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

This question already has an answer here:

Let $X$ be a scheme and $\mathscr{F}$, $\mathscr{G}$ sheaves on $X$. Suppose we know that for every $x\in X$ the stalks are isomorphic: $$ \mathscr{F}_x \cong \mathscr{G}_x $$

Can we conclude immediately from here that $\mathscr{F}\cong \mathscr{G}$, or do we first need to find a morphism of sheaves $f:\mathscr{F}\to \mathscr{G}$ such that $f_x$ induces the above isomorphisms on the stalks for every $x$ ?

Remark: Proposition 1.1 (page 63) of Hartshorne says that:

A morphism of sheaves $f : \mathscr{F} \to \mathscr{G}$ on a topological space $X$ is an isomorphism iff the induced map on stalks $f_x : \mathscr{F}_x \to \mathscr{G}_x$ is an isomorphism for every $x\in X$.

Extra question: What can we say, instead, if we have isomorphisms between every fiber of $\mathscr{F}$ and $\mathscr{G}$ ?

share|cite|improve this question

marked as duplicate by Zev Chonoles, Thomas Andrews, user1337, TMM, Joe Johnson 126 Dec 8 '13 at 22:27

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

Is that true? For any sheaf of rank 1 $O_X$ modules, all there stacks are isomorphic. – Arctic Char Dec 7 '13 at 9:07
I agree with John. Won't the twists $O(n)$ of the structure sheaf of the projective line provide many counterexamples? A sheaf is not just a collection of stalks. – Jyrki Lahtonen Dec 7 '13 at 9:25
Please look at my edited question. There was a little mistake: I meant $f$ to be a morphism between the sheaves, not of the scheme $X$ to itself. – Abramo Dec 7 '13 at 9:40
The comments still stand, I think. – Jyrki Lahtonen Dec 7 '13 at 9:44
Could you expand on your comments, please? It's not clear to me what is the fact you claim not to be true – Abramo Dec 7 '13 at 10:07
up vote 10 down vote accepted

No, in the absence of a global morphism $f:\mathscr{F}\to \mathscr{G}$ inducing the isomorphisms on stalks, we cannot conclude immediately that the two sheaves are isomorphic.

As a counterexample consider two sheaves on the Riemann sphere (the same works with any projective line). Let $\mathscr{F}$ be the structure sheaf. Algebraic or holomorphic? Let's do holomorphic here, but it doesn't matter. The stalks consist of germs of holomorphic functions, i.e. power series $f(t)=\sum_{n\ge0}a_nt^n$ with a positive radius of convergence. Here $t$ denotes a local variable, so if we are interested in a stalk at a point $z_0\in\Bbb{C}$, then we can use $t=z-z_0$, and if we are working at the point of infinity, we can use $t=1/z$.

Then let $\mathscr{G}$ be the sheaf of holomorphic differential forms. Here the stalks look like $f(t)\,dt$, where again $t$ is a local variable, and $f(t)$ is the germ of a holomorphic function.

At the level of stalks we have an isomorphism $\mathscr{F}_{z_0}\cong\mathscr{G}_{z_0}$ given by $f(t)\mapsto f(t)\,dt$. Yet the sheaves $\mathscr{F}$ and $\mathscr{G}$ are not isomorphic. The sheaf $\mathscr{F}$ has the constant functions as global sections, but the sheaf $\mathscr{G}$ has no non-zero global sections. [Edit: Forgot to explain this] For if $\omega$ were such a non-zero differential form, then $F(z)=\int_{\gamma[0\to z]}\omega$ would define a non-constant holomorphic function on the Riemann sphere. But the image of that function would be compact, hence bounded, contradicting Liouville's theorem. [/Edit]

The same holds in an algebraic category. IIRC Hartshorne explains why the sheafs $\mathscr{O}[n],n<0,$ have no global sections on the projective line. The canonical sheaf $\mathscr{O}[-2]$ being the analogue of the above sheaf $\mathscr{G}$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Ok thanks! Just to make thinks clear, so your answer is "no, we cannot conclude immediately they are isomorphic". But still, if the isomorphisms on stalks are induced by a global morphism between the sheaves, then they are isomorphic. Is this right? Thanks a lot! – Abramo Dec 7 '13 at 10:46
That's correct. The point is (vaguely) that a local isomorphism cannot be lifted to a global one. But the fact that a global homomorphism is an isomorphism can be detected locally. – Jyrki Lahtonen Dec 7 '13 at 10:50
Many thanks again Jyrki! I edited your answer to make it more explicit. – Abramo Dec 7 '13 at 10:55

If this were indeed true then all line bundles on any scheme would be isomorphic! However this is not true as for example take $\Bbb{P}^1$ that has an integers worth of non-isomorphic line bundles. The point is that an isomorphism $\varphi_x$ of $\mathcal{O}_{X,x}$-modules need not glue to give an isomorphism of $\mathcal{O}_X$-modules (for example how is it even clear to go from an isomorphism of modules at every point to an isomorphism of sheaves globally?).

However if say given a priori a morphism of sheaves $\varphi : \mathcal{F} \to \mathcal{G}$ that is an isomorphism on the stalks at every point, then it is indeed true that $\varphi$ will be an isomorphism. As for your last question, it is not clear to me what you mean by the fiber of a sheaf.

share|cite|improve this answer

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