In Hartshorne Proposition II.5.8, he shows, given a morphism $f \colon X \to Y$ where X and Y are schemes and $\mathcal{G}$ a quasi-coherent sheaf of $\mathcal{O}_{Y}$- modules, that $f^{*}\mathcal{G}$ is a quasi-coherent sheaf of $\mathcal{O}_{X}$-modules. Similarly, he shows that given $f$ quasicompact and separated, that the pushforward of a quasi-coherent sheaf is quasi-coherent.

My question concerns his reduction to the affine case. I understand that the quasi-coherent property is local, since it can be checked on an affine cover by definition, so for proving that the pullback of a quasi-coherent sheaf is quasi-coherent, one can assume $X$ to be affine. However, why is one allowed to also assume $Y$ to be affine as it is done in the proof, while for proving the pushforward, one can only assume $Y$ affine and not $X$?


1 Answer 1


If $U\subseteq X$ is an open set and $V\subseteq Y$ is any open set containing $f(U)$, then the restriction of $f^*\mathcal{G}$ to $U$ depends only on the restriction of $\mathcal{G}$ to $V$ (more precisely, $(f^*\mathcal{G})|_U=g^*(\mathcal{G}|_V)$, where $g:U\to V$ is the restriction of the morphism $f$ to a morphism $U\to V$). To show $f^*\mathcal{G}$ is quasicoherent, it suffices to show that $X$ has an open cover by affine open sets $U\subseteq X$ on which $(f^*\mathcal{G})|_U$ is quasicoherent. For each affine open $V\subseteq Y$, $f^{-1}(V)\subseteq X$ can be covered by affine open sets, and these sets taken over all $V$ will cover all of $X$. So it suffices to show $(f^*\mathcal{G})|_U$ is quasicoherent if $U\subseteq X$ is affine open and there exists an affine open $V\subseteq Y$ such that $f(U)\subseteq V$. But in that case, $(f^*\mathcal{G})|_U=g^*(\mathcal{G}|_V)$ as above, so you may as well replace $f$ by $g$ and assume $X=U$ and $Y=V$ are affine.

For the pushforward, if $V\subseteq Y$ is open, $(f_*\mathcal{F})|_V$ depends on the restriction of $\mathcal{F}$ to the set $f^{-1}(V)\subseteq X$, so you can replace $Y$ by $V$ and $X$ by $f^{-1}(V)$ to assume that $Y$ is affine. To assume that $X$ is affine as well as in the pullback case, you would need to have an open cover of $Y$ by affine open sets $V$ such that $f^{-1}(V)$ is affine as well. Such an open cover need not exist (for instance, if $Y$ has only one point and $X$ is not affine).

So in short, the difference between the two cases is that there always exists a cover of $X$ by affine open subsets $U$ such that $f(U)$ is contained in an affine open set, but there need not exist a cover of $Y$ by affine open subsets $V$ such that $f^{-1}(V)$ is affine.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. Just a quick elementary question. Is it obvious that given $U \subseteq X$ an affine open, that there necessarily exists an affine open $V \subseteq Y$ such that $f(U) \subseteq V$? Does this simply follow from the definition of morphism of schemes and the gluing construction? $\endgroup$ Feb 8, 2016 at 23:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ No, it's not obvious because it isn't even true. What is true is that there exists an open cover of $X$ by affine open sets $U$ which have this property (since you can take an affine open cover of $Y$, and then cover each of the sets $f^{-1}(V)$ by affine open sets). We're using here that to check that a sheaf is quasicoherent, it suffices to find an open cover such that its restriction to each set of the open cover is quasicoherent. $\endgroup$ Feb 8, 2016 at 23:40

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.