1
$\begingroup$

Two quick questions:

  1. Let $f$ be a morphism between sheaves $\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{G}$. Then we know that $\textrm{im}(f)$ is in general a presheaf. I believe the inclusion $i:\textrm{im}(f)(U) \rightarrow G(U)$ an injective morphism of presheaves for all $U$. Is that correct?
  2. In a setting like above, I proved that there is an isomorphism between the sheafification of the image of $f$ presheaf and a sub sheaf of $\mathcal{G}$. However, I saw some call it a "natural" isomorphism. Why is it natural?
$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

For the first question: yes, the morphism of presheaves $i$ is injective, as its kernel is zero.

For the second question: I believe that "natural" here means canonical, since it comes out of the universal property of sheafification. I realise that this is confusing since "natural" has a specific meaning regarding compatibility with functors in category theory.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I thought so, but it is weird, because canonical and natural aren't really equivalent qualifications and I could understand where the canonical would come from in this case, but not the natural. Thanks $\endgroup$ – Dalamar Oct 26 '18 at 14:46

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.