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

Let $X$ be a scheme. Consider the global section functor $\Gamma : \mathrm{Qcoh}(X) \to \mathrm{Ab}$. It is well-known that $\Gamma$ preserves filtered colimits if $X$ is assumed to be quasi-compact and quasi-separated. In other words, $\mathcal{O}_X$ is a compact object. Even more, it can be shown (using the results of EGA I, 6.9) that compact objects are precisely the quasi-coherent modules which are locally of finite presentation. If we define a locally finitely presentable tensor category to be a tensor category $C$, whose underlying category is locally finitely presentable and such that a) $1_C$ is compact, b) the compact objects are closed under $\otimes_C$, then $\mathrm{Qcoh}(X)$ turns out to be such a category.

Does the converse also hold? This would be a categorical interpretation of this typical finiteness condition in algebraic geometry.

Question. When $\Gamma$ preserves filtered colimits, does it follow that $X$ is quasi-compact and quasi-separated? If not, what if we even assume that $\mathrm{Qcoh}(X)$ is a locally finitely presentable tensor category?

There are other natural conditions which might imply that $X$ is qc+qs, for example that even all cohomology functors $H^i : \mathrm{Qcoh}(X) \to \mathrm{Ab}$ preserve filtered colimits. Besides there are relative versions of this question: When $f : X \to Y$ is a morphism of schemes, then $f$ is quasi-compact and quasi-separated iff $f_\*$ or $f^\*$ has which property?

EDIT: Let us spell out what it means that $\Gamma$ preserves direct sums: Let $M_i$ be (infinitely many) quasi-coherent modules on $X$, $s_i \in \Gamma(M_i)$ global sections, and $X = \cup_j X_j$ an arbitrary open covering, then the following holds: If for every $j$ we have $s_i |_{X_j} = 0$ for almost all $i$, then $s_i = 0$ for almost all $i$. So the bounds for the $i$ with $s_i \neq 0$ on each $X_j$ are bounded. Why should this happen for a scheme which is not quasi-compact? But in order to prove this, we would have to construct appropriate quasi-coherent modules, and this can only be done my transfinite methods if $X$ is general (see for example here).

share|improve this question
4  
Even if this does not answer to your question, you might be interested to see a categorical interpretation of the property of bein quasi-compact and quasi-separated: have look at Exposé VI of SGA 4, in which you will see that quasi-compact quasi-separated schemes are precisely those for which the global section functor preserves filtered colimits of sheaves of sets for the Zariski or the étale topology (and there is also a relative version); see in particular Theorem 1.23 in loc. cit. –  Denis-Charles Cisinski Mar 2 '12 at 22:56
    
@Denis-Charles: Thanks for the reference. In this Exposé quasi-compact and quasi-separated morphisms are defined in an arbitrary topos. However it is then almost by definition the case that $X$ is qc/qs iff the final object of the corresponding topos $\mathrm{Sh}(\mathrm{Sch}/X)$ is qc/qs; see also loc. cit. 1.22. You mention Theorem 1.23, but this seems to be also a rather direct reformulation of the definition of qc objects (the proof just pulls back coverings). If we apply it to the topos associated to a scheme, I think we won't get anything new or interesting. –  Martin Brandenburg Mar 3 '12 at 9:24
    
The basic difference between the topos of all sheaves over $X$ and $\mathrm{Qcoh}(X)$ is that the former contains all representables. –  Martin Brandenburg Mar 3 '12 at 9:25

1 Answer 1

Let me show that if $\Gamma$ preserves filtered colimits, then $X$ is quasicompact. (At the moment I don't know about 'quasiseparated'; but, as Martin points out, I only use the injectivity of $\varinjlim\circ \Gamma \to \Gamma\circ \varinjlim$ for filtered inductive systems).

Assume $X$ is not quasicompact. Then there is a filtered decreasing family $(Y_i)$ of nonempty closed subschemes of $X$, with empty intersection. The structure sheaves $\mathcal{O}_{Y_i}$ form an inductive system with colimit zero, but the unit section of any $Y_{i_0}$ is an element of $\varinjlim_i \Gamma(\mathcal{O}_{Y_i})$ which is nonzero because each $Y_i$ is nonempty.

share|improve this answer
3  
Dear Laurent, thanks for this answer! Two minor corrections: a) "filtered colimits" instead of "colimits", b) "the family $(s_i)$ of unit sections" is an element in the limit, but in order to get an element in the colimit, we just have to specify one unit section. # Your proof only used that $\mathrm{colim}_i \Gamma(F_i) \to \Gamma(\mathrm{colim}_i F_i)$ is injective; maybe for quasi-separatedness we will need surjectivity. –  Martin Brandenburg Mar 4 '12 at 21:27
    
The proof can be made more direct: If $\{I_i\}$ is a filtered system of quasi-coherent ideals, then injectivity of $\mathrm{colim}_i \Gamma(\mathcal{O}_X/I_i) \to \Gamma(\mathrm{colim}_i \mathcal{O}_X/I_i) = \Gamma(\mathcal{O}_X/\sum_i I_i)$ implies: If $\sum_i I_i=\mathcal{O}_X$, then already $I_i = \mathcal{O}_X$ for some ideal (we use that $\mathcal{A}=0 \Leftrightarrow \Gamma(\mathcal{A})=0$ for algebras $\mathcal{A}$, using $1_A$). If we write $Z_i = \mathrm{supp}(\mathcal{O}_X/I_i)$, we see that $\emptyset = \cap_i Z_i$ implies $Z_i = \emptyset$ for some $i$. Hence $X$ is quasi-compact. –  Martin Brandenburg Mar 4 '12 at 21:44
    
@Martin: Thanks, I have edited my answer. Your second comment is indeed an alternative presentation. –  Laurent Moret-Bailly Mar 5 '12 at 7:33

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.