Skip to main content
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
Source Link

in Grothendieck's Tohoku paper (page 127), Grothendieck asserts that the category of holomorphic vector bundles $\mathbf{Bund}(X)$ over a fixed Riemann surface $X$ does not satisfy $\mathbf{AB2}$, but satisfies $\mathbf{AB1}$. Explicitly, he claims that $\mathbf{Bund}(X)$ has kernels and cokernels, however the canonical morphism $\overline{u}: \text{CoIm}(u) \longrightarrow \text{Im}(u)$ is not an isomorphism. At first I thought it was easy prove, but now I'm not so sure.

I think it's useful to note that the category of vector bundles is not an abelian category in general (Is the category of vector bundles over a topological space abelian?Is the category of vector bundles over a topological space abelian?).

Thanks in advance.

in Grothendieck's Tohoku paper (page 127), Grothendieck asserts that the category of holomorphic vector bundles $\mathbf{Bund}(X)$ over a fixed Riemann surface $X$ does not satisfy $\mathbf{AB2}$, but satisfies $\mathbf{AB1}$. Explicitly, he claims that $\mathbf{Bund}(X)$ has kernels and cokernels, however the canonical morphism $\overline{u}: \text{CoIm}(u) \longrightarrow \text{Im}(u)$ is not an isomorphism. At first I thought it was easy prove, but now I'm not so sure.

I think it's useful to note that the category of vector bundles is not an abelian category in general (Is the category of vector bundles over a topological space abelian?).

Thanks in advance.

in Grothendieck's Tohoku paper (page 127), Grothendieck asserts that the category of holomorphic vector bundles $\mathbf{Bund}(X)$ over a fixed Riemann surface $X$ does not satisfy $\mathbf{AB2}$, but satisfies $\mathbf{AB1}$. Explicitly, he claims that $\mathbf{Bund}(X)$ has kernels and cokernels, however the canonical morphism $\overline{u}: \text{CoIm}(u) \longrightarrow \text{Im}(u)$ is not an isomorphism. At first I thought it was easy prove, but now I'm not so sure.

I think it's useful to note that the category of vector bundles is not an abelian category in general (Is the category of vector bundles over a topological space abelian?).

Thanks in advance.

edited title
Link
user40276
  • 2.2k
  • 1
  • 17
  • 28

Holomorphic vector bundles over a Riemann surface does not satisfy $\mathbf{AB2}$ but satisfies $\mathbf{AB1}$

added 2 characters in body
Source Link
user40276
  • 2.2k
  • 1
  • 17
  • 28

Line Holomorphic vector bundles over a Riemann surface does not satisfy $\mathbf{AB2}$

in Grothendieck's Tohoku paper (page 127), Grothendieck asserts that the category of holomorphic vector bundles $\mathbf{Bund}(X)$ over a fixed Riemann surface $X$ does not satisfy $\mathbf{AB2}$, but satisfies $\mathbf{AB1}$. Explicitly, he claims that $\mathbf{Bund}(X)$ has kernels and cokernels, however the canonical morphism $\overline{u}: \text{CoIm}(u) \longrightarrow \text{Im}(u)$ is not an isomorphism. At first I thought it was easy prove, but now I'm not so sure.

I think it's useful to note that the category of vector bundles is not an abelian category in general (Is the category of vector bundles over a topological space abelian?).

Thanks in advance.

Line bundles over a Riemann surface does not satisfy $\mathbf{AB2}$

in Grothendieck's Tohoku paper (page 127), Grothendieck asserts that the category of vector bundles $\mathbf{Bund}(X)$ over a fixed Riemann surface $X$ does not satisfy $\mathbf{AB2}$, but satisfies $\mathbf{AB1}$. Explicitly, he claims that $\mathbf{Bund}(X)$ has kernels and cokernels, however the canonical morphism $\overline{u}: \text{CoIm}(u) \longrightarrow \text{Im}(u)$ is not an isomorphism. At first I thought it was easy prove, but now I'm not so sure.

I think it's useful to note that the category of vector bundles is not an abelian category in general (Is the category of vector bundles over a topological space abelian?).

Thanks in advance.

Holomorphic vector bundles over a Riemann surface does not satisfy $\mathbf{AB2}$

in Grothendieck's Tohoku paper (page 127), Grothendieck asserts that the category of holomorphic vector bundles $\mathbf{Bund}(X)$ over a fixed Riemann surface $X$ does not satisfy $\mathbf{AB2}$, but satisfies $\mathbf{AB1}$. Explicitly, he claims that $\mathbf{Bund}(X)$ has kernels and cokernels, however the canonical morphism $\overline{u}: \text{CoIm}(u) \longrightarrow \text{Im}(u)$ is not an isomorphism. At first I thought it was easy prove, but now I'm not so sure.

I think it's useful to note that the category of vector bundles is not an abelian category in general (Is the category of vector bundles over a topological space abelian?).

Thanks in advance.

added 2 characters in body
Source Link
user40276
  • 2.2k
  • 1
  • 17
  • 28
Loading
Source Link
user40276
  • 2.2k
  • 1
  • 17
  • 28
Loading