Proposition 101.3.8. Let $f : \mathcal{X} \to \mathcal{Y}$ be a morphism of algebraic stacks. The following are equivalent

$f$ is limit preserving,

$f$ is limit preserving on objects, and

$f$ is locally of finite presentation.

This is a special case of [Lemma 2.3.15, Emerton-Gee]

Proposition 101.3.8. Let $f : \mathcal{X} \to \mathcal{Y}$ be a morphism of algebraic stacks. The following are equivalent

$f$ is limit preserving,

$f$ is limit preserving on objects, and

$f$ is locally of finite presentation.

**Proof.**
Assume (3). Let $T = \mathop{\mathrm{lim}}\nolimits T_ i$ be a directed limit of affine schemes. Consider the functor

\[ \mathop{\mathrm{colim}}\nolimits \mathcal{X}_{T_ i} \longrightarrow \mathcal{X}_ T \times _{\mathcal{Y}_ T} \mathop{\mathrm{colim}}\nolimits \mathcal{Y}_{T_ i} \]

Let $(x, y_ i, \beta )$ be an object on the right hand side, i.e., $x \in \mathop{\mathrm{Ob}}\nolimits (\mathcal{X}_ T)$, $y_ i \in \mathop{\mathrm{Ob}}\nolimits (\mathcal{Y}_{T_ i})$, and $\beta : f(x) \to y_ i|_ T$ in $\mathcal{Y}_ T$. Then we can consider $(x, y_ i, \beta )$ as an object of the algebraic stack $\mathcal{X}_{y_ i} = \mathcal{X} \times _{\mathcal{Y}, y_ i} T_ i$ over $T$. Since $\mathcal{X}_{y_ i} \to T_ i$ is locally of finite presentation (as a base change of $f$) we see that it is limit preserving by Lemma 101.3.7. This means that $(x, y_ i, \beta )$ comes from an object over $T_{i'}$ for some $i' \geq i$ and unwinding the definitions we find that $(x, y_ i, \beta )$ is in the essential image of the displayed functor. In other words, the displayed functor is essentially surjective. Another formulation is that this means $f$ is limit preserving on objects. Now we apply this to the diagonal $\Delta $ of $f$. Namely, by Morphisms of Stacks, Lemma 100.27.7 the morphism $\Delta $ is locally of finite presentation. Thus the argument above shows that $\Delta $ is limit preserving on objects. By Lemma 101.3.5 this implies that $\Delta $ is limit preserving. By Lemma 101.3.6 we conclude that the displayed functor above is fully faithful. Thus it is an equivalence (as we already proved essential surjectivity) and we conclude that (1) holds.

The implication (1) $\Rightarrow $ (2) is trivial. Assume (2). Choose a scheme $V$ and a surjective smooth morphism $V \to \mathcal{Y}$. By Criteria for Representability, Lemma 96.5.1 the base change $\mathcal{X} \times _\mathcal {Y} V \to V$ is limit preserving on objects. Choose a scheme $U$ and a surjective smooth morphism $U \to \mathcal{X} \times _\mathcal {Y} V$. Since a smooth morphism is locally of finite presentation, we see that $U \to \mathcal{X} \times _\mathcal {Y} V$ is limit preserving (first part of the proof). By Criteria for Representability, Lemma 96.5.2 we find that the composition $U \to V$ is limit preserving on objects. We conclude that $U \to V$ is locally of finite presentation, see Criteria for Representability, Lemma 96.5.3. This is exactly the condition that $f$ is locally of finite presentation, see Morphisms of Stacks, Definition 100.27.1. $\square$

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)