10
$\begingroup$

I asked this question on Mathematics Stack Exchange, but got no answer.

I don't understand why the definition of a sheaf (Definition 17.3.1 (ii)) given in the book

[KS] Categories and Sheaves by Kashiwara and Schapira

is equivalent to the definition of a sheaf (Definition 2.1) given in

[V] Verdier, Exposé II, SGA4, http://www.normalesup.org/~forgogozo/SGA4/02/02.pdf

To simplify, let me consider only set-valued presheaves.

Here is, in the terminology of [KS], how I understand the two definitions. (Warning: my understanding might be incorrect!)

Let $\mathcal U$ be a universe, let $X$ be a small site and let $F$ be a $\mathcal U$-set-valued presheaf over $X$. Then:

  • $F$ is a sheaf in the sense of [V] if $F(f)$ is an isomorphism for any $A$ in $(\mathcal C_X)^\wedge$, any $U$ in $\mathcal C_X$, and any local isomorphism $f:A\to U$ which is a monomorphism,

  • $F$ is a sheaf in the sense of [KS] if $F(f)$ is an isomorphism for any $A$ in $(\mathcal C_X)^\wedge$, any $U$ in $\mathcal C_X$, and any local isomorphism $f:A\to U$.

The difference is that the local isomorphism $f$ is supposed to be a monomorphism in Verdier's definition.

A "KS-sheaf" is of course a "V-sheaf", but I'm unable to prove the converse.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think these might be equivalent by the argument that proves "Ken Brown's lemma" in model category theory. $\endgroup$ Oct 11, 2017 at 12:10
  • $\begingroup$ @DylanWilson - Thanks! Unfortunately I know nothing about model categories. You're most welcome to give further details in a new comment or in an answer. (I may accept an answer I don't fully understand.) $\endgroup$ Oct 11, 2017 at 12:35
  • $\begingroup$ I've just noticed that the equivalence of the definitions follows from Proposition 5.3, implication "(i) $\implies$ (ii bis)", in Verdier’s Exposé normalesup.org/~forgogozo/SGA4/02/02.pdf $\endgroup$ Oct 18, 2017 at 20:33

2 Answers 2

10
$\begingroup$

$\DeclareMathOperator\im{im}$Actually I couldn't quite figure out how to do a Ken Brown sort of argument, but here's an argument that works:

Let $L$ denote the usual sheafification functor, a la Grothendieck and Verdier etc. Then I claim it's enough to show $L$ sends local epimorphisms to epimorphisms and local monomorphisms to monomorphisms. Indeed, if this is the case then $L$ takes local isomorphisms to epi-monomorphisms, and such things are isomorphisms in toposes.

Since $L$ preserves finite limits, we need only check that $L$ takes local epis to epis (since $A \to B$ is a local mono iff $A \to A\times_BA$ is a local epi). But that's not so bad: If $A \to B$ is a local epimorphism then the map $\im(A \to B) \to B$ is a local epimorphism and a monomorphism, and hence a monic, local isomorphism. But $L$ preserves images (since they're computed as colimits and L preserves those) and takes monic, local isomorphisms to isomorphisms. Thus $LA \to LB$ has the property that $\im(LA \to LB) \to LB$ is an isomorphism (NB: that image is computed in the category of sheaves), and so the map is epi in the category of sheaves, which is what we wanted.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks a lot for this awesome answer! Would you have enough time to answer also the MSE question math.stackexchange.com/q/2463353/660 - for instance by a link to the above answer of yours? (I would of course upvote it and accept it.) $\endgroup$ Oct 12, 2017 at 13:30
  • $\begingroup$ I suddenly realize that I didn't understand your argument. In the penultimate sentence you write that $L$ "takes monic, local isomorphisms to isomorphisms". Why is this true? $\endgroup$ Oct 12, 2017 at 18:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Isn't that the defining feature of $L$? A 'monic, local isomorphism' with target a representable is the same as a covering sieve I think. But every monic, local isomorphism is built out of these from colimits (express the target as a colimit of representables, and pull-back the source to each of these, getting covering sieves throughout by the axioms of a topology) $\endgroup$ Oct 12, 2017 at 18:39
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! One of the things you're saying is that, given an object $U$ of $\mathcal C$ and $S\hookrightarrow U$ a covering sieve viewed as a subobject of $U$ in $\mathcal C^\wedge$, the morphism $LS\to LU$ is an isomorphism. Right? If so, could you explain this as simply as possible? $\endgroup$ Oct 12, 2017 at 19:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It's basically the definition of $L$ that it inverts those, but if you have a different definition in mind that's fine: The map $LS \to LU$ is an isomorphism iff for all sheaves $F$, $\mathrm{Hom}(LU, F) \to \mathrm{Hom}(LS, F)$ is an isomorphism. Now use that $L$ is left adjoint to the inclusion and the definition of $F$ being a sheaf. $\endgroup$ Oct 12, 2017 at 20:08
3
$\begingroup$

