Semisimplicity of the category of coherent sheaves?
$begingroup$
The category of coherent sheaves on a locally Noetherian scheme is abelian. Are there some geometric conditions on the scheme that imply that the category of coherent sheaves is semisimple?
Edited in response to posic's comments.
ag.algebraic-geometry
asked Apr 13 at 11:15
Stepan BanachStepan Banach
29616
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The category of coherent sheaves on a locally Noetherian scheme is abelian. Are there some geometric conditions on the scheme that imply that the category of coherent sheaves is semisimple?
Edited in response to posic's comments.
ag.algebraic-geometry
asked Apr 13 at 11:15
Stepan BanachStepan Banach
29616
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
The category of quasi-coherent sheaves is abelian on any scheme. The category of coherent sheaves, on the other hand, is only abelian on a locally Noetherian (or at best a locally coherent) scheme, I would think. E.g., consider the case of an affine scheme, which is the spectrum of an arbitrary ring. The category of finitely presented modules over such a ring is not abelian. What is "the abelian category of coherent sheaves" over such a scheme?
$endgroup$
– Leonid Positselski
Apr 13 at 13:41
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The category of coherent sheaves on a locally Noetherian scheme is abelian. Are there some geometric conditions on the scheme that imply that the category of coherent sheaves is semisimple?
Edited in response to posic's comments.
ag.algebraic-geometry
asked Apr 13 at 11:15
Stepan BanachStepan Banach
29616
$endgroup$
The category of coherent sheaves on a locally Noetherian scheme is abelian. Are there some geometric conditions on the scheme that imply that the category of coherent sheaves is semisimple?
Edited in response to posic's comments.
ag.algebraic-geometry
ag.algebraic-geometry
asked Apr 13 at 11:15
Stepan BanachStepan Banach
29616
asked Apr 13 at 11:15
Stepan BanachStepan Banach
29616
edited Apr 13 at 14:23
Stepan Banach
asked Apr 13 at 11:15
Stepan BanachStepan Banach
29616
asked Apr 13 at 11:15
Stepan BanachStepan Banach
29616
asked Apr 13 at 11:15
Stepan BanachStepan Banach
29616
29616
2
$begingroup$
The category of quasi-coherent sheaves is abelian on any scheme. The category of coherent sheaves, on the other hand, is only abelian on a locally Noetherian (or at best a locally coherent) scheme, I would think. E.g., consider the case of an affine scheme, which is the spectrum of an arbitrary ring. The category of finitely presented modules over such a ring is not abelian. What is "the abelian category of coherent sheaves" over such a scheme?
$endgroup$
– Leonid Positselski
Apr 13 at 13:41
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
The category of quasi-coherent sheaves is abelian on any scheme. The category of coherent sheaves, on the other hand, is only abelian on a locally Noetherian (or at best a locally coherent) scheme, I would think. E.g., consider the case of an affine scheme, which is the spectrum of an arbitrary ring. The category of finitely presented modules over such a ring is not abelian. What is "the abelian category of coherent sheaves" over such a scheme?
$endgroup$
– Leonid Positselski
Apr 13 at 13:41
2
2
$begingroup$
The category of quasi-coherent sheaves is abelian on any scheme. The category of coherent sheaves, on the other hand, is only abelian on a locally Noetherian (or at best a locally coherent) scheme, I would think. E.g., consider the case of an affine scheme, which is the spectrum of an arbitrary ring. The category of finitely presented modules over such a ring is not abelian. What is "the abelian category of coherent sheaves" over such a scheme?
$endgroup$
– Leonid Positselski
Apr 13 at 13:41
$begingroup$
The category of quasi-coherent sheaves is abelian on any scheme. The category of coherent sheaves, on the other hand, is only abelian on a locally Noetherian (or at best a locally coherent) scheme, I would think. E.g., consider the case of an affine scheme, which is the spectrum of an arbitrary ring. The category of finitely presented modules over such a ring is not abelian. What is "the abelian category of coherent sheaves" over such a scheme?
