Chapter 1 Sheaf theory

Size: px
Start display at page:

Transcription

1 This version: 28/02/2014 Chapter 1 Sheaf theory The theory of sheaves has come to play a central rôle in the theories of several complex variables and holomorphic differential geometry. The theory is also essential to real analytic geometry. The theory of sheaves provides a framework for solving local to global problems of the sort that are normally solved using partitions of unity in the smooth case. In this chapter we provide a fairly comprehensive overview of sheaf theory. The presentation in this chapter is thorough but basic. When one delves deeply into sheaf theory, a categorical approach is significantly more efficient than the direct approach we undertake here. However, for many first-timers to the world of sheaves particularly those coming to sheaves from the differential geometric rather than the algebraic world the categorical setting for sheaf theory is an impediment to understanding the point of the theory. In Chapter 4 we discuss the cohomology of sheaves and use category theory to do so. We use this opportunity to review the more categorical approach to sheaf theory, as this provides a very nice nontrivial application of category theory. There are many references available for the theory of sheaves. A classical reference is that of Godement [1958], where the subject is developed from the point of view of algebraic topology. An updated treatment along the same lines is that of Bredon [1997]. The theory is developed quite concisely in the book of Tennison [1976] and in Chapter 5 of [Warner 1983]. A comprehensive review of applications of sheaf theory in differential geometry is given in [Kashiwara and Schapira 1990]. A quite down to earth development of differential geometry with the language of sheaves playing an integral rôle is given by Ramanan [2005]. Regardless of one s route to their understanding of the theory of sheaves, it is a subject that will consume some time in order to develop a useful understanding. 1.1 The basics of sheaf theory In this section we review those parts of the theory that will be useful for us. Our interest in sheaves arises primarily in the context of holomorphic and real analytic functions and sections of real analytic vector bundles. However, in order to provide some colour for the particular setting in which we are interested, we give a treatment with greater generality. The treatment, however, is far from comprehensive, and we

2 2 1 Sheaf theory 28/02/2014 refer to the references at the beginning of the chapter for more details. One of the places we do engage in some degree of generality is the class of functions and sections for which we consider sheaves. While our applications of sheaf theory will focus on the holomorphic and real analytic cases, we will also treat the cases of general differentiability. Specifically, we consider sheaves of functions and sections of class C r for r Z 0 {, ω, hol}. The manifolds on which we consider a certain class of differentiability will, of course, vary with the degree of differentiability. To encode this, we shall use the language, let r {, ω, hol} be as required. By this we mean that r = if r Z 0 { }, that r = ω if r = ω, and r = hol if r = hol. Also, we shall implicitly or explicitly let F = R if r Z 0 {, ω} and let F = C if r = hol. We shall deal with three classes of sheaves in this book: sheaves of sets, sheaves of rings, and sheaves of modules. We shall on occasion separate the presentation according to these three classes. This will serve to clarify that many of the constructions have their basis in sheaves of sets, and the application to sheaves of rings or modules is a matter of invoking the algebraic structure on the constructions on sets. This manner of presentation has the benefit of being unambiguous and sometimes this is useful but is also pointlessly repetitive. You lose where you win, sometimes Presheaves The basic ingredient in the theory of sheaves is a presheaf. We shall need various sorts of presheaves, and will define these separately. This is admittedly a little laboured, and is certainly a place where a categorical presentation of the subject is more efficient. But we elect not to follow this abstract approach. Presheaves of sets Since nothing is made more complicated by doing so at this point, we give our general definition of presheaf in terms of topological spaces Definition (Presheaf of sets) Let (S, O) be a topological space. A presheaf of sets over S is an assignment to each U O a set F (U) and to each V, U O with V U a mapping r U,V : F (U) F (V) called the restriction map, with these assignments having the following properties: (i) r U,U is the identity map; (ii) if W, V, U O with W V U, then r U,W = r V,W r U,V. We shall frequently use a single symbol, like F, to refer to a presheaf, with the understanding that F = (F (U)) U O, and that the restriction maps are understood. Let us introduce the common terminology for presheaves Definition (Local section, global section) Let F be a presheaf of sets over a topological space (S, O). An element s F (U) is called a section of F over U and an element of F (S) is called a global section.

3 28/02/ The basics of sheaf theory 3 Presheaves can be restricted to open sets Definition (Restriction of a presheaf) Let F be a presheaf of sets over a topological space (S, O). If U O then we denote by F U the restriction of F to U, which is the presheaf over U whose sections over V U are simply F (V). Let us look at the principal examples we shall use in this book Examples (Presheaves of sets) 1. Let S = {pt} be a one point set. A presheaf of sets over S is then defined by F(x 0 ) = X and F ( ) = {pt} where X is a set. (We shall see in Lemma that it is natural to take sections over the empty set to be singletons, even though this is not required by the definition of a presheaf.) 2. Let (S, O) be a topological space and let x 0 S. Let X be a set. We define a presheaf of sets S x0,x by X, x 0 U, S x0,x(u) = {pt}, x 0 U. The restriction maps are prescribed as the natural maps that can be defined. To be clear, if U, V O satisfy V U, then, if x 0 U), we define X, x V, r U,V (x) = {pt}, x 0 V and, if x 0 U, we define r U,V (pt) = pt. This is called a skyscraper presheaf. 3. If X is a set, a constant presheaf of sets F X on a topological space (S, O) is defined by F X (U) = X for every U O. The restriction maps are taken to be r U,V = id X for every U, V O with V U. Presheaves of rings Now we adapt the preceding constructions to rings rather than sets. Let us make an assumption on the rings we shall use is sheaf theory (and almost everywhere else) Assumption (Assumption about rings) Ring means commutative ring with unit. We can now go ahead and make our definition of presheaves of rings Definition (Presheaf of rings) Let (S, O) be a topological space. A presheaf of rings over S is an assignment to each U O a set R(U) and to each V, U O with V U a ring homomorphism r U,V : R(U) R(V) called the restriction map, with these assignments having the following properties: (i) r U,U is the identity map; (ii) if W, V, U O with W V U, then r U,W = r V,W r U,V.

4 4 1 Sheaf theory 28/02/2014 We shall frequently use a single symbol, like R, to refer to a presheaf of rings, with the understanding that R = (R(U)) U O, and that the restriction maps are understood. The notions of a local section and a global section of a presheaf of rings, and of the restriction of a presheaf of rings is exactly as in the case of a presheaf of sets; see Definitions and Let us give some examples of presheaves of rings Examples (Presheaves of rings) 1. If S = {pt} is a one point set, we can define presheaves of rings by taking a ring R and defining F(x 0 ) = R and F ( ) = {0}. 2. Let (S, O) be a topological space and let x 0 S. We let R be a ring and take define S x0,r by R, x 0 U, S x0,r(u) = {0}, x 0 U. This is a skyscraper presheaf of rings. The restriction maps are as in Example In Example , if the set X has a ring structure, then we have a constant presheaf of rings. The next few examples give some specific instances of this. 4. Let us denote by Z S the constant presheaf over a topological space (S, O) assigning the ring Z to every open set. 5. Let F {R, C} and denote by F S the constant presheaf over a topological space (S, O) assigning the ring F to every open set. 6. Let W R n be an open subset and let L 1 W = (L1 (U; R)) U W open be the presheaf assigning to an open subset U W the set of integrable R-valued functions on U. The restriction maps are just restriction of functions in the usual sense. 7. Let r Z 0 {, ω, hol}, let r {, ω, hol} be as required, and let F = R if r Z 0 {, ω} and let F = C if r = hol. We let M be a manifold of class C r. The presheaf of functions on M of class C r assigns to each open U M the ring C r (U). The restriction map r U,V for open sets V, U M with V U is simply the restriction of functions on U to V. These maps clearly satisfy the conditions for a presheaf of rings. This presheaf we denote by C r. M The value of a presheaf is that it allows us to systematically deal with objects that are not globally defined, but are only locally defined. We have seen in various places, most explicitly at the end of Section GA , that there is value in doing this, especially in the holomorphic and real analytic cases. An obvious question that suggests itself at this early point is what properties the restrictions maps might have. Are they injective? surjective? These are actually crucial questions in the theory of sheaves, so let us take a look at this even at this early stage.

