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

This seems to be a rather simple (stupid?:)) question; yet I was not able to find an answer quickly.

For a morphism $f:X\to Y$ of schemes (or topological spaces) and an (etale or topological) sheaf $f$ (of abelian groups) on $Y$ one defines the inverse image $f^*(S)$ (or is $f^{-1}$ more standard?) as the sheafification of the inverse image of $S$ considered as a presheaf.

Now suppose that $f$ is a (closed) embedding. Is the sheafification necessary here? It seems that the answer is no, since any covering of an open $U\subset X$ could be presented as a 'limit' of coverings of open $V\subset Y$, $V\supset f(U)$ (in the topogical context); so the 'presheaf inverse image' of a sheaf is a sheaf also. This seems to be easy, as well as carrying this argument over to the etale context; yet I would be deeply grateful for a definite answer and a reference for it. Also, does the situation change when one passes to simplicial schemes and sheaves? Is this fact 'standard' (if it is true)?

share|improve this question
    
I would have thought that the answer would be "not necessary", rather, for an open embedding, no? (Or étale morphism?) –  Graham Denham Sep 16 '11 at 12:10
    
It seems that you are not quite right. Certainly, everything is ok for an open embedding. My point is that one can present a closed subset as a 'limit' of open ones. On the other hand, let $f$ be the map from a (finite) collection of points with the discrete topology to a single point; certainly, such an $f$ is etale. Then the pullback of a constant presheaf (which is a certainly a sheaf) is a constant presheaf; one certainly has to sheafify here in order to obtain a sheaf. –  Mikhail Bondarko Sep 16 '11 at 13:23
    
Also, do you have a counterexample to my claim? –  Mikhail Bondarko Sep 16 '11 at 13:24
    
sorry, I missed the point. I don't have a counterexample, either. (You probably mean to write $V\subset Y$ above.) –  Graham Denham Sep 16 '11 at 14:12
3  
In the topological case, you need some additional hypotheses, otherwise you get a counterexample from $Y=\{g,s,t\}$ with $U\subseteq Y$ open iff $U$ empty or $g\in U$, so $X=\{s,t\}$ is a closed subspace, but $\Gamma(X,f^{-1}\mathbf Z_Y)=\mathbf Z^2\ne\mathbf Z=\varinjlim_{V\supseteq X}\Gamma(V,\mathbf Z_Y)$. –  user2035 Sep 17 '11 at 9:39
show 1 more comment

1 Answer

Perhaps I'm thinking of sheaves a bit differently from you here, but as long as we think of sheaves as \'{e}tale maps this holds for arbitrary continuous maps $f:X\to Y$ and not just open or closed embeddings. The reason for this is that, \'{e}tale maps are stable under pullback along arbitrary continuous maps. See, e.g., Mac Lane and Moerdijk (Sheaves in Geometry and Logic) Lemma 1 (II.9, page 99).

I guess that you know this though and are asking about the the case where we are not regarding sheaves as \'{e}tale maps. In this case you are right that some sheafification is required (since the construction of the inverse image along $f$ involves taking a colimit in $\text{Sh}(X)$). (I had thought that this was incorrect, but I had misunderstood precisely how you were claiming one should compute the inverse image in this case and so have removed my counterexample since it did not quite address your question.)

share|improve this answer
add comment

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.