{"id":1720,"date":"2011-08-10T16:02:08","date_gmt":"2011-08-10T16:02:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/math.columbia.edu\/~dejong\/wordpress\/?p=1720"},"modified":"2011-08-10T16:02:08","modified_gmt":"2011-08-10T16:02:08","slug":"adequate-modules","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~dejong\/wordpress\/?p=1720","title":{"rendered":"Adequate modules"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>During the last few weeks I have been working on a way to described the category of quasi-coherent modules on a scheme X in terms of the big fppf site of X. I think I have succeeded to some extend, and I&#8217;d like to explain some of the results here. But first, let me say why this may be (somewhat) useful.<\/p>\n<p>Let us denote O_X the structure sheaf on the scheme X and O_{big} the structure sheaf on the big fppf site of X. Similarly, given a morphism f : X &#8212;&gt; Y of schemes we have the usual pushforward f_* and the pushforward f_{big, *} on sheaves on the big sites. My goal was to understand the following two phenomena:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>The fully faithful embedding i_X : QCoh(X) &#8212;&gt; Mod(O_{fppf}) isn&#8217;t exact in general.<\/li>\n<li>When f : X &#8212;&gt; Y is quasi-compact and quasi-separated, then f_{big, *}i_X(F) is not equal to i_Yf_*F in general.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>Of course for schemes this isn&#8217;t a problem, but 1 and 2 also happen for algebraic stacks where we do not have the luxury of an underlying ringed space whose category of quasi-coherent modules is the &#8220;right one&#8221;. This means that in order to define pushforward for quasi-coherent modules (along quasi-compact and quasi-separated maps) one has to be a little bit careful (it isn&#8217;t hard &#8212; I&#8217;ll come back to this). Secondly, as was pointed out to me several times by Martin Olsson, the first problem means that D_{i_X(QCoh)}(O_{big}) isn&#8217;t a triangulated subcategory of D(O_{big}). This isn&#8217;t a problem for schemes because you can take D_{QCoh}(O_X) but again this doesn&#8217;t work for algebraic stacks and you have to do something. A solution for this second problem is to work with the lisse-etale site, but then you get embroiled in the nonfunctoriality of it&#8230;<\/p>\n<p>OK, so I have a &#8220;solution&#8221; to these two problems. Let me say right away that the solution isn&#8217;t ideal, partly because it is rather complicated. But at the end of the story (after a certain amount of work) the picture that emerges is rather pleasing.<\/p>\n<p>First assume that X is an affine scheme. It turns out that problem 1 for affine X was solved in a paper by Jaffe entitled <a title=\"Jaffe's paper\" href=\"http:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/2155385\">Coherent Functors, with Application to Torsion in the Picard Group<\/a>. In this wonderful paper he points out that if you just add kernels of maps of quasi-coherent O_{big}-modules, then you obtain an abelian subcategory of D(O_{big})! I&#8217;m going to call these <em>adequate modules<\/em> (these correspond to the &#8220;module-quasi-coherent A-functors&#8221; of Jaffe&#8217;s paper). On a general scheme X I am going to say an O_{big}-module F is adequate if there exists an affine Zariski open covering of X such that F restricts to adequate modules over the members of the covering. It moreover turns out that adequate modules are preserved under colimits and that they form a Serre subcategory of the abelian category all O_{big}-modules.<\/p>\n<p>You can show quite easily that one has vanishing of cohomology of adequate modules over affines, so that they behave much like quasi-coherent modules. Moreover, any quasi-coherent module is adequate and (Zariski) locally any adequate module is a kernel of a map of quasi-coherent modules. Finally, if you have an adequate module on X and you restrict it to the small Zariski-site of X then you get a quasi-coherent module. This implies readily that<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>QCoh(X) = Adeq(X)\/C(X)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>where C(X) is the category of parasitic adequate modules. An adequate O_{big}-module is called <em>parasitic<\/em> if the restriction to S_{Zar} is zero (it was a suggestion by Martin Olsson that these should play an important role in the story).<\/p>\n<p>So this solves problem 1 as Adeq(X) &#8212;> Mod(O_{big}) is exact by construction and in fact Adeq(X) is a Serre subcategory. What about 2? The answer is that R^if_{big, *}F is adequate for adequate modules F when f : X &#8212;> Y is quasi-compact and quasi-separated. Moreover, R^if_{big, *}F is in C(Y) if F is in C(X). Hence we see that R^if_{big, *} induces a functor<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>QCoh(X) = Adeq(X)\/C(X) &#8212;-> Adeq(Y)\/C(Y) = QCoh(Y)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>and (you guessed it) this recovers our usual R^if_* for quasi-coherent sheaves! Thus a solution to 2.<\/p>\n<p>Morally, this tells us that we should view QCoh(X) as a subquotient of Mod(O_{big}) and not as a subcategory. Taking a quotient of an abelian category by a Serre subcategory is achieved by Gabriel-Zisman localization. This suggests that we can do the same with derived categories. Indeed, it turns out that<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>D_{QCoh(X)}(O_X) = D_{Adeq(X)}(O_{big})\/D_{C(X)}(O_{big})<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>(Verdier quotient) with no conditions on X whatsoever. I expect a description of the total direct image Rf_* on the left hand side as the functor induced by Rf_{big, *} on D_{Adeq}(O_{big}) in exactly the same way as above (details not yet written).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>During the last few weeks I have been working on a way to described the category of quasi-coherent modules on a scheme X in terms of the big fppf site of X. I think I have succeeded to some extend, &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~dejong\/wordpress\/?p=1720\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1720","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~dejong\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1720","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~dejong\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~dejong\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~dejong\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~dejong\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1720"}],"version-history":[{"count":17,"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~dejong\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1720\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1737,"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~dejong\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1720\/revisions\/1737"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~dejong\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1720"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~dejong\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1720"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~dejong\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1720"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}