Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I am confused about something in Exercise 4.1 of Chapter 3 of Hartshorne. It asks us to prove : Let $f : X \rightarrow Y$ be an affine morphism of Noetherian, separated schemes. Show that for any quasi-coherent sheaf $\mathcal{F}$ on $X$, there are natural isomorphisms $$H^i(X, \mathcal{F}) \cong H^i(Y, f_* \mathcal{F}) \ \ \forall i \geq 0$$

I seem to have a proof without assuming that $f$ is affine or that the schemes are separated (but I need that $X$ is Noetherian). So I know my proof must be bogus, but I can't figure out why.

Proof : Exercise 3.6 of Chapter 3 of Hartshorne says that we can compute cohomology of a quasi-coherent sheaf as the derived functors of $\Gamma(X, \cdot)$, considered a a functor from the category of quasi-coherent sheaves to abelian groups. So let $\mathcal{F} \rightarrow \mathcal{I}^{\cdot}$ be an injective resolution of $\mathcal{F}$ in the category of quasi-coherent sheaves. Then $f_* \mathcal{F} \rightarrow f_* \mathcal{I^{\cdot}}$ is a flasque resolution of quasi-coherent sheaves of $f_* \mathcal{F}$ (pushforward of quasi-coherent is quasi-coherent since $X$ is Noetherian). Moreover, we clearly have $\Gamma(X, \mathcal{I}^{\cdot}) = \Gamma(Y, f_* \mathcal{I}^{\cdot})$. Therefore, we get the same cohomology groups (this is the same method of proof of Lemma 2.10, Chapter 3, of Hartshorne).

What did I do wrong?



share|cite|improve this question
Try out your proof in the case that $Y$ is affine, but $X$ is not, and recall Serre's cohomological characterization of affine schemes. It cannot work. – Martin Brandenburg Apr 11 '12 at 18:05
How could it happen that X is not affine, but Y is, when f is affine? I am really worried since I still find the argument above correct... But I imagine Hartshorne assumed separated since this gives us a way to prove the above with Cech complex, isn't it? – Piotr Pstrągowski Dec 18 '12 at 1:03
up vote 3 down vote accepted

When $f$ is affine, then $f_*$ is an exact functor. The reason is that in affine charts this is just some forgetful functor $\mathrm{Mod}(A) \to \mathrm{Mod}(R)$ for some $R$-algebra $A$. Of course, this is needed to get a resolution of $f_* F$ from a resolution of $F$. So the error is: You have forgotten the definition of a resolution.

share|cite|improve this answer
Perfect, thank you! – David Apr 11 '12 at 18:10

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.