Processing math: 100%

The Stacks project

Lemma 34.4.20. Let S be a scheme contained in a big étale site \mathit{Sch}_{\acute{e}tale}. A sheaf \mathcal{F} on the big étale site (\mathit{Sch}/S)_{\acute{e}tale} is given by the following data:

  1. for every T/S \in \mathop{\mathrm{Ob}}\nolimits ((\mathit{Sch}/S)_{\acute{e}tale}) a sheaf \mathcal{F}_ T on T_{\acute{e}tale},

  2. for every f : T' \to T in (\mathit{Sch}/S)_{\acute{e}tale} a map c_ f : f_{small}^{-1}\mathcal{F}_ T \to \mathcal{F}_{T'}.

These data are subject to the following conditions:

  1. given any f : T' \to T and g : T'' \to T' in (\mathit{Sch}/S)_{\acute{e}tale} the composition c_ g \circ g_{small}^{-1}c_ f is equal to c_{f \circ g}, and

  2. if f : T' \to T in (\mathit{Sch}/S)_{\acute{e}tale} is étale then c_ f is an isomorphism.

Proof. This lemma follows from a purely sheaf theoretic statement discussed in Sites, Remark 7.26.7. We also give a direct proof in this case.

Given a sheaf \mathcal{F} on \mathop{\mathit{Sh}}\nolimits ((\mathit{Sch}/S)_{\acute{e}tale}) we set \mathcal{F}_ T = i_ p^{-1}\mathcal{F} where p : T \to S is the structure morphism. Note that \mathcal{F}_ T(U) = \mathcal{F}(U/S) for any U \to T in T_{\acute{e}tale} see Lemma 34.4.13. Hence given f : T' \to T over S and U \to T we get a canonical map \mathcal{F}_ T(U) = \mathcal{F}(U/S) \to \mathcal{F}(U \times _ T T'/S) = \mathcal{F}_{T'}(U \times _ T T') where the middle is the restriction map of \mathcal{F} with respect to the morphism U \times _ T T' \to U over S. The collection of these maps are compatible with restrictions, and hence define a map c'_ f : \mathcal{F}_ T \to f_{small, *}\mathcal{F}_{T'} where u : T_{\acute{e}tale}\to T'_{\acute{e}tale} is the base change functor associated to f. By adjunction of f_{small, *} (see Sites, Section 7.13) with f_{small}^{-1} this is the same as a map c_ f : f_{small}^{-1}\mathcal{F}_ T \to \mathcal{F}_{T'}. It is clear that c'_{f \circ g} is the composition of c'_ f and f_{small, *}c'_ g, since composition of restriction maps of \mathcal{F} gives restriction maps, and this gives the desired relationship among c_ f, c_ g and c_{f \circ g}.

Conversely, given a system (\mathcal{F}_ T, c_ f) as in the lemma we may define a presheaf \mathcal{F} on \mathop{\mathit{Sh}}\nolimits ((\mathit{Sch}/S)_{\acute{e}tale}) by simply setting \mathcal{F}(T/S) = \mathcal{F}_ T(T). As restriction mapping, given f : T' \to T we set for s \in \mathcal{F}(T) the pullback f^*(s) equal to c_ f(s) where we think of c_ f as a map \mathcal{F}_ T \to f_{small, *}\mathcal{F}_{T'} again. The condition on the c_ f guarantees that pullbacks satisfy the required functoriality property. We omit the verification that this is a sheaf. It is clear that the constructions so defined are mutually inverse. \square


Comments (2)

Comment #1237 by Antoine Chambert-Loir on

In the lemma, there are a strange (\rommannumeral1) and (\romannumeral2) which should maybe be replaced by (i) and (ii).

Comment #1250 by on

Yeah, this is really an artifact of the parsing we do on the site and not a mistake in the LaTeX. I have changed this here, because in this case there is no benefit to using roman numberals. But in a few places in more-morphisms.tex there we use them and I do not see immediately how to do better. Anyway, the change is here.


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.