Lemma 36.10.8. Let $X$ be a scheme.

1. If $L$ is in $D^+_\mathit{QCoh}(\mathcal{O}_ X)$ and $K$ in $D(\mathcal{O}_ X)$ is pseudo-coherent, then $R\mathop{\mathcal{H}\! \mathit{om}}\nolimits (K, L)$ is in $D_\mathit{QCoh}(\mathcal{O}_ X)$ and locally bounded below.

2. If $L$ is in $D_\mathit{QCoh}(\mathcal{O}_ X)$ and $K$ in $D(\mathcal{O}_ X)$ is perfect, then $R\mathop{\mathcal{H}\! \mathit{om}}\nolimits (K, L)$ is in $D_\mathit{QCoh}(\mathcal{O}_ X)$.

3. If $X = \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(A)$ is affine and $K, L \in D(A)$ then

$R\mathop{\mathcal{H}\! \mathit{om}}\nolimits (\widetilde{K}, \widetilde{L}) = \widetilde{R\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _ A(K, L)}$

in the following two cases

1. $K$ is pseudo-coherent and $L$ is bounded below,

2. $K$ is perfect and $L$ arbitrary.

4. If $X = \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(A)$ and $K, L$ are in $D(A)$, then the $n$th cohomology sheaf of $R\mathop{\mathcal{H}\! \mathit{om}}\nolimits (\widetilde{K}, \widetilde{L})$ is the sheaf associated to the presheaf

$X \supset D(f) \longmapsto \mathop{\mathrm{Ext}}\nolimits ^ n_{A_ f}(K \otimes _ A A_ f, L \otimes _ A A_ f)$

for $f \in A$.

Proof. The construction of the internal hom in the derived category of $\mathcal{O}_ X$ commutes with localization (see Cohomology, Section 20.40). Hence to prove (1) and (2) we may replace $X$ by an affine open. By Lemmas 36.3.5, 36.10.2, and 36.10.7 in order to prove (1) and (2) it suffices to prove (3).

Part (3) follows from the computation of the internal hom of Cohomology, Lemma 20.44.11 by representing $K$ by a bounded above (resp. finite) complex of finite projective $A$-modules and $L$ by a bounded below (resp. arbitrary) complex of $A$-modules.

To prove (4) recall that on any ringed space the $n$th cohomology sheaf of $R\mathop{\mathcal{H}\! \mathit{om}}\nolimits (A, B)$ is the sheaf associated to the presheaf

$U \mapsto \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _{D(U)}(A|_ U, B|_ U[n]) = \mathop{\mathrm{Ext}}\nolimits ^ n_{D(\mathcal{O}_ U)}(A|_ U, B|_ U)$

See Cohomology, Section 20.40. On the other hand, the restriction of $\widetilde{K}$ to a principal open $D(f)$ is the image of $K \otimes _ A A_ f$ and similarly for $L$. Hence (4) follows from the equivalence of categories of Lemma 36.3.5. $\square$

Comment #2467 by Joseph Lipman on

The 2nd sentence of the proof seems to need X to be quasi-compact.

For example, let (X, O_X)=\cup X_n be the sum of countably many copies of Spec(k) (k a field), L= O_X and K the complex whose restriction to X_n is k[-n].

Comment #2468 by on

Hi, just making sure I understand: you are complaining about the boundedness part, because to check the cohomology sheaves are quasi-coherent it does suffice to check affine locally. The boundedness part indeed does not work as pseudo-coherent complexes are only locally bounded above and $D^+_{QCoh}(\mathcal{O}_X)$ means bounded below. This is also what your example shows, if I understand correctly.

So I agree the boundedness part is fallacious. I have checked all the references using the lemma and this part isn't used anywhere else. I will fix this statement when I go through all other comments in a couple of weeks or so. Thanks!

Comment #2470 by on

OK, I decided to fix this today. The change is here and will appear on this page in the near future. Thanks again.

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).