4
$\begingroup$

A grating is a notion in algebraic topology from the 1940 introduced by Alexander. Cartan extended it as follows.

A grating (carapace in french) is defined by a topological space $X$, a module (or a differential ring) $A$ and for each $x \in X$, a surjective morphism $\varphi_x$ from $A$ to some quotient $A_x$ such that

  • for all $\alpha \in A$ and $x \in X$ such that $\varphi_x(\alpha) = 0$, we have $\varphi_y(\alpha) = 0$ for all $y$ close to $x$.
  • If $\varphi_x(\alpha) = 0$ for all $x\in X$, then $\alpha = 0$.

In his seminar Carapaces from the 1950, Cartan showed that gratings correspond to (pre-)sheaves on $X$ and this is the reason why, I guess, the notion of grating is not used anymore.

The sheaf $\mathcal F$ associated to a grating $(A, \varphi_x)$ is built by taking the $A_x$ as the stalks. This, I understand. The grating associated to a sheaf is built from the module of sections. Cartan does not give any other details in the seminar. I don't understand what $A$ should be, hence my question:

What is the module $A$ associated to the sheaf $\mathcal F$?

The module $A_x$ must be the stalk of the sheaf. So $A$ can't be the module of global sections, since it does not always surject on the stalks. My guess would be something like the inverse limit of all the ${\mathcal F}(U)$, where $U$ is an arbitrary open subset of $X$. But I have never seen this limit used before in that context.

$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ Why not product of $F(U)$ over all $U$? $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 11, 2023 at 18:34
  • $\begingroup$ @NicolasHemelsoet What would be the projection ${\cal F}(U) \mapsto {\cal F}_x$? Also I don't think that point 1 would hold. $\endgroup$
    – coudy
    Commented Jul 12, 2023 at 8:25
  • $\begingroup$ Is 'grating' really the standard translation? Google thinks, with no context, that 'carapace' means 'shell', so it seems like 'shelling' might make more sense. $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Commented Jul 12, 2023 at 14:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, this is the translation used by Cartan. Grating is the term used by Alexander in his 1938 paper and Cartan used the same term in his 1949 course for a slightly more general concept. The definition of carapace given in the linked seminar matches the definition of a grating given in his course. $\endgroup$
    – coudy
    Commented Jul 12, 2023 at 15:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think he says global sections is what he has in mind: (copy and pasted with minor editing) "Inversement~ tout faisceau $F$ définit une carapace, à savoir le module des sections $\Gamma(F)$ . En effet, dans l’exposé 14 (numéro 1) on a défini des supports dans $\Gamma(F)$ ; et on vérifie aussitôt que les axiomes d’une carapace sont remplis. Pour tout faisceau $F$ et toute famille $\Phi$, $\Gamma_{\Phi}(F)$ est carapace." $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 12, 2023 at 15:19

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

I think you may have misunderstood what Cartan was doing. In modern language he defined functors $\Gamma$ from sheaves to gratings and $\mathcal{F}$ from gratings to sheaves but he did not claim that these are mutually inverse equivalences of categories (even allowing for the apparent anachronism). He did write down a natural transformation from the identity functor on gratings to the functor $\Gamma \circ F$ explained at the end of section 4 of the seminar you link to.

He called objects $A$ where the map $A\to \Gamma\circ F(A)$ is an isomorphism complete gratings and argues that $\Gamma$ of any sheaf is a complete grating. I guess we should understand this as meaning that $\Gamma$ is right adjoint to $F$ but I haven't worked through the details to check this is true.

To directly answer your specific question, I think the module $A$ underlying $\Gamma(\mathcal{F})$ is in fact the space of global sections $\mathcal{F}(X)$ and your argument that it cannot be so fails since we don't have $A_x=\mathcal{F}_x$ in general. Rather, I think if you work through Cartan's argument, $A_x$ can be defined to be the image of $\mathcal{F}(X)$ in $\mathcal{F}_x$.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ One thing this has made me curious about: if the natural transformation $\mathrm{id}\to \Gamma\circ F$ is indeed the unit of an adjunction defined by $\Gamma$ and $F$ then what is the meaning of the counit and does it naturally arise in the theory of sheaves? $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 12, 2023 at 15:43

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .