Take the 2-minute tour ×
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.

I had an argument explained to me the other day and I didn't quite understand one of the steps. Here's my best reconstruction:

Let $\mathscr{F}$ be a quasi-coherent sheaf, and $\mathscr{L}$ a line bundle, on some scheme $X$. Consider an injective, thus flasque, resolution

$$ 0 \to \mathscr{F} \to \mathcal{J}_0 \to \mathcal{J}_1 \to \cdots$$

Tensoring by $\mathscr{L}$, we obtain a flasque resolution

$$0 \to \mathscr{F} \otimes \mathscr{L} \to \mathcal{J}_0 \otimes \mathscr{L} \to \mathcal{J}_1 \otimes \mathscr{L} \to \cdots$$

of $\mathscr{F} \otimes \mathscr{L}$.

Two questions:

  1. Is this correct as stated? What is the proof?
  2. Why is the hypothesis that $\mathscr{L}$ is a line bundle needed?
share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 4 down vote accepted

Line bundles are flat. More generally, locally free modules are flat, because flatness is a local property and of course free modules are flat. This shows that the sequence is exact. The rest follows from the following Lemma (cf. Hartshorne, III.6.6):

If $F$ is injective and $\mathcal{L}$ is locally free, then $F \otimes \mathcal{L}$ is injective.

The reason is that $\hom(-,F \otimes \mathcal{L}) \cong \hom(- \otimes \mathcal{L}^*,F)$ is a composition of exact functors, hence exact.

By the way, we can derive from this $\mathrm{Ext}^p(F \otimes \mathcal{L},G) \cong \mathrm{Ext}^p(F,\mathcal{L}^* \otimes G)$.

share|improve this answer
    
PS: I don't know if the tensor product of a flasque sheaf with a locally free sheaf is flasque. –  Martin Brandenburg Sep 6 '13 at 9:37

Your Answer

 
discard

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.