5 28/02/ The basics of sheaf theory Examples (Properties of restriction maps) 1. Let us show that restriction maps are generally not surjective. This happens very often and in rather simple ways, and to illustrate we take the presheaf C 0 of F continuous functions on F. Let us take U = D 1 (2, 0) and V = D 1 (2, 0). Let us consider f C 0 (V) defined by 1. It is clear that f is not in the image of r 1 x 2 U,V. 2. Let us consider a way in which restriction maps may fail to be injective. Here, as in the first of our examples, we take the presheaf C 0 of continuous functions on F, F and we let U = D 1 (2, 0) and V = D 1 (1, 0). Let f, g C 0 (U) have the property that r U,V ( f ) = r U,V (g). This obviously does not imply that f = g since there are many continuous functions on U agreeing on V. 3. Next we consider another variant on the theme of injectivity of restriction maps. Let us first consider the presheaf C r, r {ω, hol} of analytic or holomorphic functions F on F. Let U be a connected open set and let V U. Let f, g C r (U) and suppose that r U,V ( f ) = r U,V (g). Then, by Theorem GA , we must have f = g and so r U,V is injective in this case. 4. We work with the same presheaf as the preceding example, and now relax the condition that U is connected. Let V U be a subset of a connected component of U. In this case, the requirement that, for f, g C r (U), we have r U,V ( f ) = r U,V (g) only requires that f and g agree on the connected component of U containing V. The specification of f and g on the other connected components of U is arbitrary, and so r U,V is not injective. 5. Another example of where the restriction map is interesting is specific to holomorphic functions. We consider the presheaf C hol (C n ) with n 2. We let U = C n and V = C n \ {0}. In this case, as we saw in Example GA ??, the restriction map r U,V is a bijection since every holomorphic function on V is extended uniquely to a holomorphic function on U. Presheaves of modules We now consider the third setting for presheaves, that when a module structure is present Definition (Presheaf of modules) Let (S, O) be a topological space and let R be a presheaf of rings over S with restriction maps denote by r R. A presheaf of R-modules U,V over S is an assignment to each U O a set E (U) and to each V, U O with V U a mapping r E : E (U) E (V) called the restriction map, with these assignments having U,V the following properties: (i) r E is the identity map; U,U (ii) if W, V, U O with W V U, then r E = U,W re V,W re ; U,V (iii) r E is a morphism of Abelian groups with respect to addition in modules E (U) U,V and E (V);

6 6 1 Sheaf theory 28/02/2014 (iv) the diagram R(U) E (U) E (U) R(V) E (V) E (V) commutes, where the horizontal arrows are module multiplication and the vertical arrows are the restriction maps. We shall frequently use a single symbol, like E, to refer to a presheaf of R-modules, with the understanding that E = (E (U)) U O, and that the restriction maps are understood. Note that if U, V O satisfy V U then E (V) is actually an R(U)-module with multiplication defined by f s = r R ( f )s. This being the case, the restriction map from U,V E (U) to E (V) for an R-module E is defined so that it is a homomorphism of R(U)- modules Examples (Presheaves of modules) 1. If S = {pt} is a one point set and if A is an R-module, then we can define a sheaf of modules by F(x 0 ) = A and F ( ) = {0}. 2. Let (S, O) be a topological space and let x 0 S. We let R be a ring and let A be a R-module, and take define S x0,a by A, x 0 U, S x0,a(u) = {0}, x 0 U. This is a skyscraper presheaf of modules. Example The restriction maps are as in 3. Referring to Example , an Z S -module is a presheaf of Abelian groups, in the sense that to every U O we assign an Z-module, i.e., an Abelian group. 4. Referring to Example , an F S -module is a presheaf of F-modules, in the sense that to every U O we assign an F-module, i.e., an F-vector space. 5. In Example we introduced the presheaves C r, r Z M 0 {, ω, hol} of functions on manifolds of class r {, ω, hol}, for appropriate r. Let π: E M be a vector bundle of class C r. The presheaf of sections of E of class C r assigns to each open U M the C r (U)-module Γ r (E U). The restriction map r U,V for open sets V, U M with V U is again just the restriction of sections on U to V. These maps satisfy the conditions for a presheaf of C r -modules. This presheaf we denote by M G r. E 6. Generalising the preceding example a little, a presheaf of C r M -modules is a presheaf E such that E (U) is a C r (U)-module and such that the restriction maps satisfy the

7 28/02/ The basics of sheaf theory 7 natural algebraic conditions r U,V (s + t) = r U,V (s) + r U,V (t), s, t E (U), r U,V ( f s) = r U,V ( f )r U,V (s), f C r (U), s E (U) Sheaves The notion of a sheaf, which we are about to define, allows us to patch locally defined objects together to produce an object defined on a union of open sets. Sheaves of sets The properties intrinsic to sheaves are the following Definition (Sheaf of sets) Let (S, O) be a topological space and suppose that we have a presheaf F of sets with restriction maps r U,V for U, V O satisfying V U. (i) The presheaf F is separated when, if U O, if (U a ) a A is an open covering of U, and if s, t F (U) satisfy r U,Ua (s) = r U,Ua (t) for every a A, then s = t; (ii) The presheaf F has the gluing property when, if U O, if (U a ) a A is an open covering of U, and if, for each a A, there exists s a F (U a ) with the family (s a ) a A satisfying r Ua1,U a1 U a2 (s a1 ) = r Ua2,U a1 U a2 (s a2 ) for each a 1, a 2 A, then there exists s F (U) such that s a = r U,Ua (s) for each a A. (iii) The presheaf of sets F is a sheaf of sets if it is separated and has the gluing property. Let us get one boring and mostly unimportant technicality out of the way Lemma (Sections over the empty set) If (S, O) is a topological space and if F is a sheaf of sets, then F ( ) is a one point set. Proof Since we can cover with the empty cover, the gluing property ensures that F ( ). The separation property ensures that any two sections over agree, since any cover of is by empty sets. As a consequence of the lemma, if F is a sheaf of sets then F ( ) = {pt} is a one point set. We shall assume without mention that all presheaves have this structure. Let us look at some other examples of presheaves that are sheaves Examples (Presheaves of sets that are sheaves) 1. Presheaves described in Example over topological spaces comprised of one point are sheaves. 2. Skyscraper presheaves as described in Example are sheaves. Let us also give some examples of presheaves that are not sheaves.

8 8 1 Sheaf theory 28/02/ Examples (Presheaves of sets that are not sheaves) 1. Let (S, O) be a topological space and let X be a set. As in Example , F X denotes the constant presheaf defined by F X (U) = X. It is clear that F X satisfies the separation condition. We claim that F X does not generally satisfy the gluing condition. Indeed, let U 1, U 2 O be disjoint and take U = U 1 U 2. Let s 1 F X (U 1 ) and s 2 F (U 2 ). If s 1 s 2 then there is no s F X (U) for which r U,U1 (s) = s 1 and r U,U2 (s) = s An example of a presheaf that is not separated is a little less relevant, but we give it for the sake of completeness. Let S = {0, 1} have the discrete topology and define a presheaf F by requiring that F ( ) = and that F (U) = R U (i.e., the set of maps from U into R). The restriction maps are defined by asking that r U,V (s) = ζ V whenever V is a proper subset of U, where ζ V : V R is defined by ζ V (x) = 0. Now let s, t F({0, 1}) be defined by s(0) = s(1) = 1, t(0) = t(1) = 1. Note that ({0}, {1}) is an open cover for {0, 1} and r {0,1},{0} (s) = r {0,1},{0} (t), r {0,1},{1} (s) = r {0,1},{1} (t). But it does not hold that s = t. The gluing condition is the one that will fail most often in practice, and a reason for this is the following result, characterising a large class of presheaves that are separated Proposition (Presheaves of mappings are separated) If (S, O) is a topological space, if X is a set, and if F is a presheaf over S such that (i) each element f F (U) is a mapping from U to X and (ii) if U, V O are such that V U, then the restriction map r U,V is given by r U,V (f)(x) = f(x), x V, then F is separated. Proof Suppose that U O, that (U a ) a A is an open cover of U, and that f, g F (U) satisfy r U,Ua ( f ) = r U,Ua (g) for every a A. For x U let a A be such that x U a. It follows immediately from the definition of the restriction maps that f (x) = g(x). In practice, one often wishes to patch together locally defined objects and have these be a sheaf. The following result shows how this can be done, the statement referring ahead to Section for the notion of morphisms of sheaves.

9 28/02/ The basics of sheaf theory Proposition (Building a sheaf of sets from local constructions) Let (S, O) be a topological space and let (U a ) a A be an open cover for S. Suppose that, for each a A, F a is a sheaf of sets over U a and denote the restriction maps for F a by r a U,V for U, V U a open with V U. If, for a 1, a 2 A satisfying U a1 U a2, we have a sheaf isomorphism φ a1 a 2 : F a1 (U a1 ) U a1 U a2 F a2 (U a2 ) U a1 U a2, then there exists a sheaf F over S, unique up to isomorphism, and isomorphisms φ a : F U a F a, a A, such that the diagram F U a1 U a2 φ a1 F a1 U a1 U a2 (1.1) φ a1 a 2 F U a1 U a2 φa2 F a1 U a1 U a2 commutes for every a 1, a 2 A. Proof For U O we define F (U) = { (s a ) a A sa F a (U U a ), a A, φ a1 a 2 (r a 1 U U a1,u U a1 U a2 (s a1 )) = r a 2 U U a2,u U a1 U a2 (s a2 ), a 1, a 2 A }. For U, V O satisfying V U, we define r U,V : F (U) F (V) by r U,V ((s a ) a A ) = (r a U U a,v U a (s a )) a A. We will verify that F is a sheaf over S. Let W O and let (W i ) i I be an open cover for W. Let s, t F (W) satisfy r W,Wi (s) = r W,Wi (t) for each i I. We write s = (s a ) a A and t = (t a ) a A and note that we have r a W U a,w i U a (s a ) = r a W U a,w i U a (t a ), a A, i I. Since F a is separated, s a = t a for each a A and so s = t. Let W O and let (W i ) i I be an open cover for W. For each i I let s i F (W i ) and suppose that r Wi,W i W j (s i ) = r Wj,W i W j (s j ) for each i, j I. We write s i = (s i,a ) a A, i I, and note that r a W i U a,w i W j U a (s i,a ) = r a W j U a,w i W j U a (s j,a ), i, j I, a A. Since F a satisfies the gluing property, there exists s a F a (W U a ) such that Let us define s = (s a ) a A. We have Therefore, r a W U a,w i U a (s a ) = s i,a, i I, a A. φ a1 a 2 (r a 1 W i U a1,w i U a1 U a2 (s i,a1 )) = r a 2 W i U a2,w i U a1 U a2 (s i,a2 )), i A, a 1, a 2 A. r a 2 W i U a2,w i U a1 U a2 (φ a1 a 2 (s i,a1 )) = r a 2 W i U a2,w i U a1 U a2 (s i,a2 )), i A, a 1, a 2 A.

