7
$\begingroup$

I would like to know an intuition behind perverse coherent sheaves. I am aware that it is induced by a heart of another t-structure on the derived category. Are there any better, probably more geometric, way to understand perverse coherent sheaves?

Just in case, let us recall the definition of perverse coherent sheaves. Let $X$ be a projective threefold with at worst Gorenstein terminal singularities and $f:Y\rightarrow X$ be a crepant resolution. Define a full subcategory $\mathrm{Per}(Y/X) \subset \mathrm{D}(Y)$ consisting of objects $E \in \mathrm{D}(Y)$ satisfying the following three conditions;

  1. $H^i(E)=0$ unless $i=0,-1$,
  2. $R^1f_*H^0(E)=0$ and $R^0f_∗H^{−1}(E)=0$,
  3. $Hom_Y(H^0(E),C)=0$ for any sheaf $C$ on $Y$ satisfying $Rf_∗(C)=0$.

We call the objects of $\mathrm{Per}(Y/X)$ perverse coherent sheaves.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Your definition is far too specific. I don't think there's a really good geometric intuition. They're the natural objects to look at on singular spaces which imitate good "cohomological properties" of smooth spaces (e.g. duality theorems, purity of etale cohomology, etc.). $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 26, 2012 at 23:36
  • $\begingroup$ Dear David, The OP is asking about perverse coherent sheaves, not usual perverse sheaves. Incdidentally, I think there is good geometric intuition for usual perverse sheaves (though I am not the right one to convey it). Regards, Matthew $\endgroup$
    – Emerton
    Commented Nov 27, 2012 at 16:55
  • $\begingroup$ Dear Matthew: Oops, I didn't realize these were distinct concepts! Thanks for the correction. Best, Dave --- Pooya: Sorry for the tone of my comment. :) $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 28, 2012 at 20:50
  • $\begingroup$ But @DavidHansen is correct that the given definition is too specific: perverse coherent sheaves can be defined in many situations other than crepant resolutions of projective threefolds... $\endgroup$
    – Alexander
    Commented May 20, 2023 at 16:40

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

This is the definition appear in Bridgeland's paper which shows that flops of smooth 3-folds induces equivalence of derived category of coherent sheaves. From your question I think you know the word "perverse" is kind of related to t-structures.

The main theorem of that paper, indicates that for a flop $Y\to X\leftarrow W$, $Per(Y/X)$ will be send to $Coh(W)$ under that isomorphism. In other words, these objects are sheaves on another scheme which you can construct from the data $Y\to X$! In my opinion that's pretty cool, not "perverse" at all. But as for the name, so be it.

BTW, you don't need $X$ and $Y$ to be three fold in the definition. If you check Bridgeland's paper, most of the time he work with birational morphism such that $Rf_*\mathcal{O}_Y=\mathcal{O}_X$ and fibers have dimension at most 1. (For 3-folds that's just a small resolution.)

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Dear 36min, As you probably know, the adjective "perverse" is inherited from its usage in the usual theory of perverse sheaves, which served as a partial motivation for Bridgeland's work. Regards, Matthew $\endgroup$
    – Emerton
    Commented Nov 27, 2012 at 16:56
  • $\begingroup$ I said in the first paragraph the word "perverse" is related to t-structures. $\endgroup$
    – 36min
    Commented Nov 28, 2012 at 2:00

You must log in to answer this question.

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