Processing math: 100%

The Stacks project

Lemma 61.29.3. Let X be a weakly contractible affine scheme. Let \Lambda be a Noetherian ring and let I \subset \Lambda be an ideal. Let K be an object of D_{cons}(X, \Lambda ) such that the cohomology sheaves of K \otimes _\Lambda ^\mathbf {L} \underline{\Lambda /I} are locally constant. Then there exists a finite disjoint open covering X = \coprod U_ i and for each i a finite collection of finite projective \Lambda ^\wedge -modules M_ a, \ldots , M_ b such that K|_{U_ i} is represented by a complex

(\underline{M^ a})^\wedge \to \ldots \to (\underline{M^ b})^\wedge

in D(U_{i, {pro\text{-}\acute{e}tale}}, \Lambda ) for some maps of sheaves of \Lambda -modules (\underline{M^ i})^\wedge \to (\underline{M^{i + 1}})^\wedge .

Proof. We freely use the results of Lemma 61.29.2. Choose a, b as in that lemma. We will prove the lemma by induction on b - a. Let \mathcal{F} = H^ b(K). Note that \mathcal{F} is a derived complete sheaf of \Lambda -modules by Proposition 61.21.1. Moreover \mathcal{F}/I\mathcal{F} is a locally constant sheaf of \Lambda /I-modules of finite type. Apply Lemma 61.28.7 to get a surjection \rho : (\underline{\Lambda }^\wedge )^{\oplus t} \to \mathcal{F}.

If a = b, then K = \mathcal{F}[-b]. In this case we see that

\mathcal{F} \otimes _\Lambda ^\mathbf {L} \underline{\Lambda /I} = \mathcal{F}/I\mathcal{F}

As X is weakly contractible and \mathcal{F}/I\mathcal{F} locally constant, we can find a finite disjoint union decomposition X = \coprod U_ i by affine opens U_ i and \Lambda /I-modules \overline{M}_ i such that \mathcal{F}/I\mathcal{F} restricts to \underline{\overline{M}_ i} on U_ i. After refining the covering we may assume the map

\rho |_{U_ i} \bmod I : \underline{\Lambda /I}^{\oplus t} \longrightarrow \underline{\overline{M}_ i}

is equal to \underline{\alpha _ i} for some surjective module map \alpha _ i : \Lambda /I^{\oplus t} \to \overline{M}_ i, see Modules on Sites, Lemma 18.43.3. Note that each \overline{M}_ i is a finite \Lambda /I-module. Since \mathcal{F}/I\mathcal{F} has tor amplitude in [0, 0] we conclude that \overline{M}_ i is a flat \Lambda /I-module. Hence \overline{M}_ i is finite projective (Algebra, Lemma 10.78.2). Hence we can find a projector \overline{p}_ i : (\Lambda /I)^{\oplus t} \to (\Lambda /I)^{\oplus t} whose image maps isomorphically to \overline{M}_ i under the map \alpha _ i. We can lift \overline{p}_ i to a projector p_ i : (\Lambda ^\wedge )^{\oplus t} \to (\Lambda ^\wedge )^{\oplus t}1. Then M_ i = \mathop{\mathrm{Im}}(p_ i) is a finite I-adically complete \Lambda ^\wedge -module with M_ i/IM_ i = \overline{M}_ i. Over U_ i consider the maps

\underline{M_ i}^\wedge \to (\underline{\Lambda }^\wedge )^{\oplus t} \to \mathcal{F}|_{U_ i}

By construction the composition induces an isomorphism modulo I. The source and target are derived complete, hence so are the cokernel \mathcal{Q} and the kernel \mathcal{K}. We have \mathcal{Q}/I\mathcal{Q} = 0 by construction hence \mathcal{Q} is zero by Lemma 61.28.6. Then

0 \to \mathcal{K}/I\mathcal{K} \to \underline{\overline{M}_ i} \to \mathcal{F}/I\mathcal{F} \to 0

is exact by the vanishing of \text{Tor}_1 see at the start of this paragraph; also use that \underline{\Lambda }^\wedge /I\overline{\Lambda }^\wedge by Modules on Sites, Lemma 18.42.4 to see that \underline{M_ i}^\wedge /I\underline{M_ i}^\wedge = \underline{\overline{M}_ i}. Hence \mathcal{K}/I\mathcal{K} = 0 by construction and we conclude that \mathcal{K} = 0 as before. This proves the result in case a = b.

If b > a, then we lift the map \rho to a map

\tilde\rho : (\underline{\Lambda }^\wedge )^{\oplus t}[-b] \longrightarrow K

in D(X_{pro\text{-}\acute{e}tale}, \Lambda ). This is possible as we can think of K as a complex of \underline{\Lambda }^\wedge -modules by discussion in the introduction to Section 61.20 and because X_{pro\text{-}\acute{e}tale} is weakly contractible hence there is no obstruction to lifting the elements \rho (e_ s) \in H^0(X, \mathcal{F}) to elements of H^ b(X, K). Fitting \tilde\rho into a distinguished triangle

(\underline{\Lambda }^\wedge )^{\oplus t}[-b] \to K \to L \to (\underline{\Lambda }^\wedge )^{\oplus t}[-b + 1]

we see that L is an object of D_{cons}(X, \Lambda ) such that L \otimes _\Lambda ^\mathbf {L} \underline{\Lambda /I} has tor amplitude contained in [a, b - 1] (details omitted). By induction we can describe L locally as stated in the lemma, say L is isomorphic to

(\underline{M^ a})^\wedge \to \ldots \to (\underline{M^{b - 1}})^\wedge

The map L \to (\underline{\Lambda }^\wedge )^{\oplus t}[-b + 1] corresponds to a map (\underline{M^{b - 1}})^\wedge \to (\underline{\Lambda }^\wedge )^{\oplus t} which allows us to extend the complex by one. The corresponding complex is isomorphic to K in the derived category by the properties of triangulated categories. This finishes the proof. \square

[1] Proof: by Algebra, Lemma 10.32.7 we can lift \overline{p}_ i to a compatible system of projectors p_{i, n} : (\Lambda /I^ n)^{\oplus t} \to (\Lambda /I^ n)^{\oplus t} and then we set p_ i = \mathop{\mathrm{lim}}\nolimits p_{i, n} which works because \Lambda ^\wedge = \mathop{\mathrm{lim}}\nolimits \Lambda /I^ n.

Comments (1)

Comment #9878 by Ben Moonen on

In the statement of the lemma, you want to call the modules M^a,...,M^b rather than M_a,...,M_b


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.