn't matter). Note that the fibre product $({}_ GG)\times _ U ({}_ GG)$ is equal to $\{ (g, gh), g\in G, h\in H\} \cong \coprod _{h\in H} {}_ GG$. Hence the sheaf property for this covering reads as

\[ \xymatrix{ \mathcal{H}(U) \ar[r] & \mathcal{H}({}_ GG) \ar@<1ex>[r]^-{\text{pr}_0^*} \ar@<-1ex>[r]_-{\text{pr}_1^*} & \prod _{h \in H} \mathcal{H}({}_ GG). } \]

The two maps $\text{pr}_ i^*$ into the factor $\mathcal{H}({}_ GG)$ differ by multiplication by $h$. Now the result follows from this and the fact that $can$ is an isomorphism for $U = {}_ GG$. $\square$

Comments (2)

Comment #1848 by B on

Should there be a coproduct (disjoint union) rather than a product in the line "Note that the fibre product is equal to ."?

Post a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked.

In your comment you can use Markdown and LaTeX style mathematics (enclose it like $\pi$). A preview option is available if you wish to see how it works out (just click on the eye in the toolbar).

Unfortunately JavaScript is disabled in your browser, so the comment preview function will not work.

All contributions are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.

In order to prevent bots from posting comments, we would like you to prove that you are human. You can do this by filling in the name of the current tag in the following input field. As a reminder, this is tag 00W0. Beware of the difference between the letter 'O' and the digit '0'.