Remark 38.16.2. Let $f : X \to S$ be a morphism which is locally of finite type and $\mathcal{F}$ a quasi-coherent finite type $\mathcal{O}_ X$-module. In this case it is still true that (1) and (2) above are equivalent because the proof of Lemma 38.15.5 does not use that $f$ is quasi-compact. It is also clear that (3) and (4) are equivalent. However, we don't know if (1) and (3) are equivalent. In this case it may sometimes be more convenient to define purity using the equivalent conditions (3) and (4) as is done in [GruRay]. On the other hand, for many applications it seems that the correct notion is really that of being universally pure.

## 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Your email address will not be published.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.

## Comments (0)