In the following we have $f:X \rightarrow Y$ morphism of schemes, $\mathcal{F}$ a quasi-coherent sheaf on $X$ and I am referring to proposition 5.8 page 115 in Hartshorne.

To prove that the pushforward of a quasi-coherent sheaf is quasi-coherent, there are the following assumptions: either $X$ is noetherian, or $f$ is quasi-compact and separated.

Both these assumptions lead to some finiteness of affine covers on $X$ where we can write $\mathcal{F}$ as $\widetilde{M}$.

My question is: Why do we need these assumptions? In the proof, after reducing to $Y$ affine, the argument leads to the exact sequence

\begin{equation} 0 \rightarrow f_* \mathcal{F} \rightarrow \bigoplus_i f_* \left(\mathcal{F}|_{U_i}\right) \rightarrow \bigoplus_{i,j,k} f_* \left(\mathcal{F}|_{U_{i,j,k}}\right), \end{equation}

where the $U_i$'s are affines in $X$ and the $U_{i,j,k}$'s are affines covering the intersection $U_i \cap U_j$. The assumption (at least it's what I understood) are needed to make this family of indexes finite. But wouldn't the proof work even in the infinite case?

Of course I have to be mistaken somewhere, but I cannot see where and why!

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Since Georges Elencwajg's answer below doesn't mention it : the mistake in your reasoning is that the exact sequence involves products, which are sums only in the finite case. $\endgroup$ – Segipp Feb 24 '18 at 16:24

1) There is no reason to believe that $ f_* \mathcal{F}$ is coherent whenever $X$ is affine : Hartshorne certainly does not claim that, contrary to your typo [now corrected !].

2) The reason that some hypotheses must be made on $f$ is that the result may be false without them!
There exists an example due to Altman-Hoobler-Kleiman, page 36 where indeed for some morphism $f:X \rightarrow Y$ and some quasi-coherent sheaf $\mathcal F$ on $X$ the image sheaf $ f_* \mathcal{F}$ is not quasi-coherent.
Such examples are non trivial: for example Dieudonné-Grothendieck claim to give one (in the new edition of EGA, page 314) but their description is incorrect.

Edit: A simple counterexample
Here is an example of a non quasi-coherent image of a quasi-coherent sheaf, simpler than the one in Altman-Hoobler-Kleiman :

a) Let $X_i\; (i\in \mathbb N)$ and $S$ be copies of $\operatorname {Spec}(\mathbb Z)$ and let $X=\coprod X_i$ be the disjoint union of the $X_i$'s equipped with its natural morphism $f=\coprod_i id_i:X\to S$, the one restricting for every $i$ to the identity $id_i:X_i=\operatorname {Spec}(\mathbb Z)\to S=\operatorname {Spec}(\mathbb Z)$.
The counterexample will simply be $\mathcal F= \mathcal O_X$: I will now show that $f_* \mathcal O_X$ is a non quasi-coherent sheaf on $S$.

b) Since for a quasi coherent sheaf $\mathcal G$ on $S$ the canonical morphism $$m_U:\mathcal G(S) \otimes _{\mathcal O_S(S)}\mathcal O_X(U)\to \mathcal G(U)$$ must be bijective for all affine $U\subset S$, it suffices to show that this property is violated for $\mathcal G =f_*(\mathcal O_X) $ and $U= D(2)=\operatorname {Spec}(\mathbb Z)\setminus \{(2)\}\subset S=\operatorname {Spec}(\mathbb Z) $.

c) In our situation we get the canonical morphism $m_U:(\prod_{i\in \mathbb N} \mathbb Z) \otimes _{\mathbb Z} \mathbb Z[{\frac 12}]\to \prod_{i\in \mathbb N}\mathbb Z[{\frac 12}]$.
This morphism is not surjective because the image $m_U(t) $ of an element $t\in (\prod_{i\in \mathbb N} \mathbb Z) \otimes _{\mathbb Z} \mathbb Z[{\frac 12}]$ is a sequence of rational numbers $(\frac {a_i}{2^M})_i\in\prod_{i\in \mathbb N}\mathbb Z[{\frac 12}]$ with some fixed denominator $2^M$.
Whereas in $\prod_{i\in \mathbb N}\mathbb Z[{\frac 12}]$ there exists sequences $(\frac {b_i}{2^{s_i}})_i $ of rational numbers with $b_i$ odd and denominators $2^{s_i}$ tending to infinity.

