The Stacks project

Lemma 20.15.1. Let $f : X \to Y$ be a morphism of ringed spaces. Let $\varphi : f^*\mathcal{G} \to \mathcal{F}$ be an $f$-map from an $\mathcal{O}_ Y$-module $\mathcal{G}$ to an $\mathcal{O}_ X$-module $\mathcal{F}$. Let $\mathcal{U} : X = \bigcup _{i \in I} U_ i$ and $\mathcal{V} : Y = \bigcup _{j \in J} V_ j$ be open coverings. Assume that $\mathcal{U}$ is a refinement of $f^{-1}\mathcal{V} : X = \bigcup _{j \in J} f^{-1}(V_ j)$. In this case there exists a commutative diagram

\[ \xymatrix{ \check{\mathcal{C}}^\bullet (\mathcal{U}, \mathcal{F}) \ar[r] & R\Gamma (X, \mathcal{F}) \\ \check{\mathcal{C}}^\bullet (\mathcal{V}, \mathcal{G}) \ar[r] \ar[u]^\gamma & R\Gamma (Y, \mathcal{G}) \ar[u] } \]

in $D^{+}(\mathcal{O}_ X(X))$ with horizontal arrows given by Lemma 20.11.2 and right vertical arrow by ( In particular we get commutative diagrams of cohomology groups

\[ \xymatrix{ \check{H}^ p(\mathcal{U}, \mathcal{F}) \ar[r] & H^ p(X, \mathcal{F}) \\ \check{H}^ p(\mathcal{V}, \mathcal{G}) \ar[r] \ar[u]^\gamma & H^ p(Y, \mathcal{G}) \ar[u] } \]

where the right vertical arrow is (

Proof. We first define the left vertical arrow. Namely, choose a map $c : I \to J$ such that $U_ i \subset f^{-1}(V_{c(i)})$ for all $i \in I$. In degree $p$ we define the map by the rule

\[ \gamma (s)_{i_0 \ldots i_ p} = \varphi (s)_{c(i_0) \ldots c(i_ p)} \]

This makes sense because $\varphi $ does indeed induce maps $\mathcal{G}(V_{c(i_0) \ldots c(i_ p)}) \to \mathcal{F}(U_{i_0 \ldots i_ p})$ by assumption. It is also clear that this defines a morphism of complexes. Choose injective resolutions $\mathcal{F} \to \mathcal{I}^\bullet $ on $X$ and $\mathcal{G} \to J^\bullet $ on $Y$. According to the proof of Lemma 20.11.2 we introduce the double complexes $A^{\bullet , \bullet }$ and $B^{\bullet , \bullet }$ with terms

\[ B^{p, q} = \check{\mathcal{C}}^ p(\mathcal{V}, \mathcal{J}^ q) \quad \text{and} \quad A^{p, q} = \check{\mathcal{C}}^ p(\mathcal{U}, \mathcal{I}^ q). \]

As in Remark 20.14.2 above we also choose an injective resolution $f_*\mathcal{I} \to (\mathcal{J}')^\bullet $ on $Y$ and a morphism of complexes $\beta : \mathcal{J} \to (\mathcal{J}')^\bullet $ making ( commutes. We introduce some more double complexes, namely $(B')^{\bullet , \bullet }$ and $(B'')^{\bullet , \bullet }$ with

\[ (B')^{p, q} = \check{\mathcal{C}}^ p(\mathcal{V}, (\mathcal{J}')^ q) \quad \text{and} \quad (B'')^{p, q} = \check{\mathcal{C}}^ p(\mathcal{V}, f_*\mathcal{I}^ q). \]

Note that there is an $f$-map of complexes from $f_*\mathcal{I}^\bullet $ to $\mathcal{I}^\bullet $. Hence it is clear that the same rule as above defines a morphism of double complexes

\[ \gamma : (B'')^{\bullet , \bullet } \longrightarrow A^{\bullet , \bullet }. \]

Consider the diagram of complexes

\[ \xymatrix{ \check{\mathcal{C}}^\bullet (\mathcal{U}, \mathcal{F}) \ar[r] & \text{Tot}(A^{\bullet , \bullet }) & & & \Gamma (X, \mathcal{I}^\bullet ) \ar[lll]^{qis} \ar@{=}[ddl]\\ \check{\mathcal{C}}^\bullet (\mathcal{V}, \mathcal{G}) \ar[r] \ar[u]^\gamma & \text{Tot}(B^{\bullet , \bullet }) \ar[r]^\beta & \text{Tot}((B')^{\bullet , \bullet }) & \text{Tot}((B'')^{\bullet , \bullet }) \ar[l] \ar[llu]_{s\gamma } \\ & \Gamma (Y, \mathcal{J}^\bullet ) \ar[u]^{qis} \ar[r]^\beta & \Gamma (Y, (\mathcal{J}')^\bullet ) \ar[u] & \Gamma (Y, f_*\mathcal{I}^\bullet ) \ar[u] \ar[l]_{qis} } \]

The two horizontal arrows with targets $\text{Tot}(A^{\bullet , \bullet })$ and $\text{Tot}(B^{\bullet , \bullet })$ are the ones explained in Lemma 20.11.2. The left upper shape (a pentagon) is commutative simply because ( is commutative. The two lower squares are trivially commutative. It is also immediate from the definitions that the right upper shape (a square) is commutative. The result of the lemma now follows from the definitions and the fact that going around the diagram on the outer sides from $\check{\mathcal{C}}^\bullet (\mathcal{V}, \mathcal{G})$ to $\Gamma (X, \mathcal{I}^\bullet )$ either on top or on bottom is the same (where you have to invert any quasi-isomorphisms along the way). $\square$

Comments (2)

Comment #7505 by Xiaolong Liu on

At the above of the diagram, it should be instead of .

There are also:

  • 2 comment(s) on Section 20.15: Refinements and Čech cohomology

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 01FD. Beware of the difference between the letter 'O' and the digit '0'.