3
$\begingroup$

The following topic shows how the skyscraper sheaf $F_x$ on a pointed space $(X,x)$ with values in the category of sets or groups is defined : A question about the skyscraper sheaf

On the Wikipedia article "Sheaf", they say that the skyscraper sheaf can be further generalised to take values in any category $C$ with a terminal object.

Let's recall the construction :

Fix a point $x$ in $X$ and an object $S$ in a category $C$. The skyscraper sheaf over x with stalk S is the sheaf $S_x$ defined as follows: If U is an open set containing $x$, then $S_x(U) = S$. If $U$ does not contain $x$, then $S_x(U)$ is the terminal object of $C$. The restriction maps are either the identity on S, if both open sets contain $x$, or the unique map from S to the terminal object of $C$.

Indeed, this construction does give a presheaf. But does it really give a sheaf whatever the category $C$ is ? The problem is with the gluing axiom.

Let's call $T$ the terminal object of $C$ and $\phi$ the unique map from $S$ to $T$. Let $\{U_i\}_{i\in I}$ be an open cover of $X$ and, for each $i$, $s_i \in S_x(U_i)$ a section, such that for each pair $U_i,U_j$ such that $U_i \cap U_j \neq \varnothing$ the restrictions of $s_i$ and $s_j$ agree on the overlaps : ${s_i}_{|U_i \cap U_j} = {s_j}_{|U_i \cap U_j}$. Let $i_0$ such that $x \in U_{i_0}$. We would like to set $s = s_{i_0} \in S = S_x(X)$. But while the other cases are easy to check, how do we check that if $i \in I$ is such that $x \notin U_i$ and $U_i \cap U_{i_0} = \varnothing$, $s_{|U_i} = s_{U_i}$. The problem is that $s_{|U_i} = \phi(s) \in T$ is not necessarily equal to $s_{U_i} \in T$, i.e. $T$ does not necessarily have one element as in the category of groups.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ If you want to work in an arbitrary category, then you cannot talk about elements of objects, so statements like "$s_i \in S_x(U_i)$" do not make much sense a priori. For presheaves with values in an arbitrary category, the gluing axiom has to be reformulated in such a way that everything can be said just with objects, morphisms and their properties. $\endgroup$ – Matthias Klupsch Dec 14 '16 at 11:53
  • $\begingroup$ Ah ! Thank you. And is it a sheaf under this suitable reformulation ? $\endgroup$ – Vandrin Dec 14 '16 at 12:00
1
$\begingroup$

Suppose we have a suitable category $\mathsf{C}$ (namely one where it makes sense to sheafify), we have a canonical isomorphism $\mathsf{C} \cong \mathrm{Sh}(1, \mathsf{C})$, where $1$ denotes the one-point space.

A point $x$ of a space $X$ can be canonically identified with (or even defined as) a map $x: 1 \to X$, and the corresponding direct image functor $x_*: \mathsf{C} \to \mathrm{Sh}(X, \mathsf{C})$ takes an object $C \in \mathsf{C}$ to the skyscraper sheaf with stalk $C$ supported at $x$.

The inverse image $x^{-1}: \mathrm{Sh}(X, \mathsf{C}) \to \mathsf{C}$ is the stalk functor which takes a sheaf $\mathcal{F}$ to its stalk $\mathcal{F}_x$.

Thus, taking stalks at $x$ is left adjoint to the construction of skyscraper sheaves supported at $x$.

If you're wondering how to write down the sheaf condition for presheaves with values in arbitrary category, have a look at section 17.3 in Categories and Sheaves by Kashiwara and Schapira.

$\endgroup$

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.