Skip to main content

$H^p(T', R^q f\_\ast F) \Rightarrow H^{p+q}(T, F)$$H^p(T', R^q f_\ast F) \Rightarrow H^{p+q}(T, F)$ .

$H^p(\mathcal{U}, F) = H^p(T', f\_\ast F)$$H^p(\mathcal{U}, F) = H^p(T', f_\ast F)$

$\check{H}^p(T, F) = \varinjlim\_{(T',f)} H^p(T', f\_\ast F)$$\check{H}^p(T, F) = \varinjlim_{(T',f)} H^p(T', f_\ast F)$

from the spectral sequence, and the question is when these induce an isomorphism. If we could somehow eliminate the $R^p f\_\ast F$$R^p f_\ast F$, $p > 0$, by passing to a "small enough" cover we would have equality. This condition already holds in many cases; the following condition is more general (but I haven't checked carefully that it actually works!):

For every cover $\mathcal{U}$ of $X$, every $U\_1, \ldots, U\_n \in \mathcal{U}$$U_1, \ldots, U_n \in \mathcal{U}$, and every class in $\alpha \in H^p(U\_1 \mathop{\times}\_X \cdots \mathop{\times}\_X U\_n, F)$$\alpha \in H^p(U_1 \mathop{\times}_X \cdots \mathop{\times}_X U_n, F)$, $p > 0$, there exists a refinement $\mathcal{U}'$ of $\mathcal{U}$ such that the restriction of $\alpha$ under the map

$H^p(U\_1 \mathop{\times}\_X \cdots \mathop{\times}\_X U\_n, F) \rightarrow H^p(U'\_1 \mathop{\times}\_X \cdots \mathop{\times}\_X U'\_n, F)$$H^p(U_1 \mathop{\times}_X \cdots \mathop{\times}_X U_n, F) \rightarrow H^p(U'_1 \mathop{\times}_X \cdots \mathop{\times}_X U'_n, F)$

$H^p(T', R^q f\_\ast F) \Rightarrow H^{p+q}(T, F)$ .

$H^p(\mathcal{U}, F) = H^p(T', f\_\ast F)$

$\check{H}^p(T, F) = \varinjlim\_{(T',f)} H^p(T', f\_\ast F)$

from the spectral sequence, and the question is when these induce an isomorphism. If we could somehow eliminate the $R^p f\_\ast F$, $p > 0$, by passing to a "small enough" cover we would have equality. This condition already holds in many cases; the following condition is more general (but I haven't checked carefully that it actually works!):

For every cover $\mathcal{U}$ of $X$, every $U\_1, \ldots, U\_n \in \mathcal{U}$, and every class in $\alpha \in H^p(U\_1 \mathop{\times}\_X \cdots \mathop{\times}\_X U\_n, F)$, $p > 0$, there exists a refinement $\mathcal{U}'$ of $\mathcal{U}$ such that the restriction of $\alpha$ under the map

$H^p(U\_1 \mathop{\times}\_X \cdots \mathop{\times}\_X U\_n, F) \rightarrow H^p(U'\_1 \mathop{\times}\_X \cdots \mathop{\times}\_X U'\_n, F)$

$H^p(T', R^q f_\ast F) \Rightarrow H^{p+q}(T, F)$ .

$H^p(\mathcal{U}, F) = H^p(T', f_\ast F)$

$\check{H}^p(T, F) = \varinjlim_{(T',f)} H^p(T', f_\ast F)$

from the spectral sequence, and the question is when these induce an isomorphism. If we could somehow eliminate the $R^p f_\ast F$, $p > 0$, by passing to a "small enough" cover we would have equality. This condition already holds in many cases; the following condition is more general (but I haven't checked carefully that it actually works!):

For every cover $\mathcal{U}$ of $X$, every $U_1, \ldots, U_n \in \mathcal{U}$, and every class in $\alpha \in H^p(U_1 \mathop{\times}_X \cdots \mathop{\times}_X U_n, F)$, $p > 0$, there exists a refinement $\mathcal{U}'$ of $\mathcal{U}$ such that the restriction of $\alpha$ under the map

$H^p(U_1 \mathop{\times}_X \cdots \mathop{\times}_X U_n, F) \rightarrow H^p(U'_1 \mathop{\times}_X \cdots \mathop{\times}_X U'_n, F)$

converted images to tex
Source Link
Anton Geraschenko
  • 24k
  • 17
  • 127
  • 180

