This is an improved version of this question. Maybe it should be an edit -- I'm not sure what the MO convention is.

I'm curious, more or less, how much information one can get out of the derived category of coherent sheaves on a variety which are trivialized outside a finite set. Specifically, suppose $X$ is a smooth, proper variety of finite type over $\mathbb{C}$. Consider the category $\mathcal{C}=\text{Coh}(X)_{\text{codim }0}$ of coherent sheaves which are trivial (in the sense of being isomorphic to a power of the constant sheaf) outside a finite set of $\mathbb{C}$-points of $X$. This is a symmetric monoidal category with inner Homs. Suppose we do not know $X$, but know the category $\mathcal{C}$, together with derived data (the derived category of complexes whose cohomology is in $\mathcal{C}$, together with derived tensor products, Homs and most importantly global sections). Suppose in addition we are given the set of points of $X$ together with their formal neighborhoods, and know for every sheaf in $\mathcal{C}$ how it can be patched out of a globally trivial sheaf together with patching data at some finite set of formal neighborhoods.

How much information about $X$ does the category $\mathcal{C}$ contain? In particular can $X$ be recovered from $\mathcal{C}$?

  • $\begingroup$ How do you define $Hom$'s in your category? Is it a full subcategory of $Coh(X)$? $\endgroup$ – Sasha Mar 24 '13 at 15:42
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, of course (otherwise it'd be boring in dimension $>1$). $\endgroup$ – Dmitry Vaintrob Mar 24 '13 at 17:46
  • $\begingroup$ My hunch is you are missing a lot in dimension $>1$. The reason is because the homs do not contain much global data: If $F$ is trivial outside $S$, and $G$ is trivial outside $T$, then on $X - S - T$, the $Hom(F,G)$ is just a vector space of dimension $dim (f) \times dim(G)$. Adding in $S$ and $T$ can lead to increases and decreases in the dimension, but nothing that illuminates the global geometry of the situation. And higher homs do not tell you much more than $H^k(X,\mathcal O_X)$, which of course is not a complete set of invariants. $\endgroup$ – Will Sawin Mar 25 '13 at 3:51
  • $\begingroup$ Can't we reconstruct $X$ as a component of the moduli space of objects of $\mathcal{C}$, namely the component parameterizing ideal sheaves of a point. $\endgroup$ – Jim Bryan Mar 27 '13 at 6:23

Let $F$ be a sheaf which is trivial on $X - S$. This means that $j^*F = O_{X-S}^{\oplus n}$ for some $n$, where $j$ is the embedding of $X - S$ into $X$. Note that by Hartogs theorem one has $j_*O_{X-S} = O_X$, so by adjunction one has a morphism $F \to j_*j^*F = O_X^{\oplus n}$ which is an isomorphism on $X - S$. So, this means that such $F$ is a modification of the trivial bundle in the finite number of points. In other words, $Coh(X)_{codim 0}$ is the extenion closed abelian subcategory of $Coh(X)$ generated by $O_X$ and all structure sheaves of points.

EDIT. Let us see what the information we have in this category. First, we have the cohomology of $O_X$. Second, we have a bunch of structure sheaves of points, and this part of the category depends only on the dimension of the variety. Finally, we have multiplication maps $$ Ext^\bullet(O_X,O_S)\otimes Ext^\bullet(O_S,O_X) \to Ext^\bullet(O_X,O_X) $$ and $$ Ext^\bullet(O_X,O_S)\otimes Ext^\bullet(O_S,O_X) \to Ext^\bullet(O_S,O_S). $$ Since $S$ is $0$ dimensional the first factor lives in degree $0$ and the second in degree $n = \dim X$, so the only thing we have are the maps $$ Hom(O_X,O_S)\otimes Ext^n(O_S,O_X) \to Ext^n(O_X,O_X) $$ and $$ Hom(O_X,O_S)\otimes Ext^n(O_S,O_X) \to Ext^n(O_S,O_S). $$ Now let $S= x$ be a point. By Serre duality these maps correspond to the maps $$ Hom(O_X,O_x)\otimes Hom(O_X,\omega_X) \to Ext^n(O_X,\omega_X\otimes O_x) $$ and $$ Hom(O_X,O_x)\otimes Hom(O_x,O_x) \to Hom(O_X,O_x). $$ So, the second map contains no information, while the first gives the canonical morphism $$ X \to P(H^0(\omega_X)^*) = P(H^n(O_X)). $$

So, on one hand, if $H^n(O_X) = 0$ you cannot reconstruct anything. On the other hand, if the canonical class is very ample, by reconstrcting the anticanonical image you reconstruct all $X$. I am not quite sure what goes on in the intermediate cases.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Hm... I agree that it seems like something is lost in dimension $>1$, but not sure your argument is correct, or else I'm not following it. On a curve, if you take the extension closed abelian subcategory of $(D^b)Coh(X)$ generated by $O_X$ and all structure sheaves of points, you get all of $Coh$, which certainly lets you recover $X$. So despite the fact that Homs and Exts between objects in the subcategory <i>consisting</i> of $O_X$ and skyscraper sheaves depend only on the coherent cohomology, once you start taking extensions things can become more subtle. How does Hartog change this? $\endgroup$ – Dmitry Vaintrob Mar 26 '13 at 2:54
  • $\begingroup$ Dmitry, you are completely right. I edited the answer, now you see that in some cases you can reconstruct a lot of geometry! $\endgroup$ – Sasha Mar 27 '13 at 4:19
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks Sasha! Neat. I agree that when coherent cohomology is trivial, we get no information. However are you sure that there's no data if only $H^n(O)=0$? For example what if we compose your first map with the multiplication map $Hom(O_X,O_S)\otimes Hom(O_X, O_S)\to Hom(O_X, O_S)$ to get a map $Hom(O_X,O_S)\otimes Hom(O_X,O_S)\otimes Ext^n(O_S,O_X)\to Ext^n(O_X,O_X)$. Then if $H^n(O_X)=0$ then this product will of course be zero, but there will be a well-defined and possibly nonzero Massey product. Is it clear that this Massey product will be zero? $\endgroup$ – Dmitry Vaintrob Mar 29 '13 at 6:49

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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