10 10 1 Sheaf theory 28/02/2014 Since F a2 is a sheaf we conclude that φ a1,a 2 (s i,a1 ) = s i,a2 for every i I and a 1, a 2 A. Thus r a 2 W U a2,w i U a2 (φ a1 a 2 (s a1 )) = r a 2 W U a2,w i U a2 (s a2 ) and so we conclude that φ a1 a 2 (s a1 ) = s a2 for a 1, a 2 A. Finally, from this we conclude that φ a1 a 2 (r a 1 W U a1,w U a1 U a2 (s a1 )) = r a 2 W U a2,w U a1 U a2 (s a2 ), a 1, a 2 A, and so s as constructed is an element of F (W). In the preceding computation, we have repeatedly used the fact that φ a2 a 2 commutes with restrictions. We must also show the commutativity of the diagram (1.1). To do so, let a A, let U U a, let s a = (s a,b ) b A F (U), let t a F a (U) be defined by the requirement that r U,U Ub (s a,b ) = r U,U Ub (t a ), b A, noting that this makes sense since F a is a sheaf. We then define φ a (s a ) = t a. It is now a routine computation to verify that, if s = (s b ) b A F (U a1 U a2 ) then φ a1 a 2 φ a1 (s) = φ a2 (s), a 1, a 2 A. Finally, we must show that F is uniquely defined up to isomorphism by the requirements in the statement of the proposition. A moment s reflection shows that this will follow from the following assertion. 1 Lemma Let (S, O) be a topological space, let (U a ) a A be an open cover of S, and let F and G be sheaves of sets over S. Suppose that, for each a A, there exists a morphism of sheaves ψ a : F U a G U a such that ψ a (F U a U b ) = ψ b (F U a U b ), a, b A. Then there exists a sheaf morphism ψ: F G such that ψ (F U a ) = ψ a for each a A. Proof To define ψ, let U O and let s F (U). Note that (U U a ) a A is an open cover for U and that ψ a (r F U,U U a U b (s)) = ψ b (r F U,U U a U b (s)), a, b A. Thus r G U U a,u U a U b (ψ a (r F U U a,u U a U b (s))) = r G U U b,u U a U b (ψ b (r F U U b,u U a U b (s))), a, b A. Therefore, since G satisfies the gluing condition, there exists t G (U) satisfying r G U,U a (ψ a (r F U,U a (s))) = r G U,U a (t), a A. We define ψ(s) = t. One has to verify (1) that ψ is a sheaf morphism, i.e., it commutes with restriction and (2) that ψ satisfies the final condition of the lemma. All of these are now straightforward, perhaps tedious, verifications. Note that, by applying the lemma to the inverse, if the sheaf morphisms ψ a, a A, in the lemma are isomorphisms, then ψ is also an isomorphism. This completes the proof. Sheaves of rings The constructions from the preceding section can be applied directly to presheaves of rings.

11 28/02/ The basics of sheaf theory Definition (Sheaf of rings) A presheaf R of rings over a topological space (S, O) is a sheaf of rings if, as a presheaf of sets, it is a sheaf. As a consequence of Lemma , if R is a sheaf of rings, then R( ) is the zero ring. We shall assume without mention that all presheaves have this structure. It is fairly easy to show that the presheaf C r is a sheaf, and let us record this here. M Proposition (Presheaves of functions are sheaves) Let r Z 0 {, ω, hol}, let r {, ω, hol} be as required, and let F = R if r Z 0 {, ω} and let F = C if r = hol. Let M be a manifold of class C r. Then the presheaf C r is a sheaf of rings. M Proof Let U M be open and let (U a ) a A be an open cover for U. To prove condition (i), if f, g C r (U) agree on each neighbourhood U a, a A, then it follows that f (x) = g(x) for every x U since (U a ) a A covers U. To prove condition (ii) let f a C r (U a ) satisfy r Ua1,U a1 U a2 ( f a1 ) = r Ua2,U a1 U a2 ( f a2 ) for each a 1, a 2 A. Define f : U F by f (x) = f a (x) if x U a. This gives f as being well-defined by our hypotheses on the family ( f a ) a A. It remains to show that f is of class C r. This, however, follows since f as defined agrees with f a on U a, and f a is of class C r for each a A. Let us give some examples of presheaves of rings that are not sheaves Examples (Presheaves of rings that are not sheaves) 1. Let r Z 0 {, ω} and take M = R. Let us define a presheaf C r (R) over R by bdd C r bdd (U) = { f Cr (U) f is bounded}. The restriction maps are, of course, just restriction of functions, and one readily verifies that this defines a presheaf of rings. It is not a sheaf. Indeed, let (U a ) a A be a covering of R by bounded open sets and define f a C r bdd (U) by f a(x) = x. Then we certainly have f a (x) = f b (x) for x U a U b. However, it does not hold that there exists f C r bdd (R) such that f (x) = f a(x) for every x U a and for every a A, since any such function would necessarily be unbounded. The difficulty in this case is that presheaves are designed to carry local information, and so they do not react well to cases where local information does not carry over to global information, in this case boundedness. Note that the defect in this example comes in the form of the violation of gluing condition (ii) in Definition ; condition (i) still holds. 2. We consider the presheaf L 1 = W (L1 (U; R)) U W open of integrable functions on open subsets of an open subset W R n. This presheaf was considered in Example This presheaf is not a sheaf. For example, let us consider W = R n and take, in the definition of the gluing property, U = R n and any open cover (U a ) a A of U by balls of radius 1. On U a take the local section f a of L 1 defined by f R n a (x) = 1. Then there is no integrable function on R n whose restriction to U a is f a for each a A. While we have done this only in the case that W = R n, a little thought shows that L 1 is not a sheaf for any W. W

12 12 1 Sheaf theory 28/02/2014 As with sheaves of sets, we can patch together sheaves of rings from local constructions Proposition (Building a sheaf of rings from local constructions) Let (S, O) be a topological space and let (U a ) a A be an open cover for S. Suppose that, for each a A, R a is a sheaf of rings over U a and denote the restriction maps for R a by r a U,V for U, V U a open with V U. If, for a 1, a 2 A satisfying U a1 U a2, we have a sheaf isomorphism φ a1 a 2 : R a1 (U a1 ) U a1 U a2 R a2 (U a2 ) U a1 U a2, then there exists a sheaf of rings R over S, unique up to isomorphism, and isomorphisms φ a : R U a R a, a A, such that the diagram R U a1 U a2 φ a1 R a1 U a1 U a2 φ a1 a 2 R U a1 U a2 φa2 R a1 U a1 U a2 commutes for every a 1, a 2 A. Proof We can construct R as a sheaf of sets as in Proposition To verify that it is, appropriately, a sheaf of rings follows by defining the algebraic operations in the obvious way. For example, if R a, a A, are sheaves of rings, then we can define addition and multiplication in R(U) by (r a ) a A + (s a ) a A = (r a + s a ) a A, ( (ra ) a A ) ( (sa ) a A ) = (ra s a ) a A, respectively. One easily verifies that these operations are well-defined, and that the restriction morphisms for R are ring homomorphisms. One also needs to verify that the morphism ψ from Lemma 1 from the proof of Proposition is a morphism of sheaves of rings. Sheaves of modules Now we turn to constructions with modules Definition (Sheaf of modules) Let R be a sheaf of rings over a topological space (S, O). A presheaf E of R-modules over a topological space (S, O) is a sheaf of R- modules if, as a presheaf of sets, it is a sheaf. As a consequence of Lemma , if E is a sheaf of R-modules, then E ( ) is the zero ring. We shall assume without mention that all presheaves have this structure. It is fairly easy to show that the presheaf G r is a sheaf, and let us record this here. E

