Processing math: 100%

The Stacks project

Lemma 27.2.2. Let S be a scheme. Let \mathcal{B} be a basis for the topology of S. Suppose given the following data:

  1. For every U \in \mathcal{B} a scheme f_ U : X_ U \to U over U.

  2. For every U \in \mathcal{B} a quasi-coherent sheaf \mathcal{F}_ U over X_ U.

  3. For every pair U, V \in \mathcal{B} such that V \subset U a morphism \rho ^ U_ V : X_ V \to X_ U.

  4. For every pair U, V \in \mathcal{B} such that V \subset U a morphism \theta ^ U_ V : (\rho ^ U_ V)^*\mathcal{F}_ U \to \mathcal{F}_ V.

Assume that

  1. each \rho ^ U_ V induces an isomorphism X_ V \to f_ U^{-1}(V) of schemes over V,

  2. each \theta ^ U_ V is an isomorphism,

  3. whenever W, V, U \in \mathcal{B}, with W \subset V \subset U we have \rho ^ U_ W = \rho ^ U_ V \circ \rho ^ V_ W,

  4. whenever W, V, U \in \mathcal{B}, with W \subset V \subset U we have \theta ^ U_ W = \theta ^ V_ W \circ (\rho ^ V_ W)^*\theta ^ U_ V.

Then there exists a morphism of schemes f : X \to S together with a quasi-coherent sheaf \mathcal{F} on X and isomorphisms i_ U : f^{-1}(U) \to X_ U and \theta _ U : i_ U^*\mathcal{F}_ U \to \mathcal{F}|_{f^{-1}(U)} over U \in \mathcal{B} such that for V, U \in \mathcal{B} with V \subset U the composition

\xymatrix{ X_ V \ar[r]^{i_ V^{-1}} & f^{-1}(V) \ar[rr]^{inclusion} & & f^{-1}(U) \ar[r]^{i_ U} & X_ U }

is the morphism \rho ^ U_ V, and the composition

27.2.2.1
\begin{equation} \label{constructions-equation-glue} (\rho ^ U_ V)^*\mathcal{F}_ U = (i_ V^{-1})^*((i_ U^*\mathcal{F}_ U)|_{f^{-1}(V)}) \xrightarrow {\theta _ U|_{f^{-1}(V)}} (i_ V^{-1})^*(\mathcal{F}|_{f^{-1}(V)}) \xrightarrow {\theta _ V^{-1}} \mathcal{F}_ V \end{equation}

is equal to \theta ^ U_ V. Moreover (X, \mathcal{F}) is unique up to unique isomorphism over S.

Proof. By Lemma 27.2.1 we get the scheme X over S and the isomorphisms i_ U. Set \mathcal{F}'_ U = i_ U^*\mathcal{F}_ U for U \in \mathcal{B}. This is a quasi-coherent \mathcal{O}_{f^{-1}(U)}-module. The maps

\mathcal{F}'_ U|_{f^{-1}(V)} = i_ U^*\mathcal{F}_ U|_{f^{-1}(V)} = i_ V^*(\rho ^ U_ V)^*\mathcal{F}_ U \xrightarrow {i_ V^*\theta ^ U_ V} i_ V^*\mathcal{F}_ V = \mathcal{F}'_ V

define isomorphisms (\theta ')^ U_ V : \mathcal{F}'_ U|_{f^{-1}(V)} \to \mathcal{F}'_ V whenever V \subset U are elements of \mathcal{B}. Condition (d) says exactly that this is compatible in case we have a triple of elements W \subset V \subset U of \mathcal{B}. This allows us to get well defined isomorphisms

\varphi _{12} : \mathcal{F}'_{U_1}|_{f^{-1}(U_1 \cap U_2)} \longrightarrow \mathcal{F}'_{U_2}|_{f^{-1}(U_1 \cap U_2)}

whenever U_1, U_2 \in \mathcal{B} by covering the intersection U_1 \cap U_2 = \bigcup V_ j by elements V_ j of \mathcal{B} and taking

\varphi _{12}|_{V_ j} = \left((\theta ')^{U_2}_{V_ j}\right)^{-1} \circ (\theta ')^{U_1}_{V_ j}.

We omit the verification that these maps do indeed glue to a \varphi _{12} and we omit the verification of the cocycle condition of a glueing datum for sheaves (as in Sheaves, Section 6.33). By Sheaves, Lemma 6.33.2 we get our \mathcal{F} on X. We omit the verification of (27.2.2.1). \square


Comments (3)

Comment #8442 by on

In 27.2.2.1, I think the middle and last arrows should be labelled as and , respectively.

Instead of saying "by covering the intersection by elements of and taking" I think it would be better to write "by considering any such that and defining", since actually using some covering is not enough to later construct .

To give just the minimum amount of hints to avoid the first use of "we omit," one could:

  1. After "condition (d) says exactly that this is compatible in case we have a triple of elements of ," add "i.e., ."
  2. If we used the notation for what the proof currently denotes , then instead of "we omit the verification that these maps do indeed glue to a " one could write "since for with , by Sheaves, 6.33.1, we get a ."

On the other hand, I think that for 27.2.2.1 to follow, in the lemma hypotheses we would need to add "suppose and for ." The proof of 27.2.2.1 may be added after "we get our on " by adding "along with isomorphisms , , such that for . In particular, for with , we have , which is 27.2.2.1 (in the middle equality we used the definition of , plus )."

Comment #8443 by on

Okay, sorry, the conditions and already follow from the current hypotheses (maybe one could mention this?) .

There are also:

  • 3 comment(s) on Section 27.2: Relative glueing

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.