Let X$X$ be a topological space, and T$T$ its category of open sets with the usual Grothendieck topology. Let T'$T'$ be any sieve of T$T$ (a subcategory of T$T$ such that if U$U$ is in T'$T'$ then any subset of U$U$ is also in T'$T'$). For example, T'$T'$ might be the collection of open subsets subordinate to the open subsets in a cover \mathcal{U} http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cmathcal%7BU%7D$\mathcal{U}$. Any sheaf on T$T$ induces a functor on T'$T'$ which can be viewed as a sheaf on T'$T'$ if T'$T'$ is given the minimal topology (the only covers are the identity maps). This determines a morphism of topoi f : T \rightarrow T' http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?f%20%3A%20T%20%5Crightarrow%20T%27$f : T \rightarrow T'$, hence a spectral sequence

H^p(T', R^q f_\ast F) \Rightarrow H^{p+q}(T, F) http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?H%5Ep%28T%27%2C%20R%5Eq%20f%5F%5Cast%20F%29%20%5CRightarrow%20H%5E%7Bp%2Bq%7D%28T%2C%20F%29$H^p(T', R^q f\_\ast F) \Rightarrow H^{p+q}(T, F)$ .

The Cech cohomology of F$F$ with respect to some covering family \mathcal{U} http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cmathcal%7BU%7D$\mathcal{U}$ is

H^p(\mathcal{U}, F) = H^p(T', f_\ast F) http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?H%5Ep%28%5Cmathcal%7BU%7D%2C%20F%29%20%3D%20H%5Ep%28T%27%2C%20f%5F%5Cast%20F%29$H^p(\mathcal{U}, F) = H^p(T', f\_\ast F)$

where T' = T'(U) http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?T%27%20%3D%20T%27%28U%29$T' = T'(U)$ is the sieve associated to the cover \mathcal{U} http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cmathcal%7BU%7D$\mathcal{U}$. The Cech cohomology is then the filtered colimit

\check{H}^p(T, F) = \varinjlim_{(T',f)} H^p(T', f_\ast F) http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Ccheck%7BH%7D%5Ep%28T%2C%20F%29%20%3D%20%5Cvarinjlim%5F%7B%28T%27%2Cf%29%7D%20H%5Ep%28T%27%2C%20f%5F%5Cast%20F%29$\check{H}^p(T, F) = \varinjlim\_{(T',f)} H^p(T', f\_\ast F)$

taken over the projections f : T \rightarrow T' http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?f%20%3A%20T%20%5Crightarrow%20T%27$f : T \rightarrow T'$ associated as above to covering families \mathcal{U} http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cmathcal%7BU%7D$\mathcal{U}$.

\check{H}^p(T, F) \rightarrow H^p(T, F) http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Ccheck%7BH%7D%5Ep%28T%2C%20F%29%20%5Crightarrow%20H%5Ep%28T%2C%20F%29$\check{H}^p(T, F) \rightarrow H^p(T, F)$

from the spectral sequence, and the question is when these induce an isomorphism. If we could somehow eliminate the R^p f_\ast F http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?R%5Ep%20f%5F%5Cast%20F$R^p f\_\ast F$, p > 0$p > 0$, by passing to a "small enough" cover we would have equality. This condition already holds in many cases; the following condition is more general (but I haven't checked carefully that it actually works!):

For every cover \mathcal{U} http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cmathcal%7BU%7D$\mathcal{U}$ of X$X$, every U_1, \ldots, U_n \in \mathcal{U} http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?U%5F1%2C%20%5Cldots%2C%20U%5Fn%20%5Cin%20%5Cmathcal%7BU%7D$U\_1, \ldots, U\_n \in \mathcal{U}$, and every class in \alpha \in H^p(U_1 \mathop{\times}_X \cdots \mathop{\times}_X U_n, F) http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Calpha%20%5Cin%20H%5Ep%28U%5F1%20%5Cmathop%7B%5Ctimes%7D%5FX%20%5Ccdots%20%5Cmathop%7B%5Ctimes%7D%5FX%20U%5Fn%2C%20F%29$\alpha \in H^p(U\_1 \mathop{\times}\_X \cdots \mathop{\times}\_X U\_n, F)$, p > 0$p > 0$, there exists a refinement \mathcal{U}' http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cmathcal%7BU%7D%27$\mathcal{U}'$ of \mathcal{U} http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cmathcal%7BU%7D$\mathcal{U}$ such that the restriction of \alpha http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Calpha$\alpha$ under the map