13 28/02/ The basics of sheaf theory Proposition (Presheaves of sections are sheaves) Let r Z 0 {, ω, hol}, let r {, ω, hol} be as required, and let F = R if r Z 0 {, ω} and let F = C if r = hol. Let M be a manifold of class C r and let π: E M be a vector bundle of class C r. Then G r E is a sheaf of C r M -modules. Proof This follows, mutatis mutandis, as does the proof for Proposition As with sets and rings, one can patch together modules from local constructions Proposition (Building a sheaf of modules from local constructions) Let (S, O) be a topological space and let (U a ) a A be an open cover for S. Suppose that, for each a A, R a is a sheaf of rings over U a and E a is a sheaf of R a -modules, and denote the restriction maps for E a by r a for U, V U U,V a open with V U. If, for a 1, a 2 A satisfying U a1 U a2, we have a sheaf isomorphism φ a1 a 2 : E a1 (U a1 ) U a1 U a2 E a2 (U a2 ) U a1 U a2, then there exists a sheaf of R-modules (here R is the sheaf of rings from Proposition ) E over S, unique up to isomorphism, and isomorphisms φ a : E U a E a, a A, such that the diagram E U a1 U a2 φ a1 E a1 U a1 U a2 φ a1 a 2 E U a1 U a2 φa2 E a1 U a1 U a2 commutes for every a 1, a 2 A. Proof As with Proposition , this follows from Proposition , along with some bookkeeping which we leave to the reader The étalé space of a presheaf The examples of presheaves we are most interested in, the presheaves C r M and G r E, arise naturally as sections of some geometric object. However, there is nothing built into our definition of a presheaf that entails that it arises in this way. In this section we associate to a presheaf a space which realises sections of a presheaf as sections of some object, albeit a sort of peculiar one. The étalé space of a presheaf of sets In Section GA we saw the notions of germs of C r -functions and germs of C r - sections of a vector bundle. We begin our constructions of this section by understanding the germ construction for general presheaves. For the purposes of this discussion, we work with a presheaf F of sets over a topological space (S, O). We let x S let O x be the collection of open subsets of S containing x. This is a directed set using inclusion since, given U 1, U 2 O x, we have U 1 U 2 O x and U 1 U 2 U 1 and U 1 U 2 U 2. What we want is the direct limit in (F (U)) U Ox. This we define using the equivalence

14 14 1 Sheaf theory 28/02/2014 relation where, for U 1, U 2 O x, s 1 F (U 1 ) and s 2 F (U 2 ) are equivalent if there exists V O x such that V U 1, V U 2 and r U1,V(s 1 ) = r U2,V(s 2 ). The equivalence class of a section s F (U) we denote by r U,x (s), or simply by [s] x if we are able to forget about the neighbourhood on which s is defined. The preceding constructions allow us to make the following definition Definition (Stalk of a sheaf of sets, germ of a section) Let (S, O) be a topological space and let F be a presheaf of sets over S. For x S, the stalk of F at x is the set of equivalence classes under the equivalence relation defined above, and is denoted by F x. The equivalence class r U,x (s) of a section s F (U) is called the germ of s at x. With stalks at hand, we can make another useful construction associated with a presheaf Definition (Étalé space of a presheaf of sets) Let (S, O) be a topological space and let F be a presheaf of sets. The étalé space of F is the disjoint union of the stalks of F : Et(F ) = x S F x. The étalé topology on Et(F ) is that topology whose basis consists of subsets of the form B(U, s) = {r U,x (s) x U}, U O, s F (U). By π F : Et(F ) S we denote the canonical projection π F (r U,x (s)) = x which we call the étalé projection. Let us give some properties of étalé spaces, including the verification that the proposed basis we give for the étalé topology is actually a basis Proposition (Properties of the étalé topology) Let (S, O) be a topological space with F a presheaf of sets over S. The étalé topology on Et(F ) has the following properties: (i) the sets B(U, s), U O, s F (U), form a basis for a topology; (ii) the projection π F is a local homeomorphism, i.e., about every [s] x Et(F ) there exists a neighbourhood O Et(F ) such that π F is a homeomorphism onto its image. Proof (i) According to [Willard 1970, Theorem 5.3] this means that we must show that for sets B(U 1, s 1 ) and B(U 2, s 2 ) and for [s] x B(U 1, s 1 ) B(U 2, s 2 ), there exists B(V, t) B(U 1, s 1 ) B(U 2, s 2 ) such that [s] x B(V, t). We let V U 1 U 2 be a neighbourhood of x such that s(y) = s 1 (y) = s 2 (y) for each y V, this being possible since [s] x B(U 1, s 1 ) B(U 2, s 2 ). We then clearly have B(V, t) B(U 1, s 1 ) B(U 2, s 2 ) as desired. (ii) By definition of the étalé topology, π F B(U, s) is a homeomorphism onto U (its inverse is s), and this suffices to show that π F is a local homeomorphism. The way in which one should think of the étalé topology is depicted in Figure 1.1. The point is that open sets in the étalé topology can be thought of as the graphs of local sections. In Figure 1.2 we illustrate how one might think about the possibilities regarding restriction maps as pointed out in Example A good example to illustrate the étalé topology is the constant sheaf.

15 28/02/ The basics of sheaf theory 15 Figure 1.1 How to think of open sets in the étalé topology ( ( ) ) U V ( ( ) ) U V Figure 1.2 A depiction of the lack of injectivity (left) and surjectivity (right) of the restriction map r U,V for étalé spaces Example (The étalé space of a constant sheaf) We let (S, O) be a topological space and let X be a set. By F X we denote the constant presheaf defined by F X (U) = X. Note that the stalk F X,x is simply X. Thus Et(F X ) = x S (x, X) which we identity with S X in the natural way. Under this identification of Et(F X ) with S X, the étalé projection π: S X S is identified with projection onto the first factor. Thus a section is, first of all, a map σ: S X. It must also satisfy the criterion of continuity, and so we must understand the étalé topology on S X. Let U O and let s F X (U) = X. The associated basis set for the étalé topology is then B(U, s) = {(x, s) x U}. These are precisely the open sets for S X if we equip X with the discrete topology. Thus Et(F X ) is identified with the product topological space S X where X has the discrete topology. The étalé space of a presheaf of rings Let us now consider étalé spaces of rings. Presheaves of rings being presheaves of sets, we can define stalks of sheaves of rings and germs of local sections of presheaves of rings. With this, we can make the following definition Definition (Étalé space of a presheaf of rings) Let (S, O) be a topological space and let R be a presheaf of rings. The étalé space of R is the disjoint union of the stalks of

16 16 1 Sheaf theory 28/02/2014 R: Et(R) = x S R x, which we equip with the étalé topology of Definition We define ring operations on the set R x of germs by r U,x ( f ) + r V,x (g) = r U V,x r U,U V ( f ) + r U V,x r V,U V (g), (r U,x ( f )) (r V,x (g)) = (r U V,x r U,U V ( f )) (r U V,x r V,U V (g)), where f R(U), g R(V) for neighbourhoods U and V of x. We denote by 0 x R x and 1 x R x the germs of the sections ζ, µ R(U) over some neighbourhood U of x given by ζ = 0 and µ = 1. One readily verifies, just as we did for germs of functions, mappings, and sections of vector bundles, that these ring operations is well-defined and satisfy the ring axioms. Of course, the basic properties of étalé spaces of sets apply to étalé spaces of rings Proposition (Properties of the étalé topology (ring version)) Let (S, O) be a topological space with R a presheaf of rings over S. The étalé topology on Et(R) has the following properties: (i) the sets B(U, f), U O, f R(U), form a basis for a topology; (ii) the projection π R is a local homeomorphism, i.e., about every [f] x Et(R) there exists a neighbourhood O Et(R) such that π R is a homeomorphism onto its image. Proof This follows from Proposition Let us look a little closely at the particular étalé space of rings that will be of most concern for us. Let r Z 0 {, ω, hol}, let r {, ω, hol} be as required, and let F = R if r Z 0 {, ω} and let F = C if r = hol. Let M be a manifold of class C r. It is rather apparent that the stalks of Et(C r r ) are exactly the sets C of germs of functions. M x,m Let us examine some of the properties of these e talé spaces. what? Lemma (The étalé topology for sheaves of smooth functions) The étalé topology on Et(C r ) is not Hausdorff when r Z M 0 { }. Proof Let U M be an open set and as in, let f C (M) be such that f (x) R >0 for x U and f (x) = 0 for x M \ U. Let g C (M) be the zero function. Now let x bd(u). We claim that any neighbourhoods of [ f ] x and [g] x in Et(C r M ) intersect. To see this, let O f and O g be neighbourhoods in the étalé topology of [ f ] x and [g] x. Since any sufficiently small neighbourhood of [ f ] x and [g] x is homeomorphic to a neighbourhood of x under the étalé projection, let us suppose without loss of generality that O f and O g are both homeomorphic to a neighbourhood V of x under the projection. For y V (M \ cl(u)), [ f ] y = [g] y. Since O f and O g are uniquely determined by the germs of f and g in V, respectively, it follows that [ f ] y = [g] y O f O g, giving the desired conclusion.