$endgroup$
– Leonid Positselski
Apr 13 at 13:41
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Let $X$ be a locally Noetherian scheme. Then the abelian category of coherent sheaves on $X$ is semisimple if and only if $X$ is the disjoint union of finitely many reduced points.
The if direction is clear: the category of coherent sheaves on a finite union of reduced points is a direct sum of categories of finite dimensional vector spaces (over fields), so semisimple.
Only if direction. If the category of coherent sheaves is semisimple, then all $Ext^1$ vanish, in particular, for every closed point $x$ of $X$, we have $Ext^1(k_x,k_x)=0$, where $k_x$ is the skyscraper sheaf at $x$. But $Ext^1(k_x,k_x)$ is the Zariski tangent space at $X$ (e.g. see https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/75673/tangent-space-in-a-point-and-first-ext-group ). As $X$ is locally Noetherian, the local ring at $x$ is Noetherian and the vanishing of the Zariski tangent space at $x$ implies by Nakayama lemma that the local ring at $x$ is a field. Using the fact that in a locally Noetherian scheme, every point specializes to a closed point (e.g. see https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/01OU), it follows that $X$ is a disjoint union of reduced points.
If this union is infinite, then the category of coherent sheaves is not semisimple (the structure sheaf is not a finite direct sum of simple objects). So $X$ has to be a finite disjoint union of reduced points.
answered Apr 13 at 15:05
user25309user25309
4,9272340
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
No, the category of coherent sheaves over an infinite disjoint union of reduced points is semisimple abelian, in fact. It is equivalent to the infinite Cartesian product of the categories of finite-dimensional vector spaces over the related fields. Every object in it is naturally the direct sum of its components sitting at the points, and at the same time it is the infinite product of the same components.
$endgroup$
– Leonid Positselski
Apr 13 at 15:19
$begingroup$
... So, in particular, the structure sheaf over such a scheme $X$ is the infinite direct sum, and at the same time the infinite product, of the one-dimensional (skyscraper) sheaves $k_x$ sitting at the points $xin X$. These skyscraper sheaves are simple objects.
$endgroup$
– Leonid Positselski
Apr 13 at 15:24
6
$begingroup$
The issue is maybe the correct definition of "semisimple". If I look at ncatlab.org/nlab/show/semisimple+category or en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-simplicity , the definition is that every object is a direct sum of finitely many simple objects. If we remove the condition "finitely many", I agree with your comments.
$endgroup$
– user25309
Apr 13 at 15:38
$begingroup$
Oh, yes. Then you are right.
$endgroup$
– Leonid Positselski
Apr 13 at 15:40
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "504"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f327961%2fsemisimplicity-of-the-category-of-coherent-sheaves%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Let $X$ be a locally Noetherian scheme. Then the abelian category of coherent sheaves on $X$ is semisimple if and only if $X$ is the disjoint union of finitely many reduced points.
The if direction is clear: the category of coherent sheaves on a finite union of reduced points is a direct sum of categories of finite dimensional vector spaces (over fields), so semisimple.
Only if direction. If the category of coherent sheaves is semisimple, then all $Ext^1$ vanish, in particular, for every closed point $x$ of $X$, we have $Ext^1(k_x,k_x)=0$, where $k_x$ is the skyscraper sheaf at $x$. But $Ext^1(k_x,k_x)$ is the Zariski tangent space at $X$ (e.g. see https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/75673/tangent-space-in-a-point-and-first-ext-group ). As $X$ is locally Noetherian, the local ring at $x$ is Noetherian and the vanishing of the Zariski tangent space at $x$ implies by Nakayama lemma that the local ring at $x$ is a field. Using the fact that in a locally Noetherian scheme, every point specializes to a closed point (e.g. see https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/01OU), it follows that $X$ is a disjoint union of reduced points.
