5
$\begingroup$

Let $A$ be an abelian variety and $\hat A$ be the dual abelian variety. If $P$ is the (normalized) Poincare line bundle, then Mukai defines $R\hat S:D(A)\to D (\hat A)$ via $R\hat S(?)=Rp_{\hat A,*}(Lp_A^*(?)\otimes P)$ and $RS:D(\hat A)\to D(A)$ via $R S(?)=Rp_{ A,*}(Lp_{\hat A}^*(?)\otimes P)$. He then shows that $R\hat S\circ R\hat S =(-1_A)^*[-g]$ on $D^b_{qcoh}(A)$ and $R\hat S\circ R\hat S =(-1_{\hat A})^*[-g]$ on $D^b_{qcoh}(\hat A)$. The proof uses the projection formula which can fail for non-quasi coherent sheaves and hence for $D(A)$. My question is: Is there a counter example to $R\hat S\circ R\hat S =(-1_A)^*[-g]$ in $D(A)$?

$\endgroup$
4
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ What do you denote by $D(A)$? $\endgroup$
    – Sasha
    Jun 28, 2016 at 8:01
  • $\begingroup$ The derived category of $\mathcal O _A$ modules. I am not so worried about bounded vs unbounded, but I am more worried / interested about the non-quasi coherent case. $\endgroup$
    – Hacon
    Jun 28, 2016 at 11:50
  • $\begingroup$ Dear @Hacon, if the equivalence fails for all $O_A$-modules, then Theorem 2.2 in Mukai's paper "Duality between $D(X)$ and $D(\hat{X})$ with its applications to Picard sheaves" is wrong? And Theorem 2.1 of the paper "Non-commutative tori and Fourier-Mukai duality" is similarly erroneous? $\endgroup$
    – Doug Liu
    Feb 24, 2023 at 8:11
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, that's right, those theorems are wrong as stated (I suspect that Mukai was thinking of quasi-coherent sheaves and simply forgot to add the hypothesis) $\endgroup$
    – Hacon
    Feb 25, 2023 at 14:16

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

I think it is clear that $R\hat{S}$ is not an equivalence on the categories of all $O$-modules. Indeed, if it were an equivalence, it would send product to product, and also preserve quasi-coherence. Let $M_x$ be a sky-scraper sheaf at $x\in A$; its image under $R\hat{S}$ is an invertible $O$-module on $A^\vee$ (up to a shift). However, an infinite product of copies of $M_x$ is quasi-coherent, while the infinite product of invertible $O$-modules is not quasi-coherent.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.