17 28/02/ The basics of sheaf theory Lemma (The étalé topology for sheaves of analytic functions) If M is Hausdorff, then the étalé topology on Et(C r ) is Hausdorff when r {ω, hol}. M Proof Let [ f ] x and [g] y be distinct. If x y then there are disjoint neighbourhoods U and V of x and y and then B(U, f ) and B(V, g) are disjoint neighbourhoods of [ f ] x and [g] y, respectively, since the étalé projection is a homeomorphism from the neighbourhoods in M to the neighbourhoods in Et(C r M ). If x = y let [ f ] x and [g] x be distinct and suppose that every neighbourhood of [ f ] x and [g] x in the étalé topology intersect. This implies, in particular, that for every connected neighbourhood U of x the basic neighbourhoods B(U, f ) and B(U, g) intersect. This implies by Lemma below the existence of an open subset V of U such that f and g agree on V. This, however, contradicts the identity principle, Theorem GA Thus the étalé topology is indeed Hausdorff in the holomorphic or real analytic case. Readers who are annoyed by the notation Et(C r ) and Et(G r ) will be pleased to M E know that we will stop using this notation eventually. The étalé space of a presheaf of modules Let us now consider étalé spaces of modules. Presheaves of modules being presheaves of sets, we can define stalks of sheaves of modules and germs of local sections of presheaves of modules. With this, we can make the following definition Definition (Étalé space of a presheaf of modules) Let (S, O) be a topological space, let R be a presheaf of rings over S, and let E be a presheaf of R-modules. The étalé space of E is the disjoint union of the stalks of E : Et(E ) = x S E x, which we equip with the étalé topology of Definition We define an R x -module structure on the set E x of germs by r U,x (s) + r V,x (t) = r U V,x r U,U V (s) + r U V,x r V,U V (t), (r W,x ( f )) (r V,x (s)) = (r W V,x r W,W V ( f )) (r W V,x r V,W V (s)), where s E (U), t E (V), and f R(W). One readily verifies, just as we did for germs of sections of vector bundles, that the module operations are well-defined and satisfy the module axioms. Of course, the basic properties of étalé spaces of sets apply to étalé spaces of rings Proposition (Properties of the étalé topology (module version)) Let (S, O) be a topological space with R a presheaf of rings over S and E a presheaf of R-modules. The étalé topology on Et(E ) has the following properties: (i) the sets B(U, s), U O, s E (U), form a basis for a topology; (ii) the projection π E is a local homeomorphism, i.e., about every [s] x Et(E ) there exists a neighbourhood O Et(E ) such that π E is a homeomorphism onto its image.

18 18 1 Sheaf theory 28/02/2014 Proof This follows from Proposition For sheaves of rings or modules the notion of stalk makes it possible to define the notion of the support of a local section Definition (Support of a local section) Let (S, O) be a topological space, let R be a presheaf of rings over S, and let E be a presheaf of R-modules over S. The support of a local section s E (U) is supp(s) = {x U [s] x 0 x }. Note that the support of a local section s E (U) is necessarily closed since if [s] x = 0 x then [s] y = 0 y for y in some neighbourhood of x. Let us examine closely the structure of the étalé spaces of sheaves of sections of a vector bundle. Let r Z 0 {, ω, hol}, let r {, ω, hol} be as required, and let F = R if r Z 0 {, ω} and let F = C if r = hol. Let M be a manifold of class C r and let π: E M be a vector bundle of class C r. It is rather apparent that the stalks of Et(G r) E are exactly the sets and G r of germs of functions and sections, respectively. x,e Let us examine some of the properties of these e talé spaces Lemma (The étalé topology for sheaves of smooth sections) The étalé topology on both Et(C r M ) and Et(G r E ) is not Hausdorff when r Z 0 { }. Proof This follows, mutatis mutandis, as the proof of Lemma Lemma (The étalé topology for sheaves of analytic sections) If M is Hausdorff, then the étalé topology both Et(G r ) is Hausdorff when r {ω, hol}. E Proof This follows, mutatis mutandis, as the proof of Lemma Étalé spaces Let us now talk about étalé spaces in general. As with presheaves and sheaves, we will give a few definitions associated with the various structures we shall use. We begin with sets. Étalé spaces of sets The basic flavour of étalé space is that of sets, corresponding to the following definition Definition (Étalé space of sets) If (S, O) is a topological space, an étalé space of sets over S is a topological space S with a surjective map π: S S, called the étalé projection, such that π is a local homeomorphism. The the stalk at x is S x = π 1 (x). Like presheaves, étalé spaces have restrictions, but these can be defined for arbitrary subsets, not just open subsets.

19 28/02/ The basics of sheaf theory Definition (Restriction of étalé space) If π: S S is an étalé space over a topological space (S, O) and if A S, the restriction of S to A is S A = π 1 (A), which we regard as an étalé space over A. Similarly, sections of étalé spaces can be defined over arbitrary subsets Definition (Sections of étalé space) Let (S, O) be a topological space and let π: S S be an étalé space of sets over S. A section of S over A S is a continuous map σ: A S (with the subspace topology for A) for which π σ(x) = x for every x A. The set of sections of S over A is denoted by Γ(A; S ). Most often one is interested in sections of étalé spaces over open sets, and we shall see why such sections are particularly important as we go along. The following properties of sections are used often when proving statements about étalé spaces Lemma (Properties of sections of étalé spaces) Let (S, O) be a topological space, let π: S S be an étalé space of sets over S, and let x S: (i) if α S x then there exists a neighbourhood U of x and a section σ of S over U such that σ(x) = α; (ii) if σ and τ are sections of S over neighbourhoods U and V, respectively, of x for which σ(x) = τ(x), then there exists a neighbourhood W U V of x such that σ W = τ W. Proof (i) Let O be a neighbourhood of α in S, and suppose, without loss of generality, that π O is a homeomorphism onto its image. The inverse σ: π(o) O S is continuous, and so it a section. (ii) Let α = σ(x) = τ(x) and let O S be a neighbourhood of α such that π O is a homeomorphism onto its image. Let U U and V V be such that σ(u ), τ(v ) O, this by continuity of the sections. Let W = U V. Note that σ W and τ W are continuous bijections onto their image and that they are further homeomorphisms onto their image, with the continuous inverse being furnished by π. Thus σ and τ are both inverse for π in the same neighbourhood of α, and so are, therefore, equal. Most of our examples of étalé spaces will come from Proposition below. Let us give another example for fun Example (Étalé spaces) Let (S, O) be a topological space and let X be a set. We define S X = S X and we equip this set with the product topology inherited by using the discrete topology on X. One readily verifies that the projection π: S X S given by projection onto the first factor then makes S X into an étalé space. One also verifies that sections of S X over U O are regarded as locally constant maps from U to X. This étalé space we call the constant étalé space. Note that, by our constructions of Example , if F X is a constant presheaf, its étalé space Et(F X ) is a constant étalé space, and is isomorphic to the constant étalé space S X. We should verify that the étalé space of a presheaf is an étalé space in the general sense.

20 20 1 Sheaf theory 28/02/ Proposition (Étalé spaces of presheaves of sets are étalé spaces of sets) If (S, O) is a topological space and if F is a presheaf of sets over S, then π F : Et(F ) S is an étalé space of sets and Et(F ) x = F x. Proof By Proposition the étalé projection is a local homeomorphism. As it is clearly surjective, it follows that Et(F ) is an étalé space. The final assertion of the proposition is just the definition Notation (Stalks) We shall write either F x or Et(F ) x for the stalk, depending on what is most appropriate. Thus, associated to every presheaf is an étalé space. Moreover, associated to every étalé space is a natural presheaf Definition (The presheaf of sections of an étalé space of sets) For a topological space (S, O) and an étalé space S of sets, the presheaf of sections S is the presheaf Ps(S ) of sets which assigns to U O the set Γ(U; S ) of sections of S over U and for which the restriction map for U, V O with V U is given by r U,V (σ) = σ V. It is readily seen that Ps(S ) is indeed a presheaf. Moreover, it is a sheaf Proposition (Ps(S ) is a sheaf) If (S, O) is a topological space and if S is an étalé space of sets over S, then the presheaf Ps(S ) is a sheaf of sets. Proof By Proposition it follows that Ps(S ) is separated. Let U O and let (U a ) a A be an open cover for U. Suppose that for each a A there exists σ a Γ(U a ; S ) such that σ a1 (x) = σ a2 (x) for every x U a1 U a2. Then, for x U, define σ(x) = σ a (x) where a A is such that x U a. This is clearly well-defined. We need only show that σ is continuous. But this follows since σ a is continuous, and σ agrees with σ a in a neighbourhood of x. Étalé spaces of rings We next discuss étalé spaces of rings. To do so, we shall require that the ring operations be appropriately continuous, which requires a suitable topology which we now describe. Given étalé spaces π: S S and τ: T S over (S, O), let us define S S T = {(α, β) S T π(α) = τ(β)}. This space is given the relative topology from S T Definition (Étalé space of rings) If (S, O) is a topological space, an étalé space of rings over S is a topological space A with a surjective map π: A S such that (i) A is an étalé space of sets, (ii) the stalk A x = π 1 (x) is a ring for each x S, (iii) the ring operations are continuous, i.e., the maps A S A ( f, g) f + g A, A S A ( f, g) f g A are continuous.