If this union is infinite, then the category of coherent sheaves is not semisimple (the structure sheaf is not a finite direct sum of simple objects). So $X$ has to be a finite disjoint union of reduced points.
answered Apr 13 at 15:05
user25309user25309
4,9272340
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
No, the category of coherent sheaves over an infinite disjoint union of reduced points is semisimple abelian, in fact. It is equivalent to the infinite Cartesian product of the categories of finite-dimensional vector spaces over the related fields. Every object in it is naturally the direct sum of its components sitting at the points, and at the same time it is the infinite product of the same components.
$endgroup$
– Leonid Positselski
Apr 13 at 15:19
$begingroup$
... So, in particular, the structure sheaf over such a scheme $X$ is the infinite direct sum, and at the same time the infinite product, of the one-dimensional (skyscraper) sheaves $k_x$ sitting at the points $xin X$. These skyscraper sheaves are simple objects.
$endgroup$
– Leonid Positselski
Apr 13 at 15:24
6
$begingroup$
The issue is maybe the correct definition of "semisimple". If I look at ncatlab.org/nlab/show/semisimple+category or en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-simplicity , the definition is that every object is a direct sum of finitely many simple objects. If we remove the condition "finitely many", I agree with your comments.
$endgroup$
– user25309
Apr 13 at 15:38
$begingroup$
Oh, yes. Then you are right.
$endgroup$
– Leonid Positselski
Apr 13 at 15:40
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $X$ be a locally Noetherian scheme. Then the abelian category of coherent sheaves on $X$ is semisimple if and only if $X$ is the disjoint union of finitely many reduced points.
The if direction is clear: the category of coherent sheaves on a finite union of reduced points is a direct sum of categories of finite dimensional vector spaces (over fields), so semisimple.
Only if direction. If the category of coherent sheaves is semisimple, then all $Ext^1$ vanish, in particular, for every closed point $x$ of $X$, we have $Ext^1(k_x,k_x)=0$, where $k_x$ is the skyscraper sheaf at $x$. But $Ext^1(k_x,k_x)$ is the Zariski tangent space at $X$ (e.g. see https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/75673/tangent-space-in-a-point-and-first-ext-group ). As $X$ is locally Noetherian, the local ring at $x$ is Noetherian and the vanishing of the Zariski tangent space at $x$ implies by Nakayama lemma that the local ring at $x$ is a field. Using the fact that in a locally Noetherian scheme, every point specializes to a closed point (e.g. see https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/01OU), it follows that $X$ is a disjoint union of reduced points.
If this union is infinite, then the category of coherent sheaves is not semisimple (the structure sheaf is not a finite direct sum of simple objects). So $X$ has to be a finite disjoint union of reduced points.
answered Apr 13 at 15:05
user25309user25309
4,9272340
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
No, the category of coherent sheaves over an infinite disjoint union of reduced points is semisimple abelian, in fact. It is equivalent to the infinite Cartesian product of the categories of finite-dimensional vector spaces over the related fields. Every object in it is naturally the direct sum of its components sitting at the points, and at the same time it is the infinite product of the same components.
$endgroup$
– Leonid Positselski
Apr 13 at 15:19
$begingroup$
... So, in particular, the structure sheaf over such a scheme $X$ is the infinite direct sum, and at the same time the infinite product, of the one-dimensional (skyscraper) sheaves $k_x$ sitting at the points $xin X$. These skyscraper sheaves are simple objects.
$endgroup$
– Leonid Positselski
Apr 13 at 15:24
6
$begingroup$
The issue is maybe the correct definition of "semisimple". If I look at ncatlab.org/nlab/show/semisimple+category or en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-simplicity , the definition is that every object is a direct sum of finitely many simple objects. If we remove the condition "finitely many", I agree with your comments.
$endgroup$
– user25309
Apr 13 at 15:38
$begingroup$
Oh, yes. Then you are right.
$endgroup$
– Leonid Positselski
Apr 13 at 15:40
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $X$ be a locally Noetherian scheme. Then the abelian category of coherent sheaves on $X$ is semisimple if and only if $X$ is the disjoint union of finitely many reduced points.
The if direction is clear: the category of coherent sheaves on a finite union of reduced points is a direct sum of categories of finite dimensional vector spaces (over fields), so semisimple.
