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

Say we are given a complex manifold $X$ and an $\mathcal{O}_X$-module $\mathcal{F}$. Assume that for any point $P\in X$ the stalk $\mathcal{F}_P$ is a free $(\mathcal{O}_X)_P$-module of finite rank. Does it imply that $\mathcal{F}$ is locally free? If not, what do you need to know additionally about $\mathcal{F}$ to make it true?

Note that if we were looking at the case of schemes then it would be wrong in general. Mathoverflow answer to a related question is here

Remark: As it was pointed out by Francesco Polizzi, this is true if $\mathcal{F}$ is coherent. What if we do not know it apriori?

share|improve this question
This is exercise II.5.7 in Hartshorne. –  J.C. Ottem Sep 11 '11 at 19:12
Hartshorne's exercise is about coherent sheaves. As the remark above says, we do not assume this apriori. –  maxim Sep 11 '11 at 21:01

3 Answers 3

up vote 6 down vote accepted

Just looking at stalks is not enough:

Suppose that $X$ is a nontrivial complex manifold. Let $i_x:x\to X$ denote the inclusion, and set $$\mathcal{F} =\bigoplus_{x\in X} i_{x*}\mathcal{O}_x$$ Notice that it is naturally an $\mathcal{O}_X$-module with $\mathcal{F}_x\cong \mathcal{O}_x$, and yet it is certainly not locally free.

Notes Rather than editing, I'll keep the original form of my answer in tact and add a few footnotes.

  1. Of course, this $\mathcal{F}$ is not coherent.

  2. (Re: UG's first comment.) I probably should have included the proof that $\mathcal{F}_x\cong \mathcal{O}_x$. Here it is. The left is the direct limit $$\varinjlim\bigoplus_{y\in U} \mathcal{O}_y$$ as $U$ shrinks to $x$. There is a projection $p$ to $\mathcal{O}_x$ which is surjective since it has a section. Suppose that $f=\sum f_y$ lies in the kernel of $p$. Shrink $U$ to avoid the support of $f$ (which excludes $x$). Then we see that the class of $f$ in the direct limit must be zero. (There is a reason I took the sum and not the product.)

  3. (Re: Laurent's comment.) By $i_{x*}\mathcal{O}_x$, I meant the skyscraper sheaf associated to $\mathcal{O}_x$.

share|improve this answer
The stalk of your sheaf $\mathcal F$ at $x$ is much larger than $\mathcal O_x$. Rather, it's all germs around $x$ of "functions" associating to a point $y$ an element of $\mathcal O_y$. –  John Pardon Sep 11 '11 at 22:07
Ah, yes, sorry. I was thinking direct product. –  John Pardon Sep 11 '11 at 23:11
No problem. I had my doubts about it too. –  Donu Arapura Sep 11 '11 at 23:30
I guess the sheaf you have in mind in the direct sum is not $i_*\mathcal{O}_x$, but the skyscraper sheaf at $x$ with stalk the free $\mathcal{O}_x$-module of rank one. If by $i$ you mean the inclusion of the point $x$, as a morphism of ringed spaces, then $i_* \mathcal{O}_x$ is the same skyscraper sheaf (of abelian groups), but as an $\mathcal{O}$-module it is killed by the maximal ideal of $x$. –  Laurent Moret-Bailly Sep 12 '11 at 5:31
Yes, I meant the skyscraper the sheaf. I'll fix it in a bit. –  Donu Arapura Sep 12 '11 at 12:31

This is a small modification of Donu's answer.

Let $\mathcal F=(i_x)_\ast\mathcal O_x$ (the skyscraper sheaf of $\mathcal O_x$ over $x$) for some $x\in X$. Then $\mathcal F$ is locally free of rank $1$ at $x$, and is locally free of rank $0$ everywhere else. Clearly $\mathcal F$ is not locally free near $x$, since it doesn't even have locally constant rank.

share|improve this answer

The answer is yes, at least when $\mathcal{F}$ is a coherent sheaf.

This actually holds for any complex space. See [Grauert-Remmert, Coherent Analytic Sheaves, p. 90].

share|improve this answer
Thank you for the answer! Right, this is because the support of a coherent sheaf is closed. What if the sheaf is not coherent? –  maxim Sep 11 '11 at 17:57

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.