21 28/02/ The basics of sheaf theory 21 The essential features of étalé spaces of sets carry over to étalé spaces of rings. In particular, one can define the restriction of an étalé space of rings over S to any subset A S just as in Definition , and the set of sections of an étalé space of rings over a subset A as in Definition Sections of étalé spaces of rings have the properties enumerated in Lemma Let us give some simple examples of étalé spaces of rings Examples (Some constant étalé spaces of rings) 1. Note that the étalé space Et(Z S ) is an étalé space of rings. 2. Similarly, for F {R, C}, the étalé space Et(F S ) is an étalé space of rings. Étalé spaces of presheaves of rings have the expected property of being étalé spaces of rings Proposition (Étalé spaces of presheaves of rings are étalé spaces of rings) If (S, O) is a topological space and if R is a presheaf of rings over S, then π R : Et(R) S is an étalé space of rings and Et(R) x = R x. Proof Except for the continuity of the ring operations, the result follows from Proposition Let us show that the ring operations on Et(R) are continuous. Let [ f ] x + [g] x Et(R) and let O Et(R) be a neighbourhood of [ f ] x + [g] x. Without loss of generality, suppose that f, g, f + g R(U) for some neighbourhood U of x. By shrinking U if necessary, by definition of the basic neighbourhoods for Et(R), we can suppose that B(U, f + g) O. Then we have Et(R) S Et(R) B(U, f ) S B(U, g) ([ f ] y, [g] y ) [ f + g] y B(U, f + g) O, where, of course, B(U, f ) S B(U, g) = {([ f ] y, [g] z ) B(U, f ) B(U, g) y = z}. This gives continuity of addition since B(U, f ) S B(U, g) is open in Et(R) S Et(R). A similarly styled argument shows that multiplication is continuous. As with stalks of presheaves of sets, we might write R x or Et(R) x for the stalk of a presheaf R of rings. Étalé spaces of rings give rise to natural presheaves of rings Definition (The presheaf of sections of an étalé space of rings) For a topological space (S, O) and an étalé space A of rings, the presheaf of sections A is the presheaf Ps(A ) of rings which assigns to U O the set Γ(U; A ) of sections of A over U and for which the restriction map for U, V O with V U is given by r U,V ( f ) = f V. The ring operations are ( f + g)(x) = f (x) + g(x), ( f g)(x) = f (x) g(x) f, g Γ(U; A ), x U. The presheaf Ps(A ) is a sheaf.

3. The Sheaf of Regular Functions

24 Andreas Gathmann 3. The Sheaf of Regular Functions After having defined affine varieties, our next goal must be to say what kind of maps between them we want to consider as morphisms, i. e. as nice

Direct Limits. Mathematics 683, Fall 2013

Direct Limits Mathematics 683, Fall 2013 In this note we define direct limits and prove their basic properties. This notion is important in various places in algebra. In particular, in algebraic geometry

Elementary (ha-ha) Aspects of Topos Theory

Elementary (ha-ha) Aspects of Topos Theory Matt Booth June 3, 2016 Contents 1 Sheaves on topological spaces 1 1.1 Presheaves on spaces......................... 1 1.2 Digression on pointless topology..................

which is a group homomorphism, such that if W V U, then

4. Sheaves Definition 4.1. Let X be a topological space. A presheaf of groups F on X is a a function which assigns to every open set U X a group F(U) and to every inclusion V U a restriction map, ρ UV

Lecture 2 Sheaves and Functors

Lecture 2 Sheaves and Functors In this lecture we will introduce the basic concept of sheaf and we also will recall some of category theory. 1 Sheaves and locally ringed spaces The definition of sheaf

AN INTRODUCTION TO AFFINE SCHEMES

AN INTRODUCTION TO AFFINE SCHEMES BROOKE ULLERY Abstract. This paper gives a basic introduction to modern algebraic geometry. The goal of this paper is to present the basic concepts of algebraic geometry,

Algebraic Geometry Spring 2009

MIT OpenCourseWare http://ocw.mit.edu 18.726 Algebraic Geometry Spring 2009 For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms. 18.726: Algebraic Geometry

ABSTRACT DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY VIA SHEAF THEORY

ABSTRACT DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY VIA SHEAF THEORY ARDA H. DEMIRHAN Abstract. We examine the conditions for uniqueness of differentials in the abstract setting of differential geometry. Then we ll come up

Lecture 9 - Faithfully Flat Descent

Lecture 9 - Faithfully Flat Descent October 15, 2014 1 Descent of morphisms In this lecture we study the concept of faithfully flat descent, which is the notion that to obtain an object on a scheme X,

Micro-support of sheaves

Micro-support of sheaves Vincent Humilière 17/01/14 The microlocal theory of sheaves and in particular the denition of the micro-support is due to Kashiwara and Schapira (the main reference is their book

Sheaves. S. Encinas. January 22, 2005 U V. F(U) F(V ) s s V. = s j Ui Uj there exists a unique section s F(U) such that s Ui = s i.

Sheaves. S. Encinas January 22, 2005 Definition 1. Let X be a topological space. A presheaf over X is a functor F : Op(X) op Sets, such that F( ) = { }. Where Sets is the category of sets, { } denotes

Math 676. A compactness theorem for the idele group. and by the product formula it lies in the kernel (A K )1 of the continuous idelic norm

Math 676. A compactness theorem for the idele group 1. Introduction Let K be a global field, so K is naturally a discrete subgroup of the idele group A K and by the product formula it lies in the kernel

FOUNDATIONS OF ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY CLASS 3

FOUNDATIONS OF ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY CLASS 3 RAVI VAKIL CONTENTS 1. Kernels, cokernels, and exact sequences: A brief introduction to abelian categories 1 2. Sheaves 7 3. Motivating example: The sheaf of differentiable

Solutions to some of the exercises from Tennison s Sheaf Theory

Solutions to some of the exercises from Tennison s Sheaf Theory Pieter Belmans June 19, 2011 Contents 1 Exercises at the end of Chapter 1 1 2 Exercises in Chapter 2 6 3 Exercises at the end of Chapter

1 Differentiable manifolds and smooth maps

1 Differentiable manifolds and smooth maps Last updated: April 14, 2011. 1.1 Examples and definitions Roughly, manifolds are sets where one can introduce coordinates. An n-dimensional manifold is a set

14 Lecture 14: Basic generallities on adic spaces

14 Lecture 14: Basic generallities on adic spaces 14.1 Introduction The aim of this lecture and the next two is to address general adic spaces and their connection to rigid geometry. 14.2 Two open questions

where Σ is a finite discrete Gal(K sep /K)-set unramified along U and F s is a finite Gal(k(s) sep /k(s))-subset

Classification of quasi-finite étale separated schemes As we saw in lecture, Zariski s Main Theorem provides a very visual picture of quasi-finite étale separated schemes X over a henselian local ring

ALGEBRAIC GROUPS. Disclaimer: There are millions of errors in these notes!

ALGEBRAIC GROUPS Disclaimer: There are millions of errors in these notes! 1. Some algebraic geometry The subject of algebraic groups depends on the interaction between algebraic geometry and group theory.

FOUNDATIONS OF ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY CLASS 5

FOUNDATIONS OF ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY CLASS 5 RAVI VAKIL CONTENTS 1. The inverse image sheaf 1 2. Recovering sheaves from a sheaf on a base 3 3. Toward schemes 5 4. The underlying set of affine schemes 6 Last

p,q H (X), H (Y ) ), where the index p has the same meaning as the

There are two Eilenberg-Moore spectral sequences that we shall consider, one for homology and the other for cohomology. In contrast with the situation for the Serre spectral sequence, for the Eilenberg-Moore

0.1 Spec of a monoid

These notes were prepared to accompany the first lecture in a seminar on logarithmic geometry. As we shall see in later lectures, logarithmic geometry offers a natural approach to study semistable schemes.

SOME OPERATIONS ON SHEAVES

SOME OPERATIONS ON SHEAVES R. VIRK Contents 1. Pushforward 1 2. Pullback 3 3. The adjunction (f 1, f ) 4 4. Support of a sheaf 5 5. Extension by zero 5 6. The adjunction (j!, j ) 6 7. Sections with support

Math 210B. Artin Rees and completions

Math 210B. Artin Rees and completions 1. Definitions and an example Let A be a ring, I an ideal, and M an A-module. In class we defined the I-adic completion of M to be M = lim M/I n M. We will soon show

Algebraic Geometry Spring 2009

MIT OpenCourseWare http://ocw.mit.edu 18.726 Algebraic Geometry Spring 2009 For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms. 18.726: Algebraic Geometry

Math 248B. Applications of base change for coherent cohomology

Math 248B. Applications of base change for coherent cohomology 1. Motivation Recall the following fundamental general theorem, the so-called cohomology and base change theorem: Theorem 1.1 (Grothendieck).

Infinite-Dimensional Triangularization

Infinite-Dimensional Triangularization Zachary Mesyan March 11, 2018 Abstract The goal of this paper is to generalize the theory of triangularizing matrices to linear transformations of an arbitrary vector

Azumaya Algebras. Dennis Presotto. November 4, Introduction: Central Simple Algebras

Azumaya Algebras Dennis Presotto November 4, 2015 1 Introduction: Central Simple Algebras Azumaya algebras are introduced as generalized or global versions of central simple algebras. So the first part

Relative Affine Schemes

Relative Affine Schemes Daniel Murfet October 5, 2006 The fundamental Spec( ) construction associates an affine scheme to any ring. In this note we study the relative version of this construction, which

Modules over a Ringed Space

Modules over a Ringed Space Daniel Murfet October 5, 2006 In these notes we collect some useful facts about sheaves of modules on a ringed space that are either left as exercises in [Har77] or omitted

A CATEGORICAL INTRODUCTION TO SHEAVES

A CATEGORICAL INTRODUCTION TO SHEAVES DAPING WENG Abstract. Sheaf is a very useful notion when defining and computing many different cohomology theories over topological spaces. There are several ways

Exercises of the Algebraic Geometry course held by Prof. Ugo Bruzzo. Alex Massarenti

Exercises of the Algebraic Geometry course held by Prof. Ugo Bruzzo Alex Massarenti SISSA, VIA BONOMEA 265, 34136 TRIESTE, ITALY E-mail address: alex.massarenti@sissa.it These notes collect a series of

Equivalence Relations

Equivalence Relations Definition 1. Let X be a non-empty set. A subset E X X is called an equivalence relation on X if it satisfies the following three properties: 1. Reflexive: For all x X, (x, x) E.

