The Stacks project

Cohomology of quasi-coherent sheaves is the same no matter which topology you use.

Proposition 35.9.3. Let $S$ be a scheme. Let $\mathcal{F}$ be a quasi-coherent sheaf on $S$. Let $\tau \in \{ Zariski, \linebreak[0] {\acute{e}tale}, \linebreak[0] smooth, \linebreak[0] syntomic, \linebreak[0] fppf\} $.

  1. There is a canonical isomorphism

    \[ H^ q(S, \mathcal{F}) = H^ q((\mathit{Sch}/S)_\tau , \mathcal{F}^ a). \]
  2. There are canonical isomorphisms

    \[ H^ q(S, \mathcal{F}) = H^ q(S_{Zar}, \mathcal{F}^ a) = H^ q(S_{\acute{e}tale}, \mathcal{F}^ a). \]

Proof. The result for $q = 0$ is clear from the definition of $\mathcal{F}^ a$. Let $\mathcal{C} = (\mathit{Sch}/S)_\tau $, or $\mathcal{C} = S_{\acute{e}tale}$, or $\mathcal{C} = S_{Zar}$.

We are going to apply Cohomology on Sites, Lemma 21.10.9 with $\mathcal{F} = \mathcal{F}^ a$, $\mathcal{B} \subset \mathop{\mathrm{Ob}}\nolimits (\mathcal{C})$ the set of affine schemes in $\mathcal{C}$, and $\text{Cov} \subset \text{Cov}_\mathcal {C}$ the set of standard affine $\tau $-coverings. Assumption (3) of the lemma is satisfied by Lemma 35.9.2. Hence we conclude that $H^ p(U, \mathcal{F}^ a) = 0$ for every affine object $U$ of $\mathcal{C}$.

Next, let $U \in \mathop{\mathrm{Ob}}\nolimits (\mathcal{C})$ be any separated object. Denote $f : U \to S$ the structure morphism. Let $U = \bigcup U_ i$ be an affine open covering. We may also think of this as a $\tau $-covering $\mathcal{U} = \{ U_ i \to U\} $ of $U$ in $\mathcal{C}$. Note that $U_{i_0} \times _ U \ldots \times _ U U_{i_ p} = U_{i_0} \cap \ldots \cap U_{i_ p}$ is affine as we assumed $U$ separated. By Cohomology on Sites, Lemma 21.10.7 and the result above we see that

\[ H^ p(U, \mathcal{F}^ a) = \check{H}^ p(\mathcal{U}, \mathcal{F}^ a) = H^ p(U, f^*\mathcal{F}) \]

the last equality by Cohomology of Schemes, Lemma 30.2.6. In particular, if $S$ is separated we can take $U = S$ and $f = \text{id}_ S$ and the proposition is proved. We suggest the reader skip the rest of the proof (or rewrite it to give a clearer exposition).

Choose an injective resolution $\mathcal{F} \to \mathcal{I}^\bullet $ on $S$. Choose an injective resolution $\mathcal{F}^ a \to \mathcal{J}^\bullet $ on $\mathcal{C}$. Denote $\mathcal{J}^ n|_ S$ the restriction of $\mathcal{J}^ n$ to opens of $S$; this is a sheaf on the topological space $S$ as open coverings are $\tau $-coverings. We get a complex

\[ 0 \to \mathcal{F} \to \mathcal{J}^0|_ S \to \mathcal{J}^1|_ S \to \ldots \]

which is exact since its sections over any affine open $U \subset S$ is exact (by the vanishing of $H^ p(U, \mathcal{F}^ a)$, $p > 0$ seen above). Hence by Derived Categories, Lemma 13.18.6 there exists map of complexes $\mathcal{J}^\bullet |_ S \to \mathcal{I}^\bullet $ which in particular induces a map

\[ R\Gamma (\mathcal{C}, \mathcal{F}^ a) = \Gamma (S, \mathcal{J}^\bullet ) \longrightarrow \Gamma (S, \mathcal{I}^\bullet ) = R\Gamma (S, \mathcal{F}). \]

Taking cohomology gives the map $H^ n(\mathcal{C}, \mathcal{F}^ a) \to H^ n(S, \mathcal{F})$ which we have to prove is an isomorphism. Let $\mathcal{U} : S = \bigcup U_ i$ be an affine open covering which we may think of as a $\tau $-covering also. By the above we get a map of double complexes

\[ \check{\mathcal{C}}^\bullet (\mathcal{U}, \mathcal{J}) = \check{\mathcal{C}}^\bullet (\mathcal{U}, \mathcal{J}|_ S) \longrightarrow \check{\mathcal{C}}^\bullet (\mathcal{U}, \mathcal{I}). \]

This map induces a map of spectral sequences

\[ {}^\tau \! E_2^{p, q} = \check{H}^ p(\mathcal{U}, \underline{H}^ q(\mathcal{F}^ a)) \longrightarrow E_2^{p, q} = \check{H}^ p(\mathcal{U}, \underline{H}^ q(\mathcal{F})) \]

The first spectral sequence converges to $H^{p + q}(\mathcal{C}, \mathcal{F})$ and the second to $H^{p + q}(S, \mathcal{F})$. On the other hand, we have seen that the induced maps ${}^\tau \! E_2^{p, q} \to E_2^{p, q}$ are bijections (as all the intersections are separated being opens in affines). Whence also the maps $H^ n(\mathcal{C}, \mathcal{F}^ a) \to H^ n(S, \mathcal{F})$ are isomorphisms, and we win. $\square$

Comments (1)

Comment #1220 by David Corwin on

Suggested slogan: Cohomology of quasi-coherent sheaves is the same no matter which topology you use

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 03DW. Beware of the difference between the letter 'O' and the digit '0'.