The Stacks project

Remark 19.13.3. In the chapter on derived categories we consistently work with “small” abelian categories (as is the convention in the Stacks project). For a “big” abelian category $\mathcal{A}$ it isn't clear that the derived category $D(\mathcal{A})$ exists because it isn't clear that morphisms in the derived category are sets. In general this isn't true, see Examples, Lemma 110.62.1. However, if $\mathcal{A}$ is a Grothendieck abelian category, and given $K^\bullet , L^\bullet $ in $K(\mathcal{A})$, then by Theorem 19.12.6 there exists a quasi-isomorphism $L^\bullet \to I^\bullet $ to a K-injective complex $I^\bullet $ and Derived Categories, Lemma 13.31.2 shows that

\[ \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _{D(\mathcal{A})}(K^\bullet , L^\bullet ) = \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _{K(\mathcal{A})}(K^\bullet , I^\bullet ) \]

which is a set. Some examples of Grothendieck abelian categories are the category of modules over a ring, or more generally the category of sheaves of modules on a ringed site.

Comments (0)

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Your email address will not be published.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 079Q. Beware of the difference between the letter 'O' and the digit '0'.



View Remark 19.13.3 as pdf