2. Prime and Maximal Ideals

18 Andreas Gathmann 2. Prime and Maximal Ideals There are two special kinds of ideals that are of particular importance, both algebraically and geometrically: the so-called prime and maximal ideals. Let

Boolean Algebras, Boolean Rings and Stone s Representation Theorem

Boolean Algebras, Boolean Rings and Stone s Representation Theorem Hongtaek Jung December 27, 2017 Abstract This is a part of a supplementary note for a Logic and Set Theory course. The main goal is to

A Bridge between Algebra and Topology: Swan s Theorem

A Bridge between Algebra and Topology: Swan s Theorem Daniel Hudson Contents 1 Vector Bundles 1 2 Sections of Vector Bundles 3 3 Projective Modules 4 4 Swan s Theorem 5 Introduction Swan s Theorem is a

FOUNDATIONS OF ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY CLASS 25

FOUNDATIONS OF ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY CLASS 25 RAVI VAKIL CONTENTS 1. Quasicoherent sheaves 1 2. Quasicoherent sheaves form an abelian category 5 We began by recalling the distinguished affine base. Definition.

FOUNDATIONS OF ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY CLASS 24

FOUNDATIONS OF ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY CLASS 24 RAVI VAKIL CONTENTS 1. Vector bundles and locally free sheaves 1 2. Toward quasicoherent sheaves: the distinguished affine base 5 Quasicoherent and coherent sheaves

HARTSHORNE EXERCISES

HARTSHORNE EXERCISES J. WARNER Hartshorne, Exercise I.5.6. Blowing Up Curve Singularities (a) Let Y be the cusp x 3 = y 2 + x 4 + y 4 or the node xy = x 6 + y 6. Show that the curve Ỹ obtained by blowing

FOUNDATIONS OF ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY CLASS 2

FOUNDATIONS OF ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY CLASS 2 RAVI VAKIL CONTENTS 1. Some constructions using universal properties, old and new 1 2. Adjoint functors 3 3. Sheaves 6 Last day: What is algebraic geometry? Crash

FOUNDATIONS OF ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY CLASS 43

FOUNDATIONS OF ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY CLASS 43 RAVI VAKIL CONTENTS 1. Facts we ll soon know about curves 1 1. FACTS WE LL SOON KNOW ABOUT CURVES We almost know enough to say a lot of interesting things about

Connectedness. Proposition 2.2. The following are equivalent for a topological space (X, T ).

Connectedness 1 Motivation Connectedness is the sort of topological property that students love. Its definition is intuitive and easy to understand, and it is a powerful tool in proofs of well-known results.

Representable presheaves

Representable presheaves March 15, 2017 A presheaf on a category C is a contravariant functor F on C. In particular, for any object X Ob(C) we have the presheaf (of sets) represented by X, that is Hom

Lecture 3: Flat Morphisms

Lecture 3: Flat Morphisms September 29, 2014 1 A crash course on Properties of Schemes For more details on these properties, see [Hartshorne, II, 1-5]. 1.1 Open and Closed Subschemes If (X, O X ) is a

Math 210B. Profinite group cohomology

Math 210B. Profinite group cohomology 1. Motivation Let {Γ i } be an inverse system of finite groups with surjective transition maps, and define Γ = Γ i equipped with its inverse it topology (i.e., the

1 Categorical Background

1 Categorical Background 1.1 Categories and Functors Definition 1.1.1 A category C is given by a class of objects, often denoted by ob C, and for any two objects A, B of C a proper set of morphisms C(A,

What are stacks and why should you care?

What are stacks and why should you care? Milan Lopuhaä October 12, 2017 Todays goal is twofold: I want to tell you why you would want to study stacks in the first place, and I want to define what a stack

6 Lecture 6: More constructions with Huber rings

6 Lecture 6: More constructions with Huber rings 6.1 Introduction Recall from Definition 5.2.4 that a Huber ring is a commutative topological ring A equipped with an open subring A 0, such that the subspace

int cl int cl A = int cl A.

BAIRE CATEGORY CHRISTIAN ROSENDAL 1. THE BAIRE CATEGORY THEOREM Theorem 1 (The Baire category theorem. Let (D n n N be a countable family of dense open subsets of a Polish space X. Then n N D n is dense

5 Set Operations, Functions, and Counting

5 Set Operations, Functions, and Counting Let N denote the positive integers, N 0 := N {0} be the non-negative integers and Z = N 0 ( N) the positive and negative integers including 0, Q the rational numbers,

Criteria for existence of semigroup homomorphisms and projective rank functions. George M. Bergman

Criteria for existence of semigroup homomorphisms and projective rank functions George M. Bergman Suppose A, S, and T are semigroups, e: A S and f: A T semigroup homomorphisms, and X a generating set for

π X : X Y X and π Y : X Y Y

Math 6130 Notes. Fall 2002. 6. Hausdorffness and Compactness. We would like to be able to say that all quasi-projective varieties are Hausdorff and that projective varieties are the only compact varieties.

1. Algebraic vector bundles. Affine Varieties

0. Brief overview Cycles and bundles are intrinsic invariants of algebraic varieties Close connections going back to Grothendieck Work with quasi-projective varieties over a field k Affine Varieties 1.

NONSINGULAR CURVES BRIAN OSSERMAN

NONSINGULAR CURVES BRIAN OSSERMAN The primary goal of this note is to prove that every abstract nonsingular curve can be realized as an open subset of a (unique) nonsingular projective curve. Note that

Lectures - XXIII and XXIV Coproducts and Pushouts

Lectures - XXIII and XXIV Coproducts and Pushouts We now discuss further categorical constructions that are essential for the formulation of the Seifert Van Kampen theorem. We first discuss the notion

Algebraic Geometry. Andreas Gathmann. Class Notes TU Kaiserslautern 2014

Algebraic Geometry Andreas Gathmann Class Notes TU Kaiserslautern 2014 Contents 0. Introduction......................... 3 1. Affine Varieties........................ 9 2. The Zariski Topology......................

Geometry 2: Manifolds and sheaves

Rules:Exam problems would be similar to ones marked with! sign. It is recommended to solve all unmarked and!-problems or to find the solution online. It s better to do it in order starting from the beginning,

A QUICK NOTE ON ÉTALE STACKS

A QUICK NOTE ON ÉTALE STACKS DAVID CARCHEDI Abstract. These notes start by closely following a talk I gave at the Higher Structures Along the Lower Rhine workshop in Bonn, in January. I then give a taste

10. The subgroup subalgebra correspondence. Homogeneous spaces.

10. The subgroup subalgebra correspondence. Homogeneous spaces. 10.1. The concept of a Lie subgroup of a Lie group. We have seen that if G is a Lie group and H G a subgroup which is at the same time a

EXAMPLES AND EXERCISES IN BASIC CATEGORY THEORY

EXAMPLES AND EXERCISES IN BASIC CATEGORY THEORY 1. Categories 1.1. Generalities. I ve tried to be as consistent as possible. In particular, throughout the text below, categories will be denoted by capital

10. Smooth Varieties. 82 Andreas Gathmann

82 Andreas Gathmann 10. Smooth Varieties Let a be a point on a variety X. In the last chapter we have introduced the tangent cone C a X as a way to study X locally around a (see Construction 9.20). It

Formal power series rings, inverse limits, and I-adic completions of rings

Formal power series rings, inverse limits, and I-adic completions of rings Formal semigroup rings and formal power series rings We next want to explore the notion of a (formal) power series ring in finitely

h M (T ). The natural isomorphism η : M h M determines an element U = η 1

MODULI PROBLEMS AND GEOMETRIC INVARIANT THEORY 7 2.3. Fine moduli spaces. The ideal situation is when there is a scheme that represents our given moduli functor. Definition 2.15. Let M : Sch Set be a moduli

Algebraic Geometry Spring 2009

MIT OpenCourseWare http://ocw.mit.edu 18.726 Algebraic Geometry Spring 2009 For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms. 18.726: Algebraic Geometry

Synopsis of material from EGA Chapter II, 4. Proposition (4.1.6). The canonical homomorphism ( ) is surjective [(3.2.4)].

