Skip to main content
Became Hot Network Question
added 9 characters in body
Source Link
Georges Elencwajg
  • 48.5k
  • 15
  • 164
  • 247

Consider a family of flabby (= flasque) sheaves $(\mathcal F_i)_{i\in I}$ of abelian groups on the topological space $X$.
My question : is their direct sum sheaf $\mathcal F=\oplus _{i\in I} \mathcal F_i$ also flabby?

Here is the difficulty:
Given an open subset $U\subset X$ a section $s\in \Gamma(U,\mathcal F)$ consists in a collection of sections $s_i\in \Gamma(U,\mathcal F_i)$ subject to the condition that for any $x\in U$ there exists a neighbourhood $x\in V\subset U$ on which almost all $s_i\vert V \in \Gamma(V,\mathcal F_i)$ are zero.
Now, every $s_i$ certainly extends to a section $S_i\in \Gamma(X,\mathcal F_i)$ by the flabbiness of $\mathcal F_i$.
The problem is that I see no reason why the collection $(S_i)_{i\in I}$ should be a section in $\Gamma(X,\oplus _{i\in I} \mathcal F_i)$, since I see no reason why every point in $X$ should have a neighbourhood $W$ on which almost all the restrictions $S_i\vert W$ are zero.
Of course any direct sum of flabby sheaves is flabby on a noetherianif the space $X$ is noetherian, since in that case we have $\Gamma(U,\mathcal F) =\oplus_{i\in I} \Gamma(U,\mathcal F_i)$ for all open subsets $U\subset X$.
I have only seen the fact that direct sums of flabby sheaves are flabby (correctly) used on noetherian spaces, actually schemes, so that my question originates just from idle curiosity...

Consider a family of flabby (= flasque) sheaves $(\mathcal F_i)_{i\in I}$ of abelian groups on the topological space $X$.
My question : is their direct sum sheaf $\mathcal F=\oplus _{i\in I} \mathcal F_i$ also flabby?

Here is the difficulty:
Given an open subset $U\subset X$ a section $s\in \Gamma(U,\mathcal F)$ consists in a collection of sections $s_i\in \Gamma(U,\mathcal F_i)$ subject to the condition that for any $x\in U$ there exists a neighbourhood $x\in V\subset U$ on which almost all $s_i\vert V \in \Gamma(V,\mathcal F_i)$ are zero.
Now, every $s_i$ certainly extends to a section $S_i\in \Gamma(X,\mathcal F_i)$ by the flabbiness of $\mathcal F_i$.
The problem is that I see no reason why the collection $(S_i)_{i\in I}$ should be a section in $\Gamma(X,\oplus _{i\in I} \mathcal F_i)$, since I see no reason why every point in $X$ should have a neighbourhood $W$ on which almost all the restrictions $S_i\vert W$ are zero.
Of course any direct sum of flabby sheaves is flabby on a noetherian space, since in that case we have $\Gamma(U,\mathcal F) =\oplus_{i\in I} \Gamma(U,\mathcal F_i)$ for all open subsets $U\subset X$.
I have only seen the fact that direct sums of flabby sheaves are flabby (correctly) used on noetherian spaces, actually schemes, so that my question originates just from idle curiosity...

Consider a family of flabby (= flasque) sheaves $(\mathcal F_i)_{i\in I}$ of abelian groups on the topological space $X$.
My question : is their direct sum sheaf $\mathcal F=\oplus _{i\in I} \mathcal F_i$ also flabby?

Here is the difficulty:
Given an open subset $U\subset X$ a section $s\in \Gamma(U,\mathcal F)$ consists in a collection of sections $s_i\in \Gamma(U,\mathcal F_i)$ subject to the condition that for any $x\in U$ there exists a neighbourhood $x\in V\subset U$ on which almost all $s_i\vert V \in \Gamma(V,\mathcal F_i)$ are zero.
Now, every $s_i$ certainly extends to a section $S_i\in \Gamma(X,\mathcal F_i)$ by the flabbiness of $\mathcal F_i$.
The problem is that I see no reason why the collection $(S_i)_{i\in I}$ should be a section in $\Gamma(X,\oplus _{i\in I} \mathcal F_i)$, since I see no reason why every point in $X$ should have a neighbourhood $W$ on which almost all the restrictions $S_i\vert W$ are zero.
Of course any direct sum of flabby sheaves is flabby if the space $X$ is noetherian, since in that case we have $\Gamma(U,\mathcal F) =\oplus_{i\in I} \Gamma(U,\mathcal F_i)$ for all open subsets $U\subset X$.
I have only seen the fact that direct sums of flabby sheaves are flabby (correctly) used on noetherian spaces, actually schemes, so that my question originates just from idle curiosity...

added 18 characters in body
Source Link
Georges Elencwajg
  • 48.5k
  • 15
  • 164
  • 247

Consider a family of flabby (= flasque) sheaves $(\mathcal F_i)_{i\in I}$ of abelian groups on the topological space $X$.
My question : is their direct sum sheaf $\mathcal F=\oplus _{i\in I} \mathcal F_i$ also flabby?