H^p(U_1 \mathop{\times}_X \cdots \mathop{\times}_X U_n, F) \rightarrow H^p(U'_1 \mathop{\times}_X \cdots \mathop{\times}_X U'_n, F) http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?H%5Ep%28U%5F1%20%5Cmathop%7B%5Ctimes%7D%5FX%20%5Ccdots%20%5Cmathop%7B%5Ctimes%7D%5FX%20U%5Fn%2C%20F%29%20%5Crightarrow%20H%5Ep%28U%27%5F1%20%5Cmathop%7B%5Ctimes%7D%5FX%20%5Ccdots%20%5Cmathop%7B%5Ctimes%7D%5FX%20U%27%5Fn%2C%20F%29$H^p(U\_1 \mathop{\times}\_X \cdots \mathop{\times}\_X U\_n, F) \rightarrow H^p(U'\_1 \mathop{\times}\_X \cdots \mathop{\times}\_X U'\_n, F)$

To make sense of this, one must use some convention for the covers \mathcal{U} http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cmathcal%7BU%7D$\mathcal{U}$ and \mathcal{U}' http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cmathcal%7BU%7D%27$\mathcal{U}'$ to ensure there is a map as above. For example, one could work only with covers indexed by the points of X$X$ (a cover is then a collection of neighborhoods of each point of X$X$).

A more refined version of the above condition would say that Cech cohomology equals cohomology in degrees at most q$q$ if the above condition holds for p \leq q http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?p%20%5Cleq%20q$p \leq q$. Since it always holds for p = 0,1$p = 0,1$ this implies that

\check{H}^1(T, F) = H^1(T, F) http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Ccheck%7BH%7D%5E1%28T%2C%20F%29%20%3D%20H%5E1%28T%2C%20F%29$\check{H}^1(T, F) = H^1(T, F)$

Edit in response to David's comment:Edit in response to David's comment:

Here is how Cech cohomology computes cohomology of presheaves. Consider any category T'$T'$. If F$F$ is a presheaf of groups on T'$T'$ then the sheaf cohomology groups of F$F$ are the derived functors of the inverse limit for diagrams of shape T'$T'$. They are also computed as

where $\mathbf{Z}$ is the constant sheaf associated to the integers. Remarkably, in a presheaf category, $\mathbf{Z}$ has a canonical projective resolution associated to any cover of the final presheaf. A cover of the final presheaf is a collection of objects U$U$ of T'$T'$ such that every object of T'$T'$ has a map to at least one object of U$U$. The i$i$-th term of this complex is the direct sum, over all choices of i$i$ elements U_1, ..., U_i$U_1, ..., U_i$ of U$U$, of the groups $\mathbf{Z}_{U_1 \times \cdots \times U_i}$. (You can check this is projective by noting it is the extension by 0$0$ of $\mathbf{Z}$ from the slice category $T' / U_1 \times \cdots \times U_i$ and extension by 0$0$ preserves projectives (since it has an exact right adjoint) and $\mathbf{Z}$ is projective on the slice category since all higher cohomology of all sheaves vanishes (since it has a final object). It's also easy to check by a direct calculation.)

Denote this complex by K$K$. Since this is a projective resolution of $\mathbf{Z}$, $\mathrm{Hom}(K, F)$ computes the cohomology of $F$. But it is also easy to see that this is just the Cech complex of F$F$.

Let X be a topological space, and T its category of open sets with the usual Grothendieck topology. Let T' be any sieve of T (a subcategory of T such that if U is in T' then any subset of U is also in T'). For example, T' might be the collection of open subsets subordinate to the open subsets in a cover \mathcal{U} http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cmathcal%7BU%7D. Any sheaf on T induces a functor on T' which can be viewed as a sheaf on T' if T' is given the minimal topology (the only covers are the identity maps). This determines a morphism of topoi f : T \rightarrow T' http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?f%20%3A%20T%20%5Crightarrow%20T%27, hence a spectral sequence

H^p(T', R^q f_\ast F) \Rightarrow H^{p+q}(T, F) http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?H%5Ep%28T%27%2C%20R%5Eq%20f%5F%5Cast%20F%29%20%5CRightarrow%20H%5E%7Bp%2Bq%7D%28T%2C%20F%29 .

