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

Let $k$ be a field and let $X$ be a smooth separated $k$-variety. Let $T$ be a closed integral subscheme of $X$ of generic point $\eta$. The object of interest here is the local cohomology group $$ H^{q}_{\eta}(\Omega^r_{X/k})\; \text{ for some }\;q,r>0, $$ defined, for example, as colimit over $\eta \in U$ for $U$ open in $X$ of $$ H^q_{\overline{\eta}\cap U}(U, ({\Omega^{r}_{X/k}})_{|U}).$$ Is it true that for $q<codim_{X}(T)$ those groups are $0$ for all $r$? If not, is this true for some special value of $r$ (better, what is the right range of values for $r$)?

A small comment: when one says "local cohomology" then the automatic reaction is to look at duality statements. Well, if $A=\mathcal{O}_{X,\eta}$ with maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}$, then Grothendieck tells us that $$H^q_{\mathfrak{m}}(\Omega^r_{X/k}) \xrightarrow{\sim} \text{Hom}( \text{Ext}_A^{a-q}(\Omega^r_{X/k, \eta}, A), I)$$ where $I$ is a dualizing module for $A$ and $a=codim_{X}(T)= \dim A$. Since $A$ is local regular, we can use $I= H^a_\mathfrak{m}(A)$.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 1 down vote accepted

You almost answered this yourself. Because $\Omega^r_{X/k}$ is locally free , the question is just whether $H^q_\mathfrak m(A)$ is zero for $q = 0, \ldots, \dim(A) - 1$. Since you know about Matlis duality, my guess is you know how to compute $H^q_\mathfrak m(A)$. Good luck.

share|cite|improve this answer
I actually don't know about Matlis duality. I was mentioning just Grothendieck's duality. Can you elaborate a little bit? Do you have a reference? – FedeB Apr 26 '14 at 15:56
OK, no sorry, my fault! Well, using your duality thing, you have to prove $\text{Ext}^i_A(A, A)$ is zero for $i$ not equal to zero. Does this help? – Count Dracula Apr 26 '14 at 16:10
Not entirely... You reduce to $Ext^i(A,A)$ because you make the Ext commute with the direct sum? This does not work in general, right? Anyway, is it obvious that $Ext^i(A,A)=0$ - by Koszul computation, for example? – FedeB Apr 27 '14 at 8:10
Yes and yes.... – Count Dracula Apr 27 '14 at 10:31

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.