The Stacks project

102.12 Further remarks on quasi-coherent modules

In this section we collect some results that to help understand how to use quasi-coherent modules on algebraic stacks.

Let $f : \mathcal{U} \to \mathcal{X}$ be a morphism of algebraic stacks. Assume $\mathcal{U}$ is represented by the algebraic space $U$. Consider the functor

\[ a : \textit{Mod}(\mathcal{X}_{\acute{e}tale}, \mathcal{O}_\mathcal {X}) \longrightarrow \textit{Mod}(U_{\acute{e}tale}, \mathcal{O}_ U),\quad \mathcal{F} \longmapsto f^*\mathcal{F}|_{U_{\acute{e}tale}} \]

given by pullback (Sheaves on Stacks, Section 95.7) followed by restriction (Sheaves on Stacks, Section 95.10). Applying this functor to locally quasi-coherent modules we obtain a functor

\[ b : \textit{LQCoh}(\mathcal{O}_\mathcal {X}) \longrightarrow \mathit{QCoh}(U_{\acute{e}tale}, \mathcal{O}_ U) \]

See Sheaves on Stacks, Lemmas 95.12.3 and 95.14.1. We can further limit our functor to even smaller subcategories to obtain

\[ c : \textit{LQCoh}^{fbc}(\mathcal{O}_\mathcal {X}) \longrightarrow \mathit{QCoh}(U_{\acute{e}tale}, \mathcal{O}_ U) \]

and

\[ d : \mathit{QCoh}(\mathcal{O}_\mathcal {X}) \longrightarrow \mathit{QCoh}(U_{\acute{e}tale}, \mathcal{O}_ U) \]

About these functors we can say the following:1

  1. The functor $a$ is exact. Namely, pullback $f^* = f^{-1}$ is exact (Sheaves on Stacks, Section 95.7) and restriction to $U_{\acute{e}tale}$ is exact, see Sheaves on Stacks, Equation (95.10.2.1).

  2. The functor $b$ is exact. Namely, by Sheaves on Stacks, Lemma 95.12.4 the inclusion $\textit{LQCoh}(\mathcal{O}_\mathcal {X}) \to \textit{Mod}(\mathcal{X}_{\acute{e}tale}, \mathcal{O}_\mathcal {X})$ is exact.

  3. The functor $c$ is exact. Namely, by Proposition 102.8.1 the inclusion functor $\textit{LQCoh}^{fbc}(\mathcal{O}_\mathcal {X}) \to \textit{Mod}(\mathcal{X}_{\acute{e}tale}, \mathcal{O}_\mathcal {X})$ is exact.

  4. The functor $d$ is right exact but not exact in general. Namely, by Sheaves on Stacks, Lemma 95.12.5 the inclusion functor $\mathit{QCoh}(\mathcal{O}_\mathcal {X}) \to \textit{Mod}(\mathcal{X}_{\acute{e}tale}, \mathcal{O}_\mathcal {X})$ is right exact. We omit giving an example showing non-exactness.

  5. If $f$ is flat, then $d$ is exact. This follows on combining Lemma 102.4.1 and Sheaves on Stacks, Lemma 95.14.2.

  6. If $f$ is flat, then $c$ kills parasitic objects. Namely, $f^*$ preserves parasitic object by Lemma 102.9.2. Then for any scheme $V$ étale over $U$ and hence flat over $\mathcal{X}$ we see that $0 = f^*\mathcal{F}|_{V_{\acute{e}tale}} = c(\mathcal{F})|_{V_{\acute{e}tale}}$ by the compatibility of restriction with étale localization Sheaves on Stacks, Remark 95.10.2. Hence clearly $c(\mathcal{F}) = 0$.

  7. If $f$ is flat, then $c = d \circ Q$. Namely, the kernel and cokernel of $Q(\mathcal{F}) \to \mathcal{F}$ are parasitic by Lemma 102.10.2. Thus, since $c$ is exact (3) and kills parasitic objects (6), we see that $c$ applied to $Q(\mathcal{F}) \to \mathcal{F}$ is an isomorphism.

