6
$\begingroup$

At the end of Remarque 2.3.6 (p. 221-222) of EGA I, the author says that there are functors in $\mathbf{Fais}|_{\mathbf{Ann}}$ (sheaf on the category of Rings) that are not isomorphic to sheaves that come from schemes. I would like to know one such example or if such example is constructed later on the book.

I'm adding the definition and context of each concept below:

A functor $G:\mathbf{Aff}^{op}\to\mathbf{Set}$ from the opposite category of affine schemes to the category of sets is called a presheaf. Given an affine scheme $X$, for any open subscheme $U$, one can consider the map $U\mapsto G(U)$. We say that $G$ is a sheaf when this map is always a sheaf in the usual sense.

Since there exist an equivalence of categories $F:\mathbf{Aff}^{op}\to\mathbf{Ring}$ between the category of affine schmes and the category of rings, that also defines an equivalence $\mathbf{Hom(Aff^{op},Set)}\cong\mathbf{Hom(Ring,Set)}$. Hece we can define a sheaf on the category of rings as a (covariant) functor $\mathbf{Ring}\to\mathbf{Set}$ whose image under the previous equivalence is a sheaf in the sense defined earlier.

Similarily we can define a sheaf on the category of schemes $\mathbf{Sch}$, but it turns out that the category of such sheaves is equivalent to that of sheaves on affine schemes. One can prove that, given an scheme $X$, the functor $h_X:Y\mapsto\mathrm{Hom}(Y,X)$ is a sheaf on $\mathbf{Sch}$, and since $h:X\mapsto h_X$ is fully faithful, we can identify the category of schemes with a subcategory of the sheaves on $\mathbf{Ring}$ by the previous equivalences.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ In the title, did you mean 'does not come from Sch' instead of 'does not come from a sheaf on Sch'? $\endgroup$ – Marc Paul Jan 4 at 19:57
  • $\begingroup$ What topology are you using on these categories? Also I can't find the remark in the first edition of EGA I, are you using the second? $\endgroup$ – jgon Jan 4 at 23:02
  • $\begingroup$ @jgon For these particular purposes no topology is used on these categories, since we are saying that a functor is a sheaf when the map $U\mapsto G(U)$ is a sheaf for each $X$. I'm not using that edition, the one I'm using is published by Springer, so maybe it is the second, I don't know. $\endgroup$ – Javi Jan 4 at 23:18
  • $\begingroup$ @MarcPaul Yes, I wasn't understading the text well. $\endgroup$ – Javi Jan 4 at 23:25
  • $\begingroup$ Oh, yeah, sorry I missed that $\endgroup$ – jgon Jan 5 at 0:02
4
$\begingroup$

Define $\tilde{G}(X)=\{f^2:f\in\mathrm{Hom}(X,\mathbb{A}^1)\}$. Then $\tilde{G}$ is a presheaf, and we take $G$ to be the sheaffification of $\tilde{G}$. Concretely, $G(X)$ is the set of functions $f:X\to\mathbb{A}^1$ such that there exists an open cover $\{U_i\}$ of $X$ and functions $g_i:U_i\to\mathbb{A}^1$ such that $f|_{U_i}=g_i^2$. I claim that $G$ is not representable by a scheme. To see this, observe that $G(\mathrm{Spec}\,\mathbb{R})=\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$, $G(\mathrm{Spec}\,\mathbb{C})=\mathbb{C}$, and the action of complex conjugation on $\mathrm{Spec}\,\mathbb{C}$ induces complex conjugation on $G(\mathrm{Spec}\,\mathbb{C})=\mathbb{C}$. If $X$ is any scheme, then $\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{Spec}\,\mathbb{R},X)$ is always the subset of $\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{Spec}\,\mathbb{C},X)$ of elements fixed by complex conjugation.

The point here is that although $G$ is a sheaf for the Zariski topology (meaning $G$ gives an ordinary sheaf on each affine scheme), $G$ is not a sheaf for the etale topology. In general, let $G$ be an arbitrary étale sheaf, and let $L/K$ be a finite Galois extension. Then $\mathrm{Spec}\,L\to\mathrm{Spec}\,K$ is an étale covering, so there should be an equalizer diagram $$ G(\mathrm{Spec}\,K)\to G(\mathrm{Spec}\,L)\rightrightarrows G(\mathrm{Spec}\,L \times_{\mathrm{Spec}\, K}\mathrm{Spec}\, L)=G(\mathrm{Spec}\, L\otimes_K L). $$ Now $L\otimes_K L$ is a product of copies of $L$ indexed by $\mathrm{Gal}(L/K)$, so $$ G(\mathrm{Spec}\,L\otimes_K L)=\prod_{g\in\mathrm{Gal}(L/K)} G(\mathrm{Spec}(L)) $$ and the two maps $ G(\mathrm{Spec}(L))\to\prod_{g\in\mathrm{Gal}(L/K)} G(\mathrm{Spec}(L))$ are the diagonal, and the map whose $g$-th component is induced by $g$. The equalizer in question is then the set of $\mathrm{Gal}(L/K)$-invariants, so $G(\mathrm{Spec}\,K)= G(\mathrm{Spec}\,L)^{\mathrm{Gal}(L/K)}$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Could you ellaborate why it is not a sheaf for the étale topology? I know what a sheaf for this topology is, but I don't see where this one fails to be a sheaf. Is it related to complex conjugation not being an étale morphism? $\endgroup$ – Javi Jan 5 at 12:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I added an explanation of the étale sheaf condition for a finite Galois extension. $\endgroup$ – Julian Rosen Jan 5 at 17:05

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.