The Cech cohomology of F with respect to some covering family \mathcal{U} http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cmathcal%7BU%7D is

H^p(\mathcal{U}, F) = H^p(T', f_\ast F) http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?H%5Ep%28%5Cmathcal%7BU%7D%2C%20F%29%20%3D%20H%5Ep%28T%27%2C%20f%5F%5Cast%20F%29

where T' = T'(U) http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?T%27%20%3D%20T%27%28U%29 is the sieve associated to the cover \mathcal{U} http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cmathcal%7BU%7D. The Cech cohomology is then the filtered colimit

\check{H}^p(T, F) = \varinjlim_{(T',f)} H^p(T', f_\ast F) http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Ccheck%7BH%7D%5Ep%28T%2C%20F%29%20%3D%20%5Cvarinjlim%5F%7B%28T%27%2Cf%29%7D%20H%5Ep%28T%27%2C%20f%5F%5Cast%20F%29

taken over the projections f : T \rightarrow T' http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?f%20%3A%20T%20%5Crightarrow%20T%27 associated as above to covering families \mathcal{U} http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cmathcal%7BU%7D.

\check{H}^p(T, F) \rightarrow H^p(T, F) http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Ccheck%7BH%7D%5Ep%28T%2C%20F%29%20%5Crightarrow%20H%5Ep%28T%2C%20F%29

from the spectral sequence, and the question is when these induce an isomorphism. If we could somehow eliminate the R^p f_\ast F http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?R%5Ep%20f%5F%5Cast%20F, p > 0, by passing to a "small enough" cover we would have equality. This condition already holds in many cases; the following condition is more general (but I haven't checked carefully that it actually works!):

For every cover \mathcal{U} http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cmathcal%7BU%7D of X, every U_1, \ldots, U_n \in \mathcal{U} http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?U%5F1%2C%20%5Cldots%2C%20U%5Fn%20%5Cin%20%5Cmathcal%7BU%7D, and every class in \alpha \in H^p(U_1 \mathop{\times}_X \cdots \mathop{\times}_X U_n, F) http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Calpha%20%5Cin%20H%5Ep%28U%5F1%20%5Cmathop%7B%5Ctimes%7D%5FX%20%5Ccdots%20%5Cmathop%7B%5Ctimes%7D%5FX%20U%5Fn%2C%20F%29, p > 0, there exists a refinement \mathcal{U}' http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cmathcal%7BU%7D%27 of \mathcal{U} http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cmathcal%7BU%7D such that the restriction of \alpha http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Calpha under the map

H^p(U_1 \mathop{\times}_X \cdots \mathop{\times}_X U_n, F) \rightarrow H^p(U'_1 \mathop{\times}_X \cdots \mathop{\times}_X U'_n, F) http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?H%5Ep%28U%5F1%20%5Cmathop%7B%5Ctimes%7D%5FX%20%5Ccdots%20%5Cmathop%7B%5Ctimes%7D%5FX%20U%5Fn%2C%20F%29%20%5Crightarrow%20H%5Ep%28U%27%5F1%20%5Cmathop%7B%5Ctimes%7D%5FX%20%5Ccdots%20%5Cmathop%7B%5Ctimes%7D%5FX%20U%27%5Fn%2C%20F%29

To make sense of this, one must use some convention for the covers \mathcal{U} http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cmathcal%7BU%7D and \mathcal{U}' http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cmathcal%7BU%7D%27 to ensure there is a map as above. For example, one could work only with covers indexed by the points of X (a cover is then a collection of neighborhoods of each point of X).

