3

Let $\phi:A\to B$ be a ring homomorphism inducing $f :\operatorname{Spec}(B) \to \operatorname{Spec}(A)$ on spectra. Let $M$ be an $A$-module and $\widetilde{M}$ be the corresponding quasi coherent sheaf on $\operatorname{Spec}(A)$.

I define the pullback of an $\mathcal{O}_A$ -module $\mathcal{F}$ to be

$$f^{*} \mathcal{F} = f^{-1}\mathcal{F} \otimes_{f^{-1}\mathcal{O}_A} \mathcal{O}_B$$

I want to show that $f^*\widetilde{M} \simeq \widetilde{M\otimes_A B}$. In Hartshorne it is said that this follows directly from definitions, however, the definition of the pullback involves taking limits, sheafifying, taking the tensor product and sheafifying again, so opening all of that doesn't seem so simple.

I know that the stalks of these two sheaves at $q\triangleleft B$ are equal to $M_{\phi^{-1}q} \otimes_{A_{\phi^{-1}q}} B_q$, since all of the relevant operations act nicely on stalks, so I am missing a map between the two sheaves that would induce identity on the stalks.

So I want to define an $f^{-1}\mathcal{O}_A$- bilinear map $f^{-1}\widetilde{M}\times\mathcal{O}_B \to \widetilde{M\otimes_A B}$, that it suffices to define on distinguished $D(g)\subset \operatorname{Spec}(B)$, but I don't see how to express $(f^{-1}\widetilde{M})(D(g))$ in a reasonable way, and in any case, I think that there should be a very simple proof because Hartshorne says this follows directly from definitions.

I just don't have a good intuition on what is going on here.

RobPratt
  • 45,619
idok
  • 1,701
  • $f_$ corresponds to restriction of scalars, and $M \rightarrow \widetilde{M}$ is an equivalence of categories. Therefore, $f^$ and $\widetilde{M} \rightarrow \widetilde{M \otimes_A B}$ are both left adjoints to $f_*$, so must be isomorphic to each other. – David Lui May 26 '20 at 05:12

1 Answers1

4

Here's one proof that doesn't get too far away from the basics. I'm not sure if it's exactly what Hartshorne had in mind, but it should be direct and not use anything too difficult.

Step 1: The pullback of the structure sheaf is the structure sheaf. This follows because $R\otimes_R -$ is isomorphic to the identity functor.

Step 2: Pullback is right-exact, because it is the composition of a right exact functor $-\otimes_{f^{-1}\mathcal{O}_Y}\mathcal{O}_X$ with the exact functor $f^{-1}(-)$. (If you need a reminder on why $f^{-1}(-)$ is exact, look at stalks.)

Step 3: Write $M$ as the cokernel of a map of free $A$-modules $A^{\oplus I}\stackrel{p}{\to} A^{\oplus J}\to M$. Take the associated sheaf to get $$\mathcal{O}_A^{\oplus I}\to \mathcal{O}_A^{\oplus J}\to \widetilde{M} \to 0.$$ Apply our right exact functor $f^*$ to get the exact sequence $$f^*\mathcal{O}_A^{\oplus I}\to f^*\mathcal{O}_A^{\oplus J}\to f^*\widetilde{M} \to 0$$ which simplifies to $$\mathcal{O}_B^{\oplus I}\to \mathcal{O}_B^{\oplus J}\to f^*\widetilde{M} \to 0$$ by step 1. Thus $f^*\widetilde{M}$ is quasi-coherent, and it's global sections are the cokernel of $B^{\oplus I}\to B^{\oplus J}$ where the map is $B\otimes_A p$ (this follows from writing $p$ as a matrix and noting that everything we do preserves this matrix). So the global sections of $f^*\widetilde{M}$ are exactly $M\otimes_A B$.

KReiser
  • 65,137
  • I have a question regarding this: Firstly, why can we take m,n to be natural numbers here? Since we do not work with coherent sheaves, they can be infinite or not? Secondly i am wondering what you mean by sheafify here. For that to make sense, the first sequence must consist of preseaves or am i wrong? – Adronic Jan 30 '23 at 09:21
  • Okay i got the second part. but you dont mean Sheafification but the exact functor that sends a Module to the associated sheaf. – Adronic Jan 30 '23 at 11:08
  • @Adronic I've updated the post. Thanks for pointing out the issues. – KReiser Jan 30 '23 at 15:03