  8. The functors $a, b, c, d$ commute with colimits and arbitrary direct sums. This is true for $f^*$ and restriction as left adjoints and hence it holds for $a$. Then it follows for $b$, $c$, $d$ by the references given above.

  9. The functors $a, b, c, d$ commute with tensor products.

  10. If $f$ is flat and surjective, $\mathcal{F}$ is in $\textit{LQCoh}^{fbc}(\mathcal{O}_\mathcal {X})$, and $c(\mathcal{F}) = 0$, then $\mathcal{F}$ is parasitic. Namely, by (7) we get $d(Q(\mathcal{F})) = 0$. We may assume $U$ is a scheme by the compatibility of restriction with étale localization (see reference above). Then Lemma 102.4.2 applied to $0 \to Q(\mathcal{F})$ and the morphism $f : U \to \mathcal{X}$ shows that $Q(\mathcal{F}) = 0$. Thus $\mathcal{F}$ is parasitic by Lemma 102.10.2.

  11. If $f$ is flat and surjective, then the functor $d$ reflects exactness. More precisely, let $\mathcal{F}^\bullet $ be a complex in $\mathit{QCoh}(\mathcal{O}_\mathcal {X})$. Then $\mathcal{F}^\bullet $ is exact in $\mathit{QCoh}(\mathcal{O}_\mathcal {X})$ if and only if $d(\mathcal{F}^\bullet )$ is exact. Namely, we have seen one implication in (5). For the other, suppose that $H^ i(d(\mathcal{F}^\bullet )) = 0$. Then $\mathcal{G} = H^ i(\mathcal{F}^\bullet )$ is an object of $\mathit{QCoh}(\mathcal{O}_\mathcal {X})$ with $d(\mathcal{G}) = 0$. Hence $\mathcal{G}$ is both quasi-coherent and parasitic by (10), whence $0$ for example by Remark 102.10.7.

  12. If $f$ is flat, $\mathcal{F}, \mathcal{G} \in \mathop{\mathrm{Ob}}\nolimits (\mathit{QCoh}(\mathcal{O}_\mathcal {X}))$, and $\mathcal{F}$ of finite presentation and let then we have

    \[ d(hom(\mathcal{F}, \mathcal{G})) = \mathop{\mathcal{H}\! \mathit{om}}\nolimits _{\mathcal{O}_ U}(d(\mathcal{F}), d(\mathcal{G})) \]

    with notation as in Lemma 102.10.8. Perhaps the easiest way to see this is as follows

    \begin{align*} d(hom(\mathcal{F}, \mathcal{G})) & = d(Q(\mathop{\mathcal{H}\! \mathit{om}}\nolimits _{\mathcal{O}_\mathcal {X}}(\mathcal{F}, \mathcal{G}))) \\ & = c(\mathop{\mathcal{H}\! \mathit{om}}\nolimits _{\mathcal{O}_\mathcal {X}}(\mathcal{F}, \mathcal{G})) \\ & = f^*\mathop{\mathcal{H}\! \mathit{om}}\nolimits _{\mathcal{O}_\mathcal {X}}(\mathcal{F}, \mathcal{G})|_{U_{\acute{e}tale}} \\ & = \mathop{\mathcal{H}\! \mathit{om}}\nolimits _{\mathcal{O}_\mathcal {U}}(f^*\mathcal{F}, f^*\mathcal{G})|_{U_{\acute{e}tale}} \\ & = \mathop{\mathcal{H}\! \mathit{om}}\nolimits _{\mathcal{O}_ U}(f^*\mathcal{F}|_{U_{\acute{e}tale}}, f^*\mathcal{G}|_{U_{\acute{e}tale}}) \end{align*}

    The first equality by construction of $hom$. The second equality by (7). The third equality by definition of $c$. The fourth equality by Modules on Sites, Lemma 18.31.4. The final equality by the same reference applied to the flat morphism of ringed topoi $i_ U (U_{\acute{e}tale}, \mathcal{O}_ U) \to (\mathcal{U}_{\acute{e}tale}, \mathcal{O}_\mathcal {U})$ of Sheaves on Stacks, Lemma 95.10.1.

  13. add more here.

[1] We suggest working out why these statements are true on a napkin instead of following the references given.

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