The following claims come from the proof of Proposition 3.10 (Page 66) of D.Huybrechts' Fourier-Mukai Transforms in Algebraic Geometry. Since I couldn't find these results in Hartshorne's Algebraic Geometry and I have no idea how to prove them, I hope someone can give me the details about these claims.

Let $X$ be a Noetherian scheme.

  • Claim 1. If $\mathcal{O}_X=\mathcal{F_1^\bullet}\oplus\mathcal{F_2^\bullet}$, we assume that $\mathcal{F_1^\bullet}$ and $\mathcal{F_2^\bullet}$ are coherent sheaves, for their cohomology is concentrated in degree zero (Maybe we can just assume $\mathcal{F_1^\bullet}=\mathcal{F_1}$, $\mathcal{F_2^\bullet}=\mathcal{F_2}$). Then they are ideal sheaves of certain closed subschemes, say: $X_j\subset X$, $\mathcal{F_j^\bullet}\simeq \mathcal{I}_{X_{j}}$ ($j=1,2$).
  • Claim 2. $\mathcal{I}_{X_{1}}+\mathcal{I}_{X_{2}}\subset \mathcal{I}_{X_{1}\cap X_{2}} $
  • Claim 3. $\mathcal{I}_{X_{1}\cup X_{2}}\subset \mathcal{I}_{X_{1}}\cap \mathcal{I}_{X_{2}}$ and $\mathcal{I}_{X_{1}}\cap \mathcal{I}_{X_{2}}=0$

For Claim 1, my thoughts as follows: Since $\mathcal{O}_X=\mathcal{F_1^\bullet}\oplus\mathcal{F_2^\bullet}$, we have an exact sequence

$$0\longrightarrow \mathcal{F_1^\bullet} \longrightarrow \mathcal{O}_X \longrightarrow \mathcal{O}_X/\mathcal{F_1^\bullet}=\mathcal{F_2^\bullet} \longrightarrow 0.$$

So, for any open subset of $U$ of $X$,

$$0\longrightarrow \mathcal{F_1^\bullet}(U) \longrightarrow \mathcal{O}_X(U) \longrightarrow \mathcal{O}_X(U)/\mathcal{F_1^\bullet}(U) \longrightarrow 0.$$

is an exact sequence of $\mathcal{O}_X(U)$-modules. Hence $\mathcal{F_1^\bullet}$ is a coherent sheaf of ideal on $X$. By Proposition II 5.9 on Hartshorne's Algebraic Geometry (Page 116), $\mathcal{F_1^\bullet}$ is the ideal sheaf of a closed subscheme. But I am not sure it is correct.

  • $\begingroup$ 2 and 3: Really no idea? You know the definition of $I_A$? $\endgroup$ – Martin Brandenburg Jul 19 '15 at 20:17
  • $\begingroup$ @Martin Brandenburg,it's the kernel of the closed immersion, but I don't know how to see it with $X_1\cap X_2$ and $X_1\cup X_2$. By the way, what is the union and intersection of two schemes? $\endgroup$ – representation Jul 19 '15 at 21:06
  • $\begingroup$ The intersection $X_1\cap X_2$ should be interpreted as the fibered product $X_1\times_X X_2$, where the maps employed are the closed immersions $X_i\hookrightarrow X$. For the union, think about (just set-theoretically) the fact that if $f|_{X_1} \equiv 0$ and $g|_{X_2}\equiv 0$, then $fg|_{X_1\cup X_2}\equiv 0$. $\endgroup$ – Tabes Bridges Jul 21 '15 at 14:52

For claim 1, apply first exercise 2.31 to replace $\mathcal{F}_{i}^{\bullet}$ by a complex with a single coherent sheaf $\mathcal{F}_{i}$ in degree 0. Then we have $\mathcal{O}_X \cong \mathcal{F}_{1} \oplus \mathcal{F}_2$. In particular this means that each canonical map $\mathcal{F}_i \to \mathcal{O}_X$ allows us to identify $\mathcal{F}_i$ with a subsheaf of $\mathcal{O}_X$, thus an ideal sheaf. Now use a well-known correspondence between quasicoherent ideal sheaves and closed subschemes.

Claims 2 and the first equality of claim 3 follow from, say, an affine-local argument (and glueing by sheaf axioms). The last equality follows from the fact that the sum is direct (similar to standard linear algebra for direct sum decompositions).


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.