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.

Let $\mathcal{F}$ be a sheaf over $X$ and $\mathcal{U}=\{U_i\}_{i\in I}$ a covering of $X$.

I say that $\mathcal{U}$ is acyclic for $\mathcal{F}$ if $H^k(U_{i_0 \ldots U_n}, \mathcal{F}|_{U_{i_0 \ldots U_n}})=0$ for every $i_0 \ldots i_n \in I$ and every $k>0$, where $U_{i_0 \ldots U_n} = U_{i_0} \cap\cdots \cap U_{i_n}$ and the $H^k$ are the cohomology groups defined via resolutions (ie, using derived catergories).

My question is: given a sheaf $\mathcal{F}$, is it always possible to find an acyclic covering for it? My guess is that the answer is yes, but I don't know if my proof is ok.

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 2 down vote accepted

To build a counterexample, it is enough to exhibit a space $X$ with a point $x$ such that no neighborhood of $x$ in $X$ is acyclic. $\mathbb R^2\setminus\{1/n:n\in\mathbb N\}$ should do (use the constant sheaf $\underline{\mathbb Z}$)

share|improve this answer
    
What if $X$ is paracompact? Does there exist a counterexample? –  Lucas Kaufmann Dec 21 '11 at 21:20
    
@Lucas, my example is paracompact, since it is a metric space. –  Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Dec 21 '11 at 21:24
    
Of course, you are right. –  Lucas Kaufmann Dec 21 '11 at 21:38
    
I was trying to see why cech and derived functor cohomology agree. I managed to show that for acyclic coverings we have $\check{H}^i(\mathcal{U},\mathcal{F}) \simeq H^i(X,\mathcal{F})$ but i dont know what happens in the limit without using that every covering admits an acyclic subcovering. Do you know how to do this? –  Lucas Kaufmann Dec 21 '11 at 22:01
add comment

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.