{"id":4262,"date":"2018-11-02T13:44:57","date_gmt":"2018-11-02T13:44:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~dejong\/wordpress\/?p=4262"},"modified":"2018-11-02T13:44:57","modified_gmt":"2018-11-02T13:44:57","slug":"no-theorem-b-for-henselian-affine-schemes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~dejong\/wordpress\/?p=4262","title":{"rendered":"No Theorem B for henselian affine schemes"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>This is just to record informally a counter example which we found in March 2017. Please let me know if such an example is in the literature and I will add a reference.<\/p>\n<p>Let (A, I) be a henselian pair. On Z = Spec(A\/I) with the Zariski topology consider the presheaf O^h which associates to the open V = D(f) \\cap Z of Z the ring A_f^h where (A_f^h, I_f^h) is the henselization of the pair (A_f, I_f) = (A_f, IA_f). It is easy to see that A_f^h only depends on the Zariski open V of Z.<\/p>\n<p>Then O^h is a sheaf (on the basis of standard opens of Z), but it may have nonvanishing higher cohomology.<\/p>\n<p>You can deduce the sheaf property from <a href=\"https:\/\/stacks.math.columbia.edu\/tag\/09ZH\">Tag 09ZH<\/a> if you think about it right.<\/p>\n<p>To get an example of where the cohomology is nonzero, start with Z_0 : xy(x+ y &#8211; 1) = 0 in the usual affine plane over the complex numbers. Let R be the henselization of C[x, y] at the ideal of Z_0. Let A be the integral closure of R in the algebraic closure K of C(x, y). Then A is a domain and (A, I) is henselian where I is the ideal generated by xy(x + y &#8211; 1) in A. Denote Z = V(I).<\/p>\n<p>The reason for going all the way up to A is that A is a normal domain whose fraction field K is algebraically closed. Hence all local rings of A are strictly henselian and moreover affine schemes etale over Spec(A) are just disjoint unions of opens of Spec(A). See <a href=\"https:\/\/stacks.math.columbia.edu\/tag\/0EZN\">Tag 0EZN<\/a>. Thus O^h = O_{Spec(A)}|_Z in this case (restriction is usual restriction of sheaves in Zariski topology). In particular, the map O_{Spec(A)} &#8212;> (constant sheaf value K on Spec(A)) induces a map O^h &#8212;> (constant sheaf value K on Z).<\/p>\n<p>Observe that since Z_0 is a triangle, we have H^1(Z_0, <b>Z<\/b>) = <b>Z<\/b>. Let g be a generator of this cohomology group. Then you check that g|_Z is still non-torsion. I do this using a limit argument and trace maps for finite maps between normal surfaces. If you have a clever short argument, let me know. You do have to use\/prove something because we can &#8220;unwind&#8221; the triangle topologically, so your argument has to show that this doesn&#8217;t happen (in some sense) for the map Z &#8212;> Z_0 of topological spaces. <\/p>\n<p>Next we consider the maps of sheaves<\/p>\n<p><b>Z<\/b> &#8212;> O^h &#8212;> (constant sheaf with value K on Z)<\/p>\n<p>Since g|_Z is nontorsion we see that its image in the first cohomology of the last sheaf is nonzero and we conclude H^1(Z, O^h) is nonzero.<\/p>\n<p>Conclusion: no theorem B for henselian affine schemes. Enjoy!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>This is just to record informally a counter example which we found in March 2017. Please let me know if such an example is in the literature and I will add a reference. Let (A, I) be a henselian pair. &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~dejong\/wordpress\/?p=4262\">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-4262","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\/4262","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=4262"}],"version-history":[{"count":15,"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~dejong\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4262\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4277,"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~dejong\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4262\/revisions\/4277"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~dejong\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4262"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~dejong\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4262"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~dejong\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4262"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}