Lemma 29.32.5. Let $f : X \to S$ be a morphism of schemes. For any pair of affine opens $\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(A) = U \subset X$, $\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R) = V \subset S$ with $f(U) \subset V$ there is a unique isomorphism

$\Gamma (U, \Omega _{X/S}) = \Omega _{A/R}.$

compatible with $\text{d}_{X/S}$ and $\text{d} : A \to \Omega _{A/R}$.

Proof. By Lemma 29.32.3 we may replace $X$ and $S$ by $U$ and $V$. Thus we may assume $X = \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(A)$ and $S = \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R)$ and we have to show the lemma with $U = X$ and $V = S$. Consider the $A$-module $M = \Gamma (X, \Omega _{X/S})$ together with the $R$-derivation $\text{d}_{X/S} : A \to M$. Let $N$ be another $A$-module and denote $\widetilde{N}$ the quasi-coherent $\mathcal{O}_ X$-module associated to $N$, see Schemes, Section 26.7. Precomposing by $\text{d}_{X/S} : A \to M$ we get an arrow

$\alpha : \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _ A(M, N) \longrightarrow \text{Der}_ R(A, N)$

Using Lemmas 29.32.2 and 29.32.4 we get identifications

$\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _{\mathcal{O}_ X}(\Omega _{X/S}, \widetilde{N}) = \text{Der}_ S(\mathcal{O}_ X, \widetilde{N}) = \text{Der}_ R(A, N)$

Taking global sections determines an arrow $\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _{\mathcal{O}_ X}(\Omega _{X/S}, \widetilde{N}) \to \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _ R(M, N)$. Combining this arrow and the identifications above we get an arrow

$\beta : \text{Der}_ R(A, N) \longrightarrow \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _ R(M, N)$

Checking what happens on global sections, we find that $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are each others inverse. Hence we see that $\text{d}_{X/S} : A \to M$ satisfies the same universal property as $\text{d} : A \to \Omega _{A/R}$, see Algebra, Lemma 10.131.3. Thus the Yoneda lemma (Categories, Lemma 4.3.5) implies there is a unique isomorphism of $A$-modules $M \cong \Omega _{A/R}$ compatible with derivations. $\square$

## Comments (2)

Comment #4957 by Rubén Muñoz--Bertrand on

In order to use Lemma 26.7.1 we need $\widetilde{M}\cong\Omega_{X/S}$, but I believe that we do not know yet that it is quasi-coherent. Actually, the remark before 29.32.7 in Section 29.32 seem to imply we don't know this at this point. Am I missing something?

## 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Your email address will not be published.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 01UT. Beware of the difference between the letter 'O' and the digit '0'.