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

Are the connecting homomorphism induced by Kummer sequence and that of localization sequence commutative?

In other words, is the following statement true?

If it is true, then, how can one prove it?

Please give me any advice.

STATEMENT: Let $X$ be a scheme, $n$ an integer invertible on $X$, $Z$ a closed subscheme of $X$ and $U=X\setminus Z$.

Let $G_{m}$ be an etale sheaf on $X$ defined by sections invertible.

And let $\mu_{X}$ be an etale sheaf on $X$ defined by sections which are n-th roots of 1.

Then, the following two homomorphisms are the same.(Sorry, I don't know how to draw a diagram...)

$H^{i}(U, G_{m}) \stackrel{localization}{\to} H_{Z}^{i+1}(X, G_{m}) \stackrel{Kummer}{\to} H_{Z}^{i+2}(X, \mu_{X})$,

$H^{i}(U, G_{m}) \stackrel{Kummer}{\to} H^{i+1}(U, \mu_{X}) \stackrel{localization} \to H_{Z}^{i+2}(X, \mu_{X})$.

Here, morphisms are connectiong homomorphisms of long exact sequences.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 5 down vote accepted

Let $$0\rightarrow{\cal F}\rightarrow{\cal G}\rightarrow{\cal H}\rightarrow 0$$ be any short exact sequence of sheaves. (In your case, it will be the Kummer sequence.) We can replace ${\cal F,G,H}$ with injective resolutions ${\cal I}^\bullet,{\cal J}^\bullet,{\cal K}^\bullet$ so that we have $${\cal I}^\bullet\rightarrow{\cal J}^\bullet\rightarrow{\cal K}^\bullet$$

Now we have a three-by-three commutative diagram with top row $$ 0\rightarrow \Gamma_Z(X,{\cal I}^\bullet)\rightarrow\Gamma(Z,{\cal I}^\bullet)\rightarrow\Gamma(U,{\cal I}^\bullet|_U) \rightarrow 0$$ and where the middle and bottom rows look the same but with ${\cal J}$ and ${\cal K}$ instead of ${\cal I}$.
Taking cohomology (and using the commutativity of the three-by-three diagram) shows that $$H^i(U,{\cal H})\rightarrow H^{i+1}_Z(X,{\cal H})\rightarrow H^{i+2}_Z(X,{\cal F})$$ is the same as $$H^i(U,{\cal H})\rightarrow H^{i+1}(U,{\cal F})\rightarrow H^{i+2}_Z(X,{\cal F})$$ which is what you asked for.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank you so much! – Hiro Jun 13 '12 at 15:57

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.