The Stacks project

Lemma 47.15.8. Let $A \to B$ be a finite ring map of Noetherian rings. Let $\omega _ A^\bullet $ be a dualizing complex. Then $R\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits (B, \omega _ A^\bullet )$ is a dualizing complex for $B$.

Proof. Let $\omega _ A^\bullet \to I^\bullet $ be a quasi-isomorphism with $I^\bullet $ a bounded complex of injectives. Then $\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _ A(B, I^\bullet )$ is a bounded complex of injective $B$-modules (Lemma 47.3.4) representing $R\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits (B, \omega _ A^\bullet )$. Thus $R\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits (B, \omega _ A^\bullet )$ has finite injective dimension. By Lemma 47.13.4 it is an object of $D_{\textit{Coh}}(B)$. Finally, we compute

\[ \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _{D(B)}(R\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits (B, \omega _ A^\bullet ), R\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits (B, \omega _ A^\bullet )) = \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _{D(A)}(R\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits (B, \omega _ A^\bullet ), \omega _ A^\bullet ) = B \]

and for $n \not= 0$ we compute

\[ \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _{D(B)}(R\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits (B, \omega _ A^\bullet ), R\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits (B, \omega _ A^\bullet )[n]) = \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _{D(A)}(R\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits (B, \omega _ A^\bullet ), \omega _ A^\bullet [n]) = 0 \]

which proves the last property of a dualizing complex. In the displayed equations, the first equality holds by Lemma 47.13.1 and the second equality holds by Lemma 47.15.2. $\square$


Comments (2)

Comment #3581 by Kestutis Cesnavicius on

The dualizing complex is by definition a literal complex, whereas is only an object of some derived category, so it seems not very good to write in the statement that the latter is a dualizing complex. There is a similar issue in the statement of the next lemma.

Comment #3705 by on

Hmm... yes. I'm going to let this stand for now and change it if more people complain. For me an object of is a complex of -modules. Moreover, if we have two complexes of -modules and which are quasi-isomorphic, then one is a dualizing complex if and only if the other one is. So actually, for me the terminology makes sense.

But I personally also experience cognitive dissonance when I try to think of as an object of in the sense above. Namely, I prefer not to think of it as an actual complex of -modules, but rather as a certain ind-object of the category of complexes of -modules. (Since this is what you get when you read back to the definition of right derived functors between derived categories.)

There are also:

  • 1 comment(s) on Section 47.15: Dualizing complexes

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 0AX0. Beware of the difference between the letter 'O' and the digit '0'.