I am looking for a counter example to the fact that a faithfully flat morphism is an effective descent morphism for the category of quasi-coherent sheaves when one forgets the quasi-compact hypothesis. If possible, I'd like a counter-example on the descent of morphism aspects. In other words, I am looking for a morphism of scheme $X' \rightarrow X$, faithfully flat but not quasi-compact, and two quasi-coherent sheaves $F$ and $G$ on $X$, such that, calling $X''=X' \times_X X'$, $F'$, $F''$, $G'$, $G''$ thepull-back of $F$,$G$ to $X'$, $X''$, the sequence of modules $$0 \rightarrow Hom_X(F,G) \rightarrow Hom_{X'}(F',G') \rightarrow Hom_{X''}(F'',G'')$$ is not exact (here the last morpheme is as it should the difference between the morphism induced by the two projections $X'' -> X'$. I wrote it this way because I am not sure how to do a double arrow in mathoverflow's tex:-)

  • $\begingroup$ You can use \rightrightarrows. $\endgroup$ – RP_ Apr 12 '13 at 13:38
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Martin: the $X'_i$ are not faithfully flat over $X$, because not surjective. And their disjoint union, of course, is not affine if there are infinitely many $X'_i$ (or even $10^10^10$ $X'_i$ if you're an ultra-finitist -- end of joke). Seriously, the reason I think the hypothesis is needed is that Grothendick has it in SGA 1. OTH, I am not sure it is needed already for descent of morphisms of schemes, and not only for the subtler descent of sheaves. $\endgroup$ – Joël Apr 12 '13 at 13:49
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Argh, I spoiled my joke by forgetting some delimiters. It was bad anyway... $\endgroup$ – Joël Apr 12 '13 at 13:50

I think the following should be a counter-example.

Let $X=\text{Spec}(\mathbb{C}[T])$ be the affine line and $X'=\bigsqcup_{x\in\mathbb{C}}\text{Spec}(\mathbb{C}[T]_{(T-x)})$ be its faithfully flat cover built from all local rings at closed points. Let $F=\mathcal{O}_{X}$ and $G=\bigoplus_{x\in\mathbb{C}}\mathcal{O}_X/(T-x)\simeq\bigoplus_{x\in\mathbb{C}}\mathbb{C}_x$ be two quasi-coherent sheaves on $X$.

Then, there is a natural quotient morphism $u':F'\to G'$ given by $\mathbb{C}[T]_{(T-x)}\to \mathbb{C}[T]/(T-x)$ on $\text{Spec}(\mathbb{C}[T]_{(T-x)})$. This morphism obviously satisfies the descent condition, as the only non-trivial conditions to check are on connected components of $X''$ that are isomorphic to the generic point of $X$, and $G''$ is zero on these components. However, this morphism does not come from a morphism $u:F\to G$ because $u(1)$ should have a non-zero component in every factor of the direct sum, which is impossible.


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.