MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let $X$ be a singular irreducible projective curve over an algebraically closed field and $\pi : \widetilde{X} \to X$ the normalization morphism. In the book on Neron models by Bosch et al. (I have slightly simplified the setup), the Picard group of $X$ is computed by taking the long exact sequence associated to $$0 \to \mathcal{O}_X^* \to \pi_*\mathcal{O}_{\widetilde{X}}^* \to \pi_*\mathcal{O}_{\widetilde{X}}^*/\mathcal{O}_X^* \to 0.$$ This seems to depend on the assertion that $\text{Pic}(\widetilde{X}) \cong H^1(X,\pi_*\mathcal{O}_{\widetilde{X}}^*)$, which is not obvious to me. If $\mathcal{O}_{\widetilde{X}}^*$ were coherent, then this would be a consequence of the exactness of $\pi_*$ on coherent sheaves ($\pi$ is finite), but of course $\mathcal{O}_{\widetilde{X}}^*$ is not even a sheaf of $\mathcal{O}_{\widetilde{X}}$-modules. How can we resolve this difficulty?

share|cite|improve this question

Maybe the following works?

Let's consider the ringed space $(X, \pi_* O_{\widetilde X})$ and also the ringed space $(\widetilde X, O_{\widetilde X})$. Certainly $\pi_{\*}$ gives us an isomorphism $$ \text{Pic}(\widetilde X, O_{\widetilde X})) \cong \text{Pic}(X, \pi_* O_{\widetilde X}) $$ which sends an $O_X$-line bundle $L$ to the $\pi_* O_X$-module $\pi_* L$, right? (I'm using the fact that $X$ is projective here to show that there exist open trivializing sets containing various finite collections of points). Also observe that $(\pi_* O_{\widetilde X})^{\*} = \pi_* (O_{\widetilde X}^{\*})$. Thus by Hartshorne Chapter III, Exercise 4.5 (which works on arbitrary ringed spaces), we see that $$ \text{Pic}(X, \pi_* O_{\widetilde X}) \cong H^1(X, (\pi_* O_{\widetilde X})^*). $$ Combining with the isomorphisms already written, we obtain: $$ \text{Pic}(\widetilde X, O_{\widetilde X}) \cong \text{Pic}(X, \pi_* O_{\widetilde X}) \cong H^1(X, (\pi_{\*} O_{\widetilde X})^*) \cong H^1(X, \pi_{\*} (O_{\widetilde X}^{\*})) $$

share|cite|improve this answer
Hi Jason, I was trying to avoid $\pi_*$ exactness (since that seemed to be what Just Campbell was worried about)? Instead I was claiming that all this work can be done on a different ringed space on $X$, and we don't need to consider the scheme $(X, O_X)$ at all. – Karl Schwede Jul 17 '12 at 2:01
I guess that might be a better way to go about it, to prove directly that $\pi_*$ is exact on arbitrary sheaves of Abelian groups. – Karl Schwede Jul 17 '12 at 2:11
@Jason Starr: I had hoped something like this was true. Would you mind elaborating a bit, perhaps in an answer? What property of $\pi$ is responsible for this fact? I know there is a theorem about higher direct images for proper maps that would give me what I want e.g. in the complex topology, but I'm wary of applying this in the Zariski topology. – Justin Campbell Jul 17 '12 at 3:25
@Jason: Are finite morphisms really acyclic for the Zariski topology? Perhaps (likely!) I'm mistaken, but there are semi-local schemes (obtained via finite covers of local ones) with non-trivial Zariski cohomology, which I thought would contradict acyclicity (see Example 1.10 of Morel-Voevodsky). Of course, for Justin's question, one may work with the etale/Nisnevich topology, so the acyclicity is fine. – Bhargav Jul 17 '12 at 3:33
Bhargav is correct, I was wrong: pushforward by a finite morphism is not necessarily acyclic (for the Zariski topology). You can see this quite clearly for a non-local, semilocal domain if you use Exercise 1.19 of Hartshorne with the locally constant sheaf $\mathbb{Z}$. As Bhargav says, you can use the \'etale topology to compute Pic, and pushforward by a finite morphism is acyclic for the \'etale topology. – Jason Starr Jul 17 '12 at 12:05

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.