I have found a very elementary proof, where the presheaves are allowed to take values in any category $\mathcal{A}$ with enough limits (however Dylan’s argument can be used to show this in the same generality by using Prop. 17.3.2 of KS). Let $F$ be a presheaf satisfying the Verdier definition. We shall first show that $F$ is separated in the sense of KS. For this let $f:A\rightarrow U$ be a local isomorphism. Factor $f=i\circ g$ with $g:A\rightarrow \operatorname{im}(f)$. Then $i$ is a monic local isomorphism and $g$ is epic. Consequently $F(i)$ is an isomorphism and as $F$ commutes with limits, $F(g)$ is a mono morphism. In particular $F(f)$ is Mono. This shows that $F$ is KS separated.

Now we shall show that $F(f)$ must even be an iso. For this, notice that as $f$ is a local monomorphism we also have that $g$ is a local monomorphism. Now as $g$ is a strict epimorphism (as we are in a category of sets), we get that $$A\times_{\operatorname{im}(f)}A\rightrightarrows A \rightarrow \operatorname{im}(f)$$ is a right exact sequence (i.e. $\operatorname{im}(f)$ is a cokernel of the two projections $p_1$ and $p_2$). As $F$ commutes with limits, we get the left exact sequence $$F(\operatorname{im}(f))\rightarrow F(A) \rightrightarrows F(A\times_{\operatorname{im}(f)}A).$$

Now as $g$ is a local monomorphism, we have that the diagonal map $\Delta:A\rightarrow A\times_{\operatorname{im}(f)}A $ is a local epimorphism. Hence, as $F$ is KS separated, proposition 17.3.3 implies that $F(\Delta)$ is monic. As $F(\Delta)\circ F(p_1)= F(\Delta)\circ F(p_2) $, we get $F(p_1)=F(p_2)$ and hence the last exact sequence forces $F(\operatorname{im}(f))\rightarrow F(A) $ to be an iso. But this morphism is $F(g)$. As $F(i)$ is an iso, so is $F(f)$ then.

$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ You are being careless about your hypotheses. Clearly you are assuming that $\mathcal{A}$ has some kind of epi–mono factorisation. You seem also make the common mistake of equating the sheaf condition to preservation of limits. $\endgroup$
    – Zhen Lin
    Apr 21, 2023 at 22:30
  • $\begingroup$ Where do I need this assumption on $\mathcal{A}$? The factorisation of $f$ is done in the category $Psh(C,\operatorname{Set})$, not $\mathcal{A}$. $\endgroup$ Apr 22, 2023 at 2:12
  • $\begingroup$ You wrote: "where the presheaves are allowed to take values in any category $\mathcal{A}$ with enough limits". If you don't work in that generality then there is no need to write it. $\endgroup$
    – Zhen Lin
    Apr 22, 2023 at 2:16
  • $\begingroup$ Here $F$ is considered to be extended to a contra variant functor $Psh(C,\operatorname{Set}) \rightarrow \mathcal{A}$ as described on Page 408 of KS, line 6. $F$ then commutes with small limits. $\endgroup$ Apr 22, 2023 at 2:18
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ In the original question it was written “ To simplify, let me consider only set-valued presheaves.” As my argument does not need this simplification, I figured, it would be appropriate to say “ where the presheaves are allowed to take values in any category $\mathcal{A}$ with enough limits” $\endgroup$ Apr 22, 2023 at 2:22

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.