2
$\begingroup$

Suppose $\mathcal{C}$ is a dg category (over some base) with all colimits. We say that $X\in \mathcal{C}$ is a generator if $\mathcal{C}$ is equivalent to $\operatorname{End}_\mathcal{C}X$-modules (via the Yoneda functor). My question: are there some "niceness" conditions we can impose on the pair $(\mathcal{C}, X)$ which guarantee that all deformations of $X$ (i.e. all fibers of a suitably perfect sheaf of objects of $\mathcal{C}$ over a curve with special fiber $X$, say) are still generators?

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Rigidity is sufficient. $\endgroup$
    – Sasha
    Dec 4, 2016 at 18:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You mean non-existence of nontrivial deformations? Thanks :) $\endgroup$ Dec 4, 2016 at 18:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Could you explain or give a reference for what do you mean by a sheaf of objects of $\mathcal C$ here? $\endgroup$ Dec 4, 2016 at 19:00
  • $\begingroup$ I am open to interpretation. But a simple working definition on an affine variety $\text{Spec}(R)$ would be a compact object in the category of objects of $\mathcal{C}$ with $R$-action. $\endgroup$ Dec 4, 2016 at 21:37

1 Answer 1

5
$\begingroup$

Let me give an example (which you are probably aware of) that shows how a generator may become a non-generator after a deformation.

Let $\mathcal C$ be the derived category of $\mathbb{P}^1$ and $X = \mathcal{O} \oplus \mathcal{O}(-1)[1]$. This is clearly a generator. On the other hand, we can deform the sum to an extension $$ 0 \to \mathcal{O}(-1) \to \mathcal{O} \to \mathcal{O}_P \to 0, $$ where $P \in \mathbb{P}^1$ is a point, and the sheaf $\mathcal{O}_P$ is definitely not a generator.

I think a similar trick can be used in a much more general situation, so I do not believe there is a reasonable condition (besides the rigidity of $X$) ensuring that the property "being a generator" is open.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks! This is a great example that I should have thought of before posting. I suppose it shows that the dga $\text{End}^*_{\mathbb{P}^1}(\mathcal{O}_P)$ is a deformation of $\text{End}^*_{\mathbb{P}^1}(\mathcal{O}\oplus \mathcal{O}(-1)[1]),$ but they are not deformations in the opposite order (which is why I was curious about this) $\endgroup$ Dec 5, 2016 at 20:35

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.