Lemma 59.77.3. Let $\Lambda$ be a Noetherian ring. Let $X$ be a quasi-compact and quasi-separated scheme. Let $K \in D(X_{\acute{e}tale}, \Lambda )$. The following are equivalent

1. $K \in D_{ctf}(X_{\acute{e}tale}, \Lambda )$, and

2. $K$ can be represented by a finite complex of constructible flat sheaves of $\Lambda$-modules.

In fact, if $K$ has tor amplitude in $[a, b]$ then we can represent $K$ by a complex $\mathcal{F}^ a \to \ldots \to \mathcal{F}^ b$ with $\mathcal{F}^ p$ a constructible flat sheaf of $\Lambda$-modules.

Proof. It is clear that a finite complex of constructible flat sheaves of $\Lambda$-modules has finite tor dimension. It is also clear that it is an object of $D_ c(X_{\acute{e}tale}, \Lambda )$. Thus we see that (2) implies (1).

Assume (1). Choose $a, b \in \mathbf{Z}$ such that $H^ i(K \otimes _\Lambda ^\mathbf {L} \mathcal{G}) = 0$ if $i \not\in [a, b]$ for all sheaves of $\Lambda$-modules $\mathcal{G}$. We will prove the final assertion holds by induction on $b - a$. If $a = b$, then $K = H^ a(K)[-a]$ is a flat constructible sheaf and the result holds. Next, assume $b > a$. Represent $K$ by a complex $\mathcal{K}^\bullet$ of sheaves of $\Lambda$-modules. Consider the surjection

$\mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(\mathcal{K}^ b \to \mathcal{K}^{b + 1}) \longrightarrow H^ b(K)$

By Lemma 59.73.6 we can find finitely many affine schemes $U_ i$ étale over $X$ and a surjection $\bigoplus j_{U_ i!}\underline{\Lambda }_{U_ i} \to H^ b(K)$. After replacing $U_ i$ by standard étale coverings $\{ U_{ij} \to U_ i\}$ we may assume this surjection lifts to a map $\mathcal{F} = \bigoplus j_{U_ i!}\underline{\Lambda }_{U_ i} \to \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(\mathcal{K}^ b \to \mathcal{K}^{b + 1})$. This map determines a distinguished triangle

$\mathcal{F}[-b] \to K \to L \to \mathcal{F}[-b + 1]$

in $D(X_{\acute{e}tale}, \Lambda )$. Since $D_{ctf}(X_{\acute{e}tale}, \Lambda )$ is a triangulated subcategory we see that $L$ is in it too. In fact $L$ has tor amplitude in $[a, b - 1]$ as $\mathcal{F}$ surjects onto $H^ b(K)$ (details omitted). By induction hypothesis we can find a finite complex $\mathcal{F}^ a \to \ldots \to \mathcal{F}^{b - 1}$ of flat constructible sheaves of $\Lambda$-modules representing $L$. The map $L \to \mathcal{F}[-b + 1]$ corresponds to a map $\mathcal{F}^ b \to \mathcal{F}$ annihilating the image of $\mathcal{F}^{b - 1} \to \mathcal{F}^ b$. Then it follows from axiom TR3 that $K$ is represented by the complex

$\mathcal{F}^ a \to \ldots \to \mathcal{F}^{b - 1} \to \mathcal{F}^ b$

which finishes the proof. $\square$

Comment #7811 by R on

The hypothesis is that $K$ has locally finite tor dimension, but you seem to use (and prove) that $K$ has finite tor dimension. Are they equivalent in this case? (If I understand correctly, Tag 21.46.5 shows that finite tor dimension implies locally finite tor dimension, though this is never spelled out.)

Comment #7812 by on

For quasi-compact spaces, being locally finite tor dimension is the same as having finite tor dimension. Maybe this should be explained in Section 21.46 as well.

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).