Only if direction. If the category of coherent sheaves is semisimple, then all $Ext^1$ vanish, in particular, for every closed point $x$ of $X$, we have $Ext^1(k_x,k_x)=0$, where $k_x$ is the skyscraper sheaf at $x$. But $Ext^1(k_x,k_x)$ is the Zariski tangent space at $X$ (e.g. see https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/75673/tangent-space-in-a-point-and-first-ext-group ). As $X$ is locally Noetherian, the local ring at $x$ is Noetherian and the vanishing of the Zariski tangent space at $x$ implies by Nakayama lemma that the local ring at $x$ is a field. Using the fact that in a locally Noetherian scheme, every point specializes to a closed point (e.g. see https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/01OU), it follows that $X$ is a disjoint union of reduced points.
If this union is infinite, then the category of coherent sheaves is not semisimple (the structure sheaf is not a finite direct sum of simple objects). So $X$ has to be a finite disjoint union of reduced points.
answered Apr 13 at 15:05
user25309user25309
4,9272340
$endgroup$
Let $X$ be a locally Noetherian scheme. Then the abelian category of coherent sheaves on $X$ is semisimple if and only if $X$ is the disjoint union of finitely many reduced points.
The if direction is clear: the category of coherent sheaves on a finite union of reduced points is a direct sum of categories of finite dimensional vector spaces (over fields), so semisimple.
Only if direction. If the category of coherent sheaves is semisimple, then all $Ext^1$ vanish, in particular, for every closed point $x$ of $X$, we have $Ext^1(k_x,k_x)=0$, where $k_x$ is the skyscraper sheaf at $x$. But $Ext^1(k_x,k_x)$ is the Zariski tangent space at $X$ (e.g. see https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/75673/tangent-space-in-a-point-and-first-ext-group ). As $X$ is locally Noetherian, the local ring at $x$ is Noetherian and the vanishing of the Zariski tangent space at $x$ implies by Nakayama lemma that the local ring at $x$ is a field. Using the fact that in a locally Noetherian scheme, every point specializes to a closed point (e.g. see https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/01OU), it follows that $X$ is a disjoint union of reduced points.
If this union is infinite, then the category of coherent sheaves is not semisimple (the structure sheaf is not a finite direct sum of simple objects). So $X$ has to be a finite disjoint union of reduced points.
answered Apr 13 at 15:05
user25309user25309
4,9272340
edited Apr 13 at 15:40
answered Apr 13 at 15:05
user25309user25309
4,9272340
answered Apr 13 at 15:05
user25309user25309
4,9272340
answered Apr 13 at 15:05
user25309user25309
4,9272340
4,9272340
$begingroup$
No, the category of coherent sheaves over an infinite disjoint union of reduced points is semisimple abelian, in fact. It is equivalent to the infinite Cartesian product of the categories of finite-dimensional vector spaces over the related fields. Every object in it is naturally the direct sum of its components sitting at the points, and at the same time it is the infinite product of the same components.
$endgroup$
– Leonid Positselski
Apr 13 at 15:19
$begingroup$
... So, in particular, the structure sheaf over such a scheme $X$ is the infinite direct sum, and at the same time the infinite product, of the one-dimensional (skyscraper) sheaves $k_x$ sitting at the points $xin X$. These skyscraper sheaves are simple objects.
$endgroup$
– Leonid Positselski
Apr 13 at 15:24
6
$begingroup$
The issue is maybe the correct definition of "semisimple". If I look at ncatlab.org/nlab/show/semisimple+category or en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-simplicity , the definition is that every object is a direct sum of finitely many simple objects. If we remove the condition "finitely many", I agree with your comments.
$endgroup$
– user25309
Apr 13 at 15:38
$begingroup$
Oh, yes. Then you are right.
$endgroup$
– Leonid Positselski
Apr 13 at 15:40
add a comment |
$begingroup$
No, the category of coherent sheaves over an infinite disjoint union of reduced points is semisimple abelian, in fact. It is equivalent to the infinite Cartesian product of the categories of finite-dimensional vector spaces over the related fields. Every object in it is naturally the direct sum of its components sitting at the points, and at the same time it is the infinite product of the same components.