Conclusion: $f_* \mathcal O_X$ is a non quasi-coherent sheaf on $S=\operatorname {Spec}(\mathbb Z)$ .

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for the link! And also, yes, I don't know why I typed affine, it should be noetherian! $\endgroup$ – Stefano Jan 19 '15 at 0:38
  • $\begingroup$ You are welcome, dear Stefano . $\endgroup$ – Georges Elencwajg Jan 19 '15 at 0:41
  • $\begingroup$ @Georges The example they give must not then be in the pdf version of EGA that we can find on numdam ? Could you just give of rough idea please ? Thx $\endgroup$ – ujsgeyrr1f0d0d0r0h1h0j0j_juj Jan 19 '15 at 1:36
  • $\begingroup$ Dear Robert: no, it is not in the Numdam version. I have given a different, detailed counterexample in an Edit . $\endgroup$ – Georges Elencwajg Jan 19 '15 at 11:25
  • $\begingroup$ @Robert Nice example, in a similar vein than Altman-Hoobler-Kleiman's, but simpler indeed. Speaking of Grothendieck's counter example that is finally not one, why is it incorrect ? $\endgroup$ – ujsgeyrr1f0d0d0r0h1h0j0j_juj Jan 19 '15 at 16:13

The answer by "user10000100_u", marked correct, is false. Pavel Coupek's remark is true. Perhaps to clarify where the confusion lies:

"-The category of quasi-coherent sheaves is not abelian in general, infinite direct products of quasi-coherent sheaves are not quasi-coherent in general."

The category of quasi-coherent sheaves has all limits, so these direct products exist and ARE quasi-coherent. However, one can also take the direct product as O_X-module sheaves, and this product yields a different object; in particular usually an O_X-module sheaf which is not quasi-coherent.


The category of quasi-coherent sheaves is not abelian in general, infinite direct products of quasi-coherent sheaves are not quasi-coherent in general. That's why the fact that the family of indexes is finite is crucial.

Remark for general schemes : see "Modules vs. quasi-coherent modules" of Thomason & Trobaugh in "Higher Algebraic K-theory of Schemes and Derived Categories, The Grothendieck Festschrift, Vol. III", Thomason wrote that it was as this time a priori unknown if the category of quasi-coherent sheaves over a general scheme has all limits. Since the existence of arbitrary products would imply the existence of limits...

What is the current situation on this ? Answer : as of last version of the Stacks Project, it is still unknown.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ In fact the exact sequence would have to use an infinite product! $\endgroup$ – Bruno Joyal Jan 18 '15 at 23:09
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you, now it makes sense! Is there any nice/important example to keep in mind for an infinite direct sum to fail being quasi-coherent? $\endgroup$ – Stefano Jan 18 '15 at 23:10
  • $\begingroup$ @BrunoJoyal +1 ! $\endgroup$ – ujsgeyrr1f0d0d0r0h1h0j0j_juj Jan 18 '15 at 23:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Dear Stefano, an infinite direct sum of quasi-coherent sheaves is quasi-coherent. $\endgroup$ – Georges Elencwajg Jan 19 '15 at 8:27
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I don't think this is true. Firstly, the category of quasi coherent sheaves is an abelian category - it is even abelian subcategory of the cat of $O_X$-modules. Secondly, it is known that the cat of quasi coherent sheaves has all limits and colimits - it follows from Gabber's result that the category of quasi-coherent sheaves has a set of generators. It can be found on Stacks project, here. $\endgroup$ – Pavel Čoupek May 16 '15 at 7:00

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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