Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

In [Hartshorne, III.3] he proves that injective modules over $R$ give flasque sheaves over $Spec\ R$. I presume that's because they don't give injective sheaves, and flasque is the consolation prize. Is there an easy counterexample?

EDIT: in III.3 he's assuming Noetherian. And he's already proved in II.5.5 the equivalence of categories of $R$-modules and quasicoherent ${\mathcal O}_{Spec\ R}$-modules. (And that injective sheaves are flasque, in III.2.)

EDIT: his proof that injectives are flasque uses some non-quasicoherent sheaves. So the ingredients "injective R-modules give injective objects in the category of quasicoherent sheaves [II.5.5]" plus "injective objects in the category of sheaves are flasque [III.2]" isn't enough for the result he gets in III.3, that injective R-modules give flasque sheaves.

share|improve this question
2  
The sheaf is injective in the category of quasi coherent sheaves, though. –  Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Feb 9 '10 at 4:40
    
@Allen, this is really in Chapter III, I guess? –  Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Feb 9 '10 at 6:21
    
Oops, fixed II -> III. –  Allen Knutson Feb 9 '10 at 12:55
    
Good question, I was also wondering about this yesterday. –  Wanderer Feb 9 '10 at 14:27

3 Answers 3

up vote 6 down vote accepted

Let me put this here for the sake of clarity. As was noted by Emerton in a comment above, this answer to a related Math Overflow question shows that the answer is no, for an injective $R$-module $I$, the sheaf $\widetilde{I}$ is not necessarily an injective sheaf.

So if you like that answer, I suggest you click on the link above and upvote that answer. The reference provided in that answer is to the following:

MR0617087 (82i:13013) Dade, Everett C. Localization of injective modules. J. Algebra 69 (1981), no. 2, 416--425.

Localization of modules over a commutative ring $R$ with respect to a multiplicatively closed subset $S$ of $R$ is an exact functor with a large number of properties, some of which are listed in Theorem 3.76 of J. J. Rotman's book [An introduction to homological algebra, Academic Press, New York, 1979; MR0538169 (80k:18001)]. The fifth property, namely: (LI) the localization $S^{-1}E$ of any injective $R$-module $E$ is an injective $S^{-1}R$-module, is false. Two examples are given here showing that arbitrary $R$ and $S$ need not have the property (LI). Also a positive result is given, showing that (LI) holds for certain non-Noetherian $R$ and certain $S$. In particular, if $R$ is the polynomial ring $k[x_1,x_2,\cdots]$ in a countable number of $x_n$ over a nonzero Noetherian ring $k$, then (LI) holds for all choices of $S$.

share|improve this answer

In Residues and duality, Corollary 7.14 of Chapter II, he proves that when $R$ is noetherian the sheafification of an injective module is an injective $\mathcal O_X$-module.

share|improve this answer
1  
Of course, there exists non-noetherian rings... Hic sunt dracones. –  Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Feb 9 '10 at 5:15
2  
See also this answer: mathoverflow.net/questions/6762/… –  VA. Feb 9 '10 at 5:15
1  
Just to clarify, it's Corollary 7.14 of Chapter II. This is a pretty surprising result to me. It means that the counterexample Allen was asking for probably requires you to think of an example of an injective module I over a non-noetherian ring R, a non-quasi-coherent ("incoherent"?) sheaf F on Spec(R), and a non-split injection I→F. Injective modules, non-noetherian rings, and incoherent sheaves are pretty hard for me to think about individually; putting them all together may be hopeless. –  Anton Geraschenko Feb 9 '10 at 6:04
    
Added the chapter, which is always nice to have. –  Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Feb 9 '10 at 6:21
    
Adam Topaz's answer to the question linked to by VA gives a counterexample (although I didn't check the reference). –  Emerton Feb 9 '10 at 20:29

I wonder why no one has mentioned this yet: A counterexample by Verdier can be found in SGA 6, Exp. 2, App. I. You can read it here. It is also shown that the forgetful functor $\mathrm{Qcoh}(X) \to \mathrm{Mod}(X)$ is ill-behaved on derived categories. Another example can be found in the Stacks Project's Examples (#26).

share|improve this answer
    
I like this appendix by Verdier. Thanks for putting it here. –  Mahdi Majidi-Zolbanin Dec 29 '12 at 22:02

Your Answer

 
discard

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.