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

I would be glad to know about possible generalizations of the following results:

1) (Grothendieck) Let $X$ be a noetherian topological space of dimension $n$. Then for all $i>n$ and all sheaves of abelian groups $\cal{F}$ on $X$, we have $H^i(X; \cal{F})=$ 0. [See Hartshorne, Algebraic Geometry, III.2.7.]

2) Let $X$ be an $n$-dimensional $C^0$-manifold. Then for all $i>n$ and all sheaves of abelian groups $\cal{F}$ on $X$, we have $H^i(X; \cal{F})=$ 0 . [See Kashiwara-Schapira, Sheaves on manifolds, III.3.2.2]

More precisely, I'm interested in dropping the "abelian groups" hypothesis: could I take sheaves in any, say, AB5 abelian category?

Apparently, in Grothendieck's theorem, the "abelian groups" hypothesis is necessary -at least in Hartshorne's proof-, because at the end you see a big constant sheaf $\mathbf{Z}$. But what happens if we talk about sheaves of $R$-modules, with $R$ any commutative ring with unit, for instance?

Are those generalizations trivial ones? False for trivial reasons?

Any hints or references will be welcome.

share|cite|improve this question
For any sheaf of rings $O$, sheaf cohomology on the category of $O$-modules coincides with such cohomology on underlying abelian sheaves (due to acyclicity of flasques). So the generalizations are obvious. In (2) it isn't necessary to restrict to manifolds; any separable metric space (or disjoint union thereof) with dimension $n$ in the sense of topological dimension theory satisfies (2) (see Engelking's book "General Topology", especially the notion of "covering dimension"; recall that Cech = derived functor cohomology on paracompact Hausdorff spaces, and metric spaces are such spaces). – Boyarsky Jun 29 '10 at 10:44
@Boyarsky. Thanks. So the generalization to sheaves of O-modules is trivial. Do you know anything about possible generalizations to sheaves with values in an (AB5?) abelian category? – a.r. Jun 29 '10 at 16:14
@Agusti: goodness, I can't even remember which one AB5 is...but is there some real reason for asking that kind of question? Like an example to motivate it? – Boyarsky Jun 29 '10 at 16:20
@Boyarsky. Thanks for your help again, Boyarsky. Well, I have a nasty spectral sequence with this kind of guys which I would like to converge strongly. For this, I need some zeros in it. As for AB5, is just a conjecture: exactness of filtered colimits seems to me, at first sight, the less you should ask -or the less I need- to work with sheaves with values in an abelian category – a.r. Jun 29 '10 at 17:28

Well, I think I can answer my question, thanks to Boyarsky's remark.

The point is that, since the theorem is also true for sheaves of $R$-modules, given a sheaf $\cal{F}$ with values in an abelian category $\cal{A}$, with the help of Mitchell's embedding theorem,, we can consider it as a sheaf of $R$-modules, for some ring $R$. Moreover, the embedding $V: {\cal A} \longrightarrow \mathbf{Mod}_R$ is full, faithful, and exact. That is to say, $V$ sends exact sequences to exact sequences. So $H^n(X;\cal{F})$ = $H^n(X;V(\cal{F}))$.

Hence, both vanishing theorems are also (trivially) true for sheaves with values in any abelian category.

share|cite|improve this answer
Unfortunately, the answer is wrong: see . – a.r. Jul 16 '10 at 16:41
Does some Leray spectral sequence help here? – Martin Brandenburg Sep 21 '13 at 8:31
Don't know: do you have something in mind, Martin? – a.r. Sep 21 '13 at 10:01

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.