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


I want to know if for $f:X\to S$ a proper flat holomorphic map with n-dimensionnal fibers over reduced complex space S, the relative canonical sheaf $w_{X/S}:=H^{-n}(f^{!}O_{S})$ is a dualizing sheaf which imply that the two functor, on Coh(S), $G\to H^{-n}(f^{!}G)$ and $G \to f^{*}G\otimes w_{X/S}$ agree...


share|cite|improve this question
Thank you for the answer. But, it seems to me that a relative dualizing sheaf is necessarly flat over S and then compatible with any base change (Kleiman, "Relative duality.. Compositio math, 41, prop 9 p.9). We know that for cohen macaulay morphism (conrad: Grothendieck duality) or morphism with Dubois singularities ( Kollar-Kovaks, journal.Am.Math.soc. 23, p.791) it is the case. In general, the recent paper of Zsolt :Arxiv 28 may 2010 " base change for relative canonical sheaf in families of normal varieties) show us that it is no true. – kaddar Jun 11 '10 at 10:43

If $f\colon X \to S$ a proper flat of schemes map with $n$-dimensionnal fibers over a noetherian scheme $S$, the relative canonical sheaf $\omega_{X/S}:=H^n(f^!{\mathcal{O}_S})$ is a dualizing sheaf. I guess that this should imply what you want by a GAGA-type argument.

Indeed, being $f$ flat we have that $f^!G = f^*G \otimes f^!{\mathcal{O}_S}$ [Lipman, SLN 1960, Theorem 4.9.4] for $G \in D^b_c(X)$ (or, more generally, for $G \in D^+_{qc}(X)$). Now, $f^!{\mathcal{O}_S}$ is concentrated between degrees 0 and $-n$ by looking at the fibers of $f$ and its description via residual complexes. Then, taking $-n$-th cohomology on both sides and one obtains the desired result.

Unfortunately, I am not familiar enough with the analytic version of the story as in Ramis-Ruget-Verdier "Dualité relative en géométrie analytique complexe", but I guess the algebraic version may give you a clue for how to transpose the result to your setting. I would bet you do not need $S$ reduced as long as $f$ is flat.


There was a confusion on my part. I was speaking about the dualizing complex while the original question was about the dualizing sheaf. If we agree that $\omega_X = H^{-n}(f^!O_B)$ for a equidimensional family (with $n$ the dimension of the fibers), then the base change isomorphism in the derived category for a square with base $u \colon P \to B$, ($B$ for "base scheme") a base change of the map $f \colon X \to B$ completing the square with $v \colon F \to X$ and $g \colon F \to P$, respectively.

Then, by the formula in the derived category,

$Lv^* f^! G \cong g^! Lu^* G$

we get an isomorphism of sheaves

$H^{-n}(Lv^* f^!O_B) \cong H^{-n}(g^! Lu^*O_B) = H^{-n}(g'^!O_P)$

so we see that the dualizing sheaf over $F$ is the abutment of a spectral sequence involving higher $Tor$ sheaves related to the embedding of the fiber into the space $X$. But, of course one needs some information on this embedding to get the collapse of the spectral sequence.

share|cite|improve this answer

If the relative canonical sheaf $w_{X/S}:=H^{-n}(f^{!}O_{S})$ is a dualizing sheaf then necessarily the two functors $G-->H^{-n}(f^{!}G)$ and $G-->f^{*}G\otimes w_{X/S}$ agree as well.

Remark that the first functor is left exact and the second is right exact which imply immediately that $w_{X/S}$ is flat over $S$ and then commute with any base change!

But it is not true in general. For this, we can see the simple example of Zsolt in Arxiv AG-2008: Base change for relative canonical sheaf. In this paper, he consider a flat family of normal varieties over smooth curve.

I have another very easy example which show us that $w_{X/S}$ is compatible with base change but the two functor dont agree. This example is giving by a surjective finite morphism between Normal Gorentein complex spaces. Of course, this morphism is neither flat, neither of finite tor dimension but it defines an analytic family of zero-cycles (and then we have a nice holomorphic trace map).

Important remark: 1) In this two example, Kunz relative sheaf (relative regular meromorphic forms) and relative canonical sheaf agree.

2) Kunz relative sheaf is not a dualizing sheaf in general.

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.