The Stacks project

Lemma 108.4.9. Let $f : X \to B$ be as in the introduction to this section. Let $E_1, \ldots , E_ r \in D(\mathcal{O}_ X)$ be perfect. Let $I = \mathbf{Z}^{\oplus r}$ and consider the map

\[ I \longrightarrow D(\mathcal{O}_ X),\quad (n_1, \ldots , n_ r) \longmapsto E_1^{\otimes n_1} \otimes \ldots \otimes E_ r^{\otimes n_ r} \]

Let $P : I \to \mathbf{Z}$ be a map. Then $\mathcal{C}\! \mathit{oh}^ P_{X/B} \subset \mathcal{C}\! \mathit{oh}_{X/B}$ as defined in Situation 108.4.7 is an open and closed substack.

Proof. We may work étale locally on $B$, hence we may assume that $B$ is affine. In this case we may perform absolute Noetherian reduction; we suggest the reader skip the proof. Namely, say $B = \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(\Lambda )$. Write $\Lambda = \mathop{\mathrm{colim}}\nolimits \Lambda _ i$ as a filtered colimit with each $\Lambda _ i$ of finite type over $\mathbf{Z}$. For some $i$ we can find a morphism of algebraic spaces $X_ i \to \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(\Lambda _ i)$ which is separated and of finite presentation and whose base change to $\Lambda $ is $X$. See Limits of Spaces, Lemmas 70.7.1 and 70.6.9. Then after increasing $i$ we may assume there exist perfect objects $E_{1, i}, \ldots , E_{r, i}$ in $D(\mathcal{O}_{X_ i})$ whose derived pullback to $X$ are isomorphic to $E_1, \ldots , E_ r$, see Derived Categories of Spaces, Lemma 75.24.3. Clearly we have a cartesian square

\[ \xymatrix{ \mathcal{C}\! \mathit{oh}^ P_{X/B} \ar[r] \ar[d] & \mathcal{C}\! \mathit{oh}_{X/B} \ar[d] \\ \mathcal{C}\! \mathit{oh}^ P_{X_ i/\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(\Lambda _ i)} \ar[r] & \mathcal{C}\! \mathit{oh}_{X_ i/\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(\Lambda _ i)} } \]

and hence we may appeal to Lemma 108.4.8 to finish the proof. $\square$


Comments (2)

Comment #5443 by R on

Typo: the map in the statement should read and not .

Also, what is the role of the in the final statement? Should maybe be given by some Euler characteristics?

Comment #5667 by on

Thanks for the typo. The confusion you have comes from the fact that the statement should have pointed back to Situation \ref{} to explain the notation with . I have added this pointer in this commit.


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Your email address will not be published.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