The Stacks project

Remark 36.35.14. Our Definition 36.35.1 of a relatively perfect complex is equivalent to the one given in [lieblich-complexes] whenever our definition applies1. Next, suppose that $f : X \to S$ is only assumed to be locally of finite type (not necessarily flat, nor locally of finite presentation). The definition in the paper cited above is that $E \in D(\mathcal{O}_ X)$ is relatively perfect if

  1. locally on $X$ the object $E$ should be quasi-isomorphic to a finite complex of $S$-flat, finitely presented $\mathcal{O}_ X$-modules.

On the other hand, the natural generalization of our Definition 36.35.1 is

  1. $E$ is pseudo-coherent relative to $S$ (More on Morphisms, Definition 37.57.2) and $E$ locally has finite tor dimension as an object of $D(f^{-1}\mathcal{O}_ S)$ (Cohomology, Definition 20.46.1).

The advantage of condition (B) is that it clearly defines a triangulated subcategory of $D(\mathcal{O}_ X)$, whereas we suspect this is not the case for condition (A). The advantage of condition (A) is that it is easier to work with in particular in regards to limits.

[1] To see this, use Lemma 36.35.3 and More on Algebra, Lemma 15.83.4.

Comments (0)

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Your email address will not be published.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 0DI9. Beware of the difference between the letter 'O' and the digit '0'.