Synopsis of material from EGA Chapter II, 4 4.1. Definition of projective bundles. 4. Projective bundles. Ample sheaves Definition (4.1.1). Let S(E) be the symmetric algebra of a quasi-coherent O Y -module.

a (b + c) = a b + a c

Chapter 1 Vector spaces In the Linear Algebra I module, we encountered two kinds of vector space, namely real and complex. The real numbers and the complex numbers are both examples of an algebraic structure

ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY (NMAG401) Contents. 2. Polynomial and rational maps 9 3. Hilbert s Nullstellensatz and consequences 23 References 30

ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY (NMAG401) JAN ŠŤOVÍČEK Contents 1. Affine varieties 1 2. Polynomial and rational maps 9 3. Hilbert s Nullstellensatz and consequences 23 References 30 1. Affine varieties The basic objects

INVERSE LIMITS AND PROFINITE GROUPS

INVERSE LIMITS AND PROFINITE GROUPS BRIAN OSSERMAN We discuss the inverse limit construction, and consider the special case of inverse limits of finite groups, which should best be considered as topological

LECTURE 1: SOME GENERALITIES; 1 DIMENSIONAL EXAMPLES

LECTURE 1: SOME GENERALITIES; 1 DIMENSIONAL EAMPLES VIVEK SHENDE Historically, sheaves come from topology and analysis; subsequently they have played a fundamental role in algebraic geometry and certain

3 COUNTABILITY AND CONNECTEDNESS AXIOMS

3 COUNTABILITY AND CONNECTEDNESS AXIOMS Definition 3.1 Let X be a topological space. A subset D of X is dense in X iff D = X. X is separable iff it contains a countable dense subset. X satisfies the first

SECTION 2: THE COMPACT-OPEN TOPOLOGY AND LOOP SPACES

SECTION 2: THE COMPACT-OPEN TOPOLOGY AND LOOP SPACES In this section we will give the important constructions of loop spaces and reduced suspensions associated to pointed spaces. For this purpose there

Section Higher Direct Images of Sheaves

Section 3.8 - Higher Direct Images of Sheaves Daniel Murfet October 5, 2006 In this note we study the higher direct image functors R i f ( ) and the higher coinverse image functors R i f! ( ) which will

SEPARATED AND PROPER MORPHISMS

SEPARATED AND PROPER MORPHISMS BRIAN OSSERMAN The notions o separatedness and properness are the algebraic geometry analogues o the Hausdor condition and compactness in topology. For varieties over the

Isomorphisms between pattern classes

Journal of Combinatorics olume 0, Number 0, 1 8, 0000 Isomorphisms between pattern classes M. H. Albert, M. D. Atkinson and Anders Claesson Isomorphisms φ : A B between pattern classes are considered.

1 Replete topoi. X = Shv proét (X) X is locally weakly contractible (next lecture) X is replete. D(X ) is left complete. K D(X ) we have R lim

Reference: [BS] Bhatt, Scholze, The pro-étale topology for schemes In this lecture we consider replete topoi This is a nice class of topoi that include the pro-étale topos, and whose derived categories

Filters in Analysis and Topology

Filters in Analysis and Topology David MacIver July 1, 2004 Abstract The study of filters is a very natural way to talk about convergence in an arbitrary topological space, and carries over nicely into

Stone-Čech compactification of Tychonoff spaces

The Stone-Čech compactification of Tychonoff spaces Jordan Bell jordan.bell@gmail.com Department of Mathematics, University of Toronto June 27, 2014 1 Completely regular spaces and Tychonoff spaces A topological

Part III. 10 Topological Space Basics. Topological Spaces

Part III 10 Topological Space Basics Topological Spaces Using the metric space results above as motivation we will axiomatize the notion of being an open set to more general settings. Definition 10.1.

fy (X(g)) Y (f)x(g) gy (X(f)) Y (g)x(f)) = fx(y (g)) + gx(y (f)) fy (X(g)) gy (X(f))

1. Basic algebra of vector fields Let V be a finite dimensional vector space over R. Recall that V = {L : V R} is defined to be the set of all linear maps to R. V is isomorphic to V, but there is no canonical

PERVERSE SHEAVES ON A TRIANGULATED SPACE

PERVERSE SHEAVES ON A TRIANGULATED SPACE A. POLISHCHUK The goal of this note is to prove that the category of perverse sheaves constructible with respect to a triangulation is Koszul (i.e. equivalent to

Algebraic Geometry

MIT OpenCourseWare http://ocw.mit.edu 18.726 Algebraic Geometry Spring 2009 For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms. 18.726: Algebraic Geometry

The Fundamental Group and Covering Spaces

Chapter 8 The Fundamental Group and Covering Spaces In the first seven chapters we have dealt with point-set topology. This chapter provides an introduction to algebraic topology. Algebraic topology may

Université Paris Sud XI Orsay THE LOCAL FLATTENING THEOREM. Master 2 Memoire by Christopher M. Evans. Advisor: Prof. Joël Merker

Université Paris Sud XI Orsay THE LOCAL FLATTENING THEOREM Master 2 Memoire by Christopher M. Evans Advisor: Prof. Joël Merker August 2013 Table of Contents Introduction iii Chapter 1 Complex Spaces 1

MATH 8253 ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY WEEK 12

MATH 8253 ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY WEEK 2 CİHAN BAHRAN 3.2.. Let Y be a Noetherian scheme. Show that any Y -scheme X of finite type is Noetherian. Moreover, if Y is of finite dimension, then so is X. Write f

Lecture 1: Overview. January 24, 2018

Lecture 1: Overview January 24, 2018 We begin with a very quick review of first-order logic (we will give a more leisurely review in the next lecture). Recall that a linearly ordered set is a set X equipped

Introduction to Real Analysis Alternative Chapter 1

Christopher Heil Introduction to Real Analysis Alternative Chapter 1 A Primer on Norms and Banach Spaces Last Updated: March 10, 2018 c 2018 by Christopher Heil Chapter 1 A Primer on Norms and Banach Spaces

Chern classes à la Grothendieck

Chern classes à la Grothendieck Theo Raedschelders October 16, 2014 Abstract In this note we introduce Chern classes based on Grothendieck s 1958 paper [4]. His approach is completely formal and he deduces

TOPOLOGY TAKE-HOME CLAY SHONKWILER

TOPOLOGY TAKE-HOME CLAY SHONKWILER 1. The Discrete Topology Let Y = {0, 1} have the discrete topology. Show that for any topological space X the following are equivalent. (a) X has the discrete topology.

1 The Local-to-Global Lemma

Point-Set Topology Connectedness: Lecture 2 1 The Local-to-Global Lemma In the world of advanced mathematics, we are often interested in comparing the local properties of a space to its global properties.

11 Annihilators. Suppose that R, S, and T are rings, that R P S, S Q T, and R U T are bimodules, and finally, that

11 Annihilators. In this Section we take a brief look at the important notion of annihilators. Although we shall use these in only very limited contexts, we will give a fairly general initial treatment,

Classification of definable groupoids and Zariski geometries

and Zariski geometries Dmitry Sustretov Ben Gurion University sustreto@mathbguacil February 26, 2014 1 Motivation: Azumaya algebras An Azumaya algebra is a generalisation of a central simple algebra for

Math 216A. A gluing construction of Proj(S)

Math 216A. A gluing construction o Proj(S) 1. Some basic deinitions Let S = n 0 S n be an N-graded ring (we ollows French terminology here, even though outside o France it is commonly accepted that N does

CHAPTER 0 PRELIMINARY MATERIAL. Paul Vojta. University of California, Berkeley. 18 February 1998

CHAPTER 0 PRELIMINARY MATERIAL Paul Vojta University of California, Berkeley 18 February 1998 This chapter gives some preliminary material on number theory and algebraic geometry. Section 1 gives basic

Summer Algebraic Geometry Seminar

Summer Algebraic Geometry Seminar Lectures by Bart Snapp About This Document These lectures are based on Chapters 1 and 2 of An Invitation to Algebraic Geometry by Karen Smith et al. 1 Affine Varieties

FOUNDATIONS OF ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY CLASS 2

FOUNDATIONS OF ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY CLASS 2 RAVI VAKIL CONTENTS 1. Where we were 1 2. Yoneda s lemma 2 3. Limits and colimits 6 4. Adjoints 8 First, some bureaucratic details. We will move to 380-F for Monday

ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY: GLOSSARY AND EXAMPLES

ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY: GLOSSARY AND EXAMPLES HONGHAO GAO FEBRUARY 7, 2014 Quasi-coherent and coherent sheaves Let X Spec k be a scheme. A presheaf over X is a contravariant functor from the category of open

Topological properties

CHAPTER 4 Topological properties 1. Connectedness Definitions and examples Basic properties Connected components Connected versus path connected, again 2. Compactness Definition and first examples Topological

Locally Convex Vector Spaces II: Natural Constructions in the Locally Convex Category

LCVS II c Gabriel Nagy Locally Convex Vector Spaces II: Natural Constructions in the Locally Convex Category Notes from the Functional Analysis Course (Fall 07 - Spring 08) Convention. Throughout this

MATH 101B: ALGEBRA II PART A: HOMOLOGICAL ALGEBRA

MATH 101B: ALGEBRA II PART A: HOMOLOGICAL ALGEBRA These are notes for our first unit on the algebraic side of homological algebra. While this is the last topic (Chap XX) in the book, it makes sense to