1
$\begingroup$

First I would like to apologize to ask many questions in a few days.

I would like to check that the perverse $t$-structure $(^pD^{\leq 0},\ ^pD^{\geq 0})$ is indeed a $t$-structure.

The second axiom is that $Hom(F,G) = 0$ if $F \in \ ^pD^{\leq 0}$ and $G \in \ ^pD^{\geq 1}$. However, in "D-modules, perverse sheaves and representation theory" the authors instead just show that for $j<0$, $H^jR\mathscr Hom(F',F'') = 0$ for $F' \in \ ^pD^{\leq 0}$ and $F'' \in \ ^pD^{\geq 0}$. I am not sure why it's enough.

I understand that to see that a complex is zero iff its cohomology vanishes, but I don't understand why it's enough to check it for $j<0$. $F \in \ ^pD^{\leq 0}$ implies that $H^j(F) = 0$ for $j >0$ and if I'm not mistaken $G \in \ ^pD^{\geq 0 }$ implies that $H^j(G) = 0$ for $j < - n = \dim X$.

If what I wrote is correct, it seems to implies that $R \mathscr Hom(F,G[k]) = 0$ if $k < -\dim X$. This gives that $R\mathscr Hom(F,G)$ is concentrated in $[-\dim X, +\infty]$. Is it correct ? If yes why $R \mathscr Hom(F,G)$ is concentrated in negative degrees ?

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Note that $Hom(F,G)=H^0R\Gamma(R\mathscr{H}om(F,G))$. Now your proposition says that if $F\in {}^pD^{\leq 0}$ and $G\in{}^pD^{\geq 0}$ then $R\mathscr{H}om(F,G)$ is concentrated in degree $\geq 0$. But because $\Gamma$ is left exact, $R\Gamma(R\mathscr{H}om(F,G))$ is also concentrated in degree $\geq 0$.

Now if $G\in{}^pD^{\geq 1}$ instead, apply the proposition with $G[1]$, which gives that $R\Gamma(R\mathscr{H}om(F,G[1]))$ is concentrated in degree $\geq 0$, so $R\Gamma(R\mathscr{H}om(F,G))$ is concentrated in degree $\geq 1$. It follows that $Hom(F,G)=H^0R\Gamma(R\mathscr{H}om(F,G))=0$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Many thanks for your very clear explanation. $\endgroup$ – student May 22 '18 at 21:28

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.