A more refined version of the above condition would say that Cech cohomology equals cohomology in degrees at most q if the above condition holds for p \leq q http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?p%20%5Cleq%20q. Since it always holds for p = 0,1 this implies that

\check{H}^1(T, F) = H^1(T, F) http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Ccheck%7BH%7D%5E1%28T%2C%20F%29%20%3D%20H%5E1%28T%2C%20F%29

Edit in response to David's comment:

Here is how Cech cohomology computes cohomology of presheaves. Consider any category T'. If F is a presheaf of groups on T' then the sheaf cohomology groups of F are the derived functors of the inverse limit for diagrams of shape T'. They are also computed as

where $\mathbf{Z}$ is the constant sheaf associated to the integers. Remarkably, in a presheaf category, $\mathbf{Z}$ has a canonical projective resolution associated to any cover of the final presheaf. A cover of the final presheaf is a collection of objects U of T' such that every object of T' has a map to at least one object of U. The i-th term of this complex is the direct sum, over all choices of i elements U_1, ..., U_i of U, of the groups $\mathbf{Z}_{U_1 \times \cdots \times U_i}$. (You can check this is projective by noting it is the extension by 0 of $\mathbf{Z}$ from the slice category $T' / U_1 \times \cdots \times U_i$ and extension by 0 preserves projectives (since it has an exact right adjoint) and $\mathbf{Z}$ is projective on the slice category since all higher cohomology of all sheaves vanishes (since it has a final object). It's also easy to check by a direct calculation.)

Denote this complex by K. Since this is a projective resolution of $\mathbf{Z}$, $\mathrm{Hom}(K, F)$ computes the cohomology of $F$. But it is also easy to see that this is just the Cech complex of F.

Let $X$ be a topological space, and $T$ its category of open sets with the usual Grothendieck topology. Let $T'$ be any sieve of $T$ (a subcategory of $T$ such that if $U$ is in $T'$ then any subset of $U$ is also in $T'$). For example, $T'$ might be the collection of open subsets subordinate to the open subsets in a cover $\mathcal{U}$. Any sheaf on $T$ induces a functor on $T'$ which can be viewed as a sheaf on $T'$ if $T'$ is given the minimal topology (the only covers are the identity maps). This determines a morphism of topoi $f : T \rightarrow T'$, hence a spectral sequence

$H^p(T', R^q f\_\ast F) \Rightarrow H^{p+q}(T, F)$ .

The Cech cohomology of $F$ with respect to some covering family $\mathcal{U}$ is

$H^p(\mathcal{U}, F) = H^p(T', f\_\ast F)$

where $T' = T'(U)$ is the sieve associated to the cover $\mathcal{U}$. The Cech cohomology is then the filtered colimit

$\check{H}^p(T, F) = \varinjlim\_{(T',f)} H^p(T', f\_\ast F)$

taken over the projections $f : T \rightarrow T'$ associated as above to covering families $\mathcal{U}$.

$\check{H}^p(T, F) \rightarrow H^p(T, F)$

from the spectral sequence, and the question is when these induce an isomorphism. If we could somehow eliminate the $R^p f\_\ast F$, $p > 0$, by passing to a "small enough" cover we would have equality. This condition already holds in many cases; the following condition is more general (but I haven't checked carefully that it actually works!):

For every cover $\mathcal{U}$ of $X$, every $U\_1, \ldots, U\_n \in \mathcal{U}$, and every class in $\alpha \in H^p(U\_1 \mathop{\times}\_X \cdots \mathop{\times}\_X U\_n, F)$, $p > 0$, there exists a refinement $\mathcal{U}'$ of $\mathcal{U}$ such that the restriction of $\alpha$ under the map

$H^p(U\_1 \mathop{\times}\_X \cdots \mathop{\times}\_X U\_n, F) \rightarrow H^p(U'\_1 \mathop{\times}\_X \cdots \mathop{\times}\_X U'\_n, F)$

To make sense of this, one must use some convention for the covers $\mathcal{U}$ and $\mathcal{U}'$ to ensure there is a map as above. For example, one could work only with covers indexed by the points of $X$ (a cover is then a collection of neighborhoods of each point of $X$).

A more refined version of the above condition would say that Cech cohomology equals cohomology in degrees at most $q$ if the above condition holds for $p \leq q$. Since it always holds for $p = 0,1$ this implies that

$\check{H}^1(T, F) = H^1(T, F)$

Edit in response to David's comment:

Here is how Cech cohomology computes cohomology of presheaves. Consider any category $T'$. If $F$ is a presheaf of groups on $T'$ then the sheaf cohomology groups of $F$ are the derived functors of the inverse limit for diagrams of shape $T'$. They are also computed as

where $\mathbf{Z}$ is the constant sheaf associated to the integers. Remarkably, in a presheaf category, $\mathbf{Z}$ has a canonical projective resolution associated to any cover of the final presheaf. A cover of the final presheaf is a collection of objects $U$ of $T'$ such that every object of $T'$ has a map to at least one object of $U$. The $i$-th term of this complex is the direct sum, over all choices of $i$ elements $U_1, ..., U_i$ of $U$, of the groups $\mathbf{Z}_{U_1 \times \cdots \times U_i}$. (You can check this is projective by noting it is the extension by $0$ of $\mathbf{Z}$ from the slice category $T' / U_1 \times \cdots \times U_i$ and extension by $0$ preserves projectives (since it has an exact right adjoint) and $\mathbf{Z}$ is projective on the slice category since all higher cohomology of all sheaves vanishes (since it has a final object). It's also easy to check by a direct calculation.)

