Skip to main content
added 729 characters in body
Source Link

Why do people care to define fine sheaves? What useful property do they have for which softness is not sufficient?


some observations (because I feel guilty about a the one-line question):
The point of fine sheaves is of course having partitions of unity. But soft sheaves already have something almost as good: If $\mathcal{F}$ on $X$ is soft then for every $s \in \mathcal{F}(X)$ and every cover $(U_α)$ of $X$ there exist $s_α \in \mathcal{F}(X)$ with $\operatorname{supp} s_α ⊆ U_α$ such that $\sum_α s_α = α$ and the sum is locally finite.
So the only advantage of fine sheaves is that we can decompose sections $s \in \mathcal{F}(X)$ "uniformly" in $s$. But I don't know of any case where this is beneficial...

Incidentally: Does anyone know an example of a soft but not fine sheaf? (ideally on a paracompact space)

Why do people care to define fine sheaves? What useful property do they have for which softness is not sufficient?

Why do people care to define fine sheaves? What useful property do they have for which softness is not sufficient?


some observations (because I feel guilty about a the one-line question):
The point of fine sheaves is of course having partitions of unity. But soft sheaves already have something almost as good: If $\mathcal{F}$ on $X$ is soft then for every $s \in \mathcal{F}(X)$ and every cover $(U_α)$ of $X$ there exist $s_α \in \mathcal{F}(X)$ with $\operatorname{supp} s_α ⊆ U_α$ such that $\sum_α s_α = α$ and the sum is locally finite.
So the only advantage of fine sheaves is that we can decompose sections $s \in \mathcal{F}(X)$ "uniformly" in $s$. But I don't know of any case where this is beneficial...

Incidentally: Does anyone know an example of a soft but not fine sheaf? (ideally on a paracompact space)

Source Link

What's the point of fine sheaves? (As opposed to soft ones)

Why do people care to define fine sheaves? What useful property do they have for which softness is not sufficient?