Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

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

For instance say that $X$ is a degree-$d$ hypersurface in $\mathbb{P}^n$. To be precise, put $R = k[x_0, \ldots, x_n]$, $d > 0$, $f \in R_d$ squarefree, and $X = V(f) \subset \mathbb{P}^n$. Then we have an exact sequence of graded $R$-modules

$0 \to R(-d) \xrightarrow{-\cdot f} R \to R/(f) \to 0$;

when we promote this to sheaves, apparently we have

$0 \to \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^n}(-d) \to \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^n} \to \mathcal{O}_X \to 0$.

Now normally I'd think of "$\mathcal{O}_X$" as representing a sheaf on $X$, but this construction seems to have produced a sheaf on $\mathbb{P}^n$ instead.

share|cite|improve this question
See this question. – Zhen Lin Dec 28 '12 at 11:03
up vote 1 down vote accepted

Just for the sake of resolving this question, the sequence should read

$0 \to \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^n}(-d) \to \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^n} \to i_\ast \mathcal{O}_X \to 0$,

where $i : X \to \mathbb{P}^n$ is the inclusion. Using $\mathcal{O}_X$ in place of $i_\ast \mathcal{O}_X$ is apparently an accepted abuse of notation in this context.

Thanks to Zhen Lin for clearing this up in the comments.

share|cite|improve this answer

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.