Here is the difficulty:
Given an open subset $U\subset X$ a section $s\in \Gamma(U,\mathcal F)$ consists in a collection of sections $s_i\in \Gamma(U,\mathcal F_i)$ subject to the condition that for any $x\in U$ there exists a neighbourhood $x\in V\subset U$ on which almost all $s_i\vert V \in \Gamma(V,\mathcal F_i)$ are zero.
Now, every $s_i$ certainly extends to a section $S_i\in \Gamma(X,\mathcal F_i)$ by the flabbiness of $\mathcal F_i$.
The problem is that I see no reason why the collection $(S_i)_{i\in I}$ should be a section in $\Gamma(X,\oplus _{i\in I} \mathcal F_i)$, since I see no reason why every point in $X$ should have a neighbourhood $W$ on which almost all the restrictions $S_i\vert W$ are zero.
Of course any direct sum of flabby sheaves is flabby on a noetherian space, since in that case we have $\Gamma(U,\mathcal F) =\oplus_{i\in I} \Gamma(U,\mathcal F_i)$ for all open subsets $U\subset X$.
I have only seen the fact that direct sums of flabby sheaves are flabby (correctly) used on noetherian spaces, actually schemes, so that my question originates just from idle curiosity...

Consider a family of flabby (= flasque) sheaves $(\mathcal F_i)_{i\in I}$ on the topological space $X$.
My question : is their direct sum $\mathcal F=\oplus _{i\in I} \mathcal F_i$ also flabby?

Here is the difficulty:
Given an open subset $U\subset X$ a section $s\in \Gamma(U,\mathcal F)$ consists in a collection of sections $s_i\in \Gamma(U,\mathcal F_i)$ subject to the condition that for any $x\in U$ there exists a neighbourhood $x\in V\subset U$ on which almost all $s_i\vert V \in \Gamma(V,\mathcal F_i)$ are zero.
Now, every $s_i$ certainly extends to a section $S_i\in \Gamma(X,\mathcal F_i)$ by the flabbiness of $\mathcal F_i$.
The problem is that I see no reason why the collection $(S_i)_{i\in I}$ should be a section in $\Gamma(X,\oplus _{i\in I} \mathcal F_i)$, since I see no reason why every point in $X$ should have a neighbourhood $W$ on which almost all the restrictions $S_i\vert W$ are zero.
Of course any direct sum of flabby sheaves is flabby on a noetherian space, since in that case we have $\Gamma(U,\mathcal F) =\oplus_{i\in I} \Gamma(U,\mathcal F_i)$ for all open subsets $U\subset X$.
I have only seen the fact that direct sums of flabby sheaves are flabby (correctly) used on noetherian spaces, actually schemes, so that my question originates just from idle curiosity...

Consider a family of flabby (= flasque) sheaves $(\mathcal F_i)_{i\in I}$ of abelian groups on the topological space $X$.
My question : is their direct sum sheaf $\mathcal F=\oplus _{i\in I} \mathcal F_i$ also flabby?

Here is the difficulty:
Given an open subset $U\subset X$ a section $s\in \Gamma(U,\mathcal F)$ consists in a collection of sections $s_i\in \Gamma(U,\mathcal F_i)$ subject to the condition that for any $x\in U$ there exists a neighbourhood $x\in V\subset U$ on which almost all $s_i\vert V \in \Gamma(V,\mathcal F_i)$ are zero.
Now, every $s_i$ certainly extends to a section $S_i\in \Gamma(X,\mathcal F_i)$ by the flabbiness of $\mathcal F_i$.
The problem is that I see no reason why the collection $(S_i)_{i\in I}$ should be a section in $\Gamma(X,\oplus _{i\in I} \mathcal F_i)$, since I see no reason why every point in $X$ should have a neighbourhood $W$ on which almost all the restrictions $S_i\vert W$ are zero.
Of course any direct sum of flabby sheaves is flabby on a noetherian space, since in that case we have $\Gamma(U,\mathcal F) =\oplus_{i\in I} \Gamma(U,\mathcal F_i)$ for all open subsets $U\subset X$.
I have only seen the fact that direct sums of flabby sheaves are flabby (correctly) used on noetherian spaces, actually schemes, so that my question originates just from idle curiosity...

edited tags
Link
Georges Elencwajg
  • 48.5k
  • 15
  • 164
  • 247
Source Link
Georges Elencwajg
  • 48.5k
  • 15
  • 164
  • 247
Loading