MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

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 finite-dimensional compact metrizable space (these properties might partially be irrelevant; on the other hand, the case $X=[0,1]$ is already interesting to me).

Let $\mathcal F$ be a soft sheaf of $\mathbb Q$-vector spaces on the topology $\mathbb O(X)$ (softness means that restriction of global sections to closed subsets is surjective).

Assume that the dimension of $\mathcal F(X)$ is countable. Question: Is $\mathcal F$ necessarily a direct sum of skyscraper sheaves? If $\mathcal F(X)$ is finite-dimensional then this can be proved using induction on the dimension, I think.

Motivation: I have proved a classification result for certain continuous fields of $C^*$-algebras over $X$. The invariant takes values in soft sheaves (actually in flabby cosheaves, but that is "the same"). Now I am wondering about the range of the invariant.

share|cite|improve this question
Are you sure it works when F(X) is finite-dimensional? I feel like if you take a non-principal ultrafilter on X, and define a sheaf by F(U) = Q when U is in the ultrafilter, and 0 otherwise, then F is flabby and hence soft, but is not a skyscraper sheaf. – Kevin Ventullo Jun 25 '13 at 20:08
@KevinVentullo: Thank you for your comment. I thought I had convinced myself that phenomena like what you describe cannot occur. Here is the argument: let $\mathcal F$ be a soft sheaf of $\mathbb Q$-vector spaces with $\mathcal F(X)=\mathbb Q$. Since $\mathcal F\neq 0$, there must be some stalk $\mathcal F_x\neq 0$. Then the map $\mathcal F(X)\to\mathcal F_x$ must be an isomorphism because $\mathbb Q$ is simple. Since $X$ is Hausdorff, $\mathcal F(\{x,y\})\cong\mathcal F_x\oplus\mathcal F_y$ for $x\neq y$. By softness, we therefore must have $\mathcal F_y=0$ for $y\neq x$... – Rasmus Bentmann Jun 26 '13 at 8:30
... Finally, a sheaf with only one non-vanishing stalk must be a skyscraper sheaf. What am I missing? – Rasmus Bentmann Jun 26 '13 at 8:31
Hmm yeah that sounds right. I think what I defined isn't a sheaf, it doesn't satisfying the gluing axiom. – Kevin Ventullo Jun 27 '13 at 3:45

This appears to be a counterexample:

Let $Y\subseteq X$ be closed and totally disconnected, such as the Cantor set in $[0,1]$. Set $\mathcal F(U)=C(U\cap Y,\mathbb Q)$ -- locally constant functions on $U\cap Y$ with values in (discrete) $\mathbb Q$.

share|cite|improve this answer

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.