Denote this complex by $K$. Since this is a projective resolution of $\mathbf{Z}$, $\mathrm{Hom}(K, F)$ computes the cohomology of $F$. But it is also easy to see that this is just the Cech complex of $F$.

answered David Brown's comment
Source Link
Jonathan Wise
  • 8k
  • 1
  • 47
  • 53

Edit in response to David's comment:

The Cech complex always computes cohomology correctly in a presheaf category (i.e., when the topology is "chaotic": an object has no covers by anything except itself). Trying to compute cohomology in an arbitrary site using the Cech complex is (heuristically) something like trying to approximate the site by a presheaf category.

Here is how Cech cohomology computes cohomology of presheaves. Consider any category T'. If F is a presheaf of groups on T' then the sheaf cohomology groups of F are the derived functors of the inverse limit for diagrams of shape T'. They are also computed as

$Ext(\mathbf{Z}, F)$

where $\mathbf{Z}$ is the constant sheaf associated to the integers. Remarkably, in a presheaf category, $\mathbf{Z}$ has a canonical projective resolution associated to any cover of the final presheaf. A cover of the final presheaf is a collection of objects U of T' such that every object of T' has a map to at least one object of U. The i-th term of this complex is the direct sum, over all choices of i elements U_1, ..., U_i of U, of the groups $\mathbf{Z}_{U_1 \times \cdots \times U_i}$. (You can check this is projective by noting it is the extension by 0 of $\mathbf{Z}$ from the slice category $T' / U_1 \times \cdots \times U_i$ and extension by 0 preserves projectives (since it has an exact right adjoint) and $\mathbf{Z}$ is projective on the slice category since all higher cohomology of all sheaves vanishes (since it has a final object). It's also easy to check by a direct calculation.)

Denote this complex by K. Since this is a projective resolution of $\mathbf{Z}$, $\mathrm{Hom}(K, F)$ computes the cohomology of $F$. But it is also easy to see that this is just the Cech complex of F.

Edit in response to David's comment:

The Cech complex always computes cohomology correctly in a presheaf category (i.e., when the topology is "chaotic": an object has no covers by anything except itself). Trying to compute cohomology in an arbitrary site using the Cech complex is (heuristically) something like trying to approximate the site by a presheaf category.

Here is how Cech cohomology computes cohomology of presheaves. Consider any category T'. If F is a presheaf of groups on T' then the sheaf cohomology groups of F are the derived functors of the inverse limit for diagrams of shape T'. They are also computed as

$Ext(\mathbf{Z}, F)$

where $\mathbf{Z}$ is the constant sheaf associated to the integers. Remarkably, in a presheaf category, $\mathbf{Z}$ has a canonical projective resolution associated to any cover of the final presheaf. A cover of the final presheaf is a collection of objects U of T' such that every object of T' has a map to at least one object of U. The i-th term of this complex is the direct sum, over all choices of i elements U_1, ..., U_i of U, of the groups $\mathbf{Z}_{U_1 \times \cdots \times U_i}$. (You can check this is projective by noting it is the extension by 0 of $\mathbf{Z}$ from the slice category $T' / U_1 \times \cdots \times U_i$ and extension by 0 preserves projectives (since it has an exact right adjoint) and $\mathbf{Z}$ is projective on the slice category since all higher cohomology of all sheaves vanishes (since it has a final object). It's also easy to check by a direct calculation.)

Denote this complex by K. Since this is a projective resolution of $\mathbf{Z}$, $\mathrm{Hom}(K, F)$ computes the cohomology of $F$. But it is also easy to see that this is just the Cech complex of F.

Source Link
Jonathan Wise
  • 8k
  • 1
  • 47
  • 53
Loading