$endgroup$
– Leonid Positselski
Apr 13 at 15:19
$begingroup$
... So, in particular, the structure sheaf over such a scheme $X$ is the infinite direct sum, and at the same time the infinite product, of the one-dimensional (skyscraper) sheaves $k_x$ sitting at the points $xin X$. These skyscraper sheaves are simple objects.
$endgroup$
– Leonid Positselski
Apr 13 at 15:24
6
$begingroup$
The issue is maybe the correct definition of "semisimple". If I look at ncatlab.org/nlab/show/semisimple+category or en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-simplicity , the definition is that every object is a direct sum of finitely many simple objects. If we remove the condition "finitely many", I agree with your comments.
$endgroup$
– user25309
Apr 13 at 15:38
$begingroup$
Oh, yes. Then you are right.
$endgroup$
– Leonid Positselski
Apr 13 at 15:40
$begingroup$
No, the category of coherent sheaves over an infinite disjoint union of reduced points is semisimple abelian, in fact. It is equivalent to the infinite Cartesian product of the categories of finite-dimensional vector spaces over the related fields. Every object in it is naturally the direct sum of its components sitting at the points, and at the same time it is the infinite product of the same components.
$endgroup$
– Leonid Positselski
Apr 13 at 15:19
$begingroup$
No, the category of coherent sheaves over an infinite disjoint union of reduced points is semisimple abelian, in fact. It is equivalent to the infinite Cartesian product of the categories of finite-dimensional vector spaces over the related fields. Every object in it is naturally the direct sum of its components sitting at the points, and at the same time it is the infinite product of the same components.
$endgroup$
– Leonid Positselski
Apr 13 at 15:19
$begingroup$
... So, in particular, the structure sheaf over such a scheme $X$ is the infinite direct sum, and at the same time the infinite product, of the one-dimensional (skyscraper) sheaves $k_x$ sitting at the points $xin X$. These skyscraper sheaves are simple objects.
$endgroup$
– Leonid Positselski
Apr 13 at 15:24
$begingroup$
... So, in particular, the structure sheaf over such a scheme $X$ is the infinite direct sum, and at the same time the infinite product, of the one-dimensional (skyscraper) sheaves $k_x$ sitting at the points $xin X$. These skyscraper sheaves are simple objects.
$endgroup$
– Leonid Positselski
Apr 13 at 15:24
6
6
$begingroup$
The issue is maybe the correct definition of "semisimple". If I look at ncatlab.org/nlab/show/semisimple+category or en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-simplicity , the definition is that every object is a direct sum of finitely many simple objects. If we remove the condition "finitely many", I agree with your comments.
$endgroup$
– user25309
Apr 13 at 15:38
$begingroup$
The issue is maybe the correct definition of "semisimple". If I look at ncatlab.org/nlab/show/semisimple+category or en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-simplicity , the definition is that every object is a direct sum of finitely many simple objects. If we remove the condition "finitely many", I agree with your comments.
$endgroup$
– user25309
Apr 13 at 15:38
$begingroup$
Oh, yes. Then you are right.
$endgroup$
– Leonid Positselski
Apr 13 at 15:40
$begingroup$
Oh, yes. Then you are right.
$endgroup$
– Leonid Positselski
Apr 13 at 15:40
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f327961%2fsemisimplicity-of-the-category-of-coherent-sheaves%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
$begingroup$
The category of quasi-coherent sheaves is abelian on any scheme. The category of coherent sheaves, on the other hand, is only abelian on a locally Noetherian (or at best a locally coherent) scheme, I would think. E.g., consider the case of an affine scheme, which is the spectrum of an arbitrary ring. The category of finitely presented modules over such a ring is not abelian. What is "the abelian category of coherent sheaves" over such a scheme?
$endgroup$
– Leonid Positselski
Apr 13 at 13:41