Lemma 37.67.1. Let $X \to S$ be locally of finite type. Let $\{ f_ i : X_ i \to X\} $ be an fppf covering of schemes. Let $E \in D_\mathit{QCoh}(\mathcal{O}_ X)$. Let $m \in \mathbf{Z}$. Then $E$ is $m$-pseudo-coherent relative to $S$ if and only if each $Lf_ i^*E$ is $m$-pseudo-coherent relative to $S$.

## 37.67 Descent finiteness properties of complexes

This section is the continuation of Derived Categories of Schemes, Section 36.12.

**Proof.**
Assume $E$ is $m$-pseudo-coherent relative to $S$. The morphisms $f_ i$ are pseudo-coherent by Lemma 37.57.6. Hence $Lf_ i^*E$ is $m$-pseudo-coherent relative to $S$ by Lemma 37.56.16.

Conversely, assume that $Lf_ i^*E$ is $m$-pseudo-coherent relative to $S$ for each $i$. Pick $S = \bigcup U_ j$, $W_ j \to U_ j$, $W_ j = \bigcup W_{j, k}$, $T_{j, k} \to W_{j, k}$, and morphisms $\alpha _{j, k} : T_{j, k} \to X_{i(j, k)}$ over $S$ as in Lemma 37.47.2. Since the morphism $T_{j, K} \to S$ is flat and of finite presentation, we see that $\alpha _{j, k}$ is pseudo-coherent by Lemma 37.57.7. Hence

is $m$-pseudo-coherent relative to $S$ by Lemma 37.56.16. Now we want to descend this property through the coverings $\{ T_{j, k} \to W_{j, k}\} $, $W_ j = \bigcup W_{j, k}$, $\{ W_ j \to U_ j\} $, and $S = \bigcup U_ j$. Since for Zariski coverings the result is true (by the definition of $m$-pseudo-coherence relative to $S$), this means we may assume we have a single surjective finite locally free morphism $\pi : Y \to X$ such that $L\pi ^*E$ is pseudo-coherent relative to $S$. In this case $R\pi _*L\pi ^*E$ is pseudo-coherent relative to $S$ by Lemma 37.56.9 (this is the first time we use that $E$ has quasi-coherent cohomology sheaves). We have $R\pi _*L\pi ^*E = E \otimes ^\mathbf {L}_{\mathcal{O}_ X} \pi _*\mathcal{O}_ Y$ for example by Derived Categories of Schemes, Lemma 36.22.1 and locally on $X$ the map $\mathcal{O}_ X \to \pi _*\mathcal{O}_ Y$ is the inclusion of a direct summand. Hence we conclude by Lemma 37.56.12. $\square$

Lemma 37.67.2. Let $X \to T \to S$ be morphisms of schemes. Assume $T \to S$ is flat and locally of finite presentation and $X \to T$ locally of finite type. Let $E \in D(\mathcal{O}_ X)$. Let $m \in \mathbf{Z}$. Then $E$ is $m$-pseudo-coherent relative to $S$ if and only if $E$ is $m$-pseudo-coherent relative to $T$.

**Proof.**
Locally on $X$ we can choose a closed immersion $i : X \to \mathbf{A}^ n_ T$. Then $\mathbf{A}^ n_ T \to S$ is flat and locally of finite presentation. Thus we may apply Lemma 37.56.17 to see the equivalence holds.
$\square$

Lemma 37.67.3. Let $f : X \to S$ be locally of finite type. Let $\{ S_ i \to S\} $ be an fppf covering of schemes. Denote $f_ i : X_ i \to S_ i$ the base change of $f$ and $g_ i : X_ i \to X$ the projection. Let $E \in D_\mathit{QCoh}(\mathcal{O}_ X)$. Let $m \in \mathbf{Z}$. Then $E$ is $m$-pseudo-coherent relative to $S$ if and only if each $Lg_ i^*E$ is $m$-pseudo-coherent relative to $S_ i$.

**Proof.**
This follows formally from Lemmas 37.67.1 and 37.67.2. Namely, if $E$ is $m$-pseudo-coherent relative to $S$, then $Lg_ i^*E$ is $m$-pseudo-coherent relative to $S$ (by the first lemma), hence $Lg_ i^*E$ is $m$-pseudo-coherent relative to $S_ i$ (by the second). Conversely, if $Lg_ i^*E$ is $m$-pseudo-coherent relative to $S_ i$, then $Lg_ i^*E$ is $m$-pseudo-coherent relative to $S$ (by the second lemma), hence $E$ is $m$-pseudo-coherent relative to $S$ (by the first lemma).
$\square$

## 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.

## Comments (0)