Sunday, 3 April 2011

Relative version of sheaf cohomology?

To elaborate on Kevin's comment: If f:XtoS, and mathcalF is a sheaf on
X, then fmathcalF is the sheaf on S defined by H0(U,fmathcalF):=H0(f1(U),mathcalF).



Taking the derived functors of f gives functors Rif, and it turns out
(fairly easily) that Rif(mathcalF)(U) is the sheaf associated to the presheaf
UmapstoHi(f1(U),mathcalF). If i>0, then this presheaf may not be
a sheaf (unlike the i=0 case), and this is related to the fact that it can be a little subtle to compute the stalks of RifmathcalF in general; for example, it need not
be the case in general that the stalk (RifmathcalF)s is equal to
Hi(f1(s),mathcalF). (E.g. think about the case when f is the inclusion of
a punctured disk into a disk, mathcalF is the constant sheaf mathbbZ,
and s is the centre of the disk (so that f1(s) is empty).)



In other words, RifmathcalF does not always literally interpolate the cohomology
of the fibres.



There is one case where one knows that RifmathcalF does interpolate
the cohomology of the fibres: if the map f is proper, than the proper base-change theorem
says that the stalk of RifmathcalF at s is the cohomology of mathcalF along
the fibre of s. (One good place for these kinds of facts is the beginning of Borel's book on Intersection Cohomology.)



Also, in the context of maps of varieties, if f is proper and mathcalF is a coherent
sheaf, then the completed stalk of RifmathcalF at s coicides with the cohomology
of the pull-back of mathcalF to the formal completion of f1(s) in X. (This is Grothendieck's proper base-change theorem, proved in some form in Hartshorne, Ch. III.)

No comments:

Post a Comment