Let $X$ be a smooth proper algebraic variety over $\mathbb{C}$.

I know that in the analytic world, there is an isomorphism between the de Rham cohomology and the cohomology of the constant sheaf $\underline{\mathbb{C}}$: $$ H^i_{dR}(X^{an}/\mathbb{C}) \cong H^i(X^{an}, \underline{\mathbb{C}}). $$

The proof of this relies on the fact that the sequence of sheaves on $X^{an}$ $$ 0 \to \underline{\mathbb{C}} \to \Omega^0_{X^{an}} \to \Omega^1_{X^{an}} \to \Omega^2_{X^{an}} \to \cdots $$ is exact.

There is also an isomorphism between $H^i_{dR}(X^{an}/\mathbb{C})$ and $H^i_{dR}(X^{Zar}/\mathbb{C})$. I assume that this also works for $H^i_{dR}(X^{et}/\mathbb{C})$.

However $H^i(X^{Zar}, \underline{\mathbb{C}}) = 0$ because a constant Zariski sheaf is flabby.

What is $H^i(X^{et}, \underline{\mathbb{C}})$?

So far as I can see, neither of the above arguments to calculate this work: a constant étale sheaf is not flabby, because étale open sets need not be connected (actually I am not sure if the definition of flabby sheaves in the Zariski topology makes sense for the étale site).

And the sequence $$ 0 \to \underline{\mathbb{C}} \to \Omega^0_{X^{et}} \to \Omega^1_{X^{et}} \to \Omega^2_{X^{et}} \to \cdots $$ is not exact because, if $X=\mathbb{P}^1$, its stalks at the origin are $$ 0 \to \mathbb{C} \to R \to R \, dX \to 0 $$ where $R$ is the strict Henselization of $\mathbb{C}[X]_{(X)}$. $R$ is algebraic over $\mathbb{C}[X]$ so does not contain $\log(1+X)$ and hence the 1-form $dX/(1+X)$ is not exact.

  • $\begingroup$ Étale cohomology doesn't work very well with infinite coefficients. I think $H^1$ vanishes in this case. $\endgroup$ – Zhen Lin May 30 '14 at 9:59
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ $H^1$ vanishes, because étale fundamental groups of normal varieties don't have nontrivial maps to the discrete group $\mathbb{C}$. Higher $H^i$ can be complicated. See mathoverflow.net/questions/84414/… $\endgroup$ – S. Carnahan May 30 '14 at 15:03

The etale cohomology groups $H^i(X_{et},V)$ vanish for $i > 0$ if $X$ is a quasi-compact, quasi-separated, normal scheme, and $V$ is a $\mathbb{Q}$-vector space. (In fact, one may replace "normal" with "geometrically unibranch.") To see this, recall the following presumably classical fact.

Lemma: If $X$ is a normal integral scheme with generic point $j:\eta \to X$, then $\underline{\mathbb{Q}} \simeq R j_* \underline{\mathbb{Q}}$ in $D(X_{et})$.

Proof: We can check this on stalks, so we may assume $X = \mathrm{Spec}(R)$ for a strictly henselian normal local ring $R$. Then $R\Gamma(X_{et},\mathbb{Q}) \simeq \mathbb{Q}$ as $\Gamma(X_{et},-)$ is exact with $X$ connected, so it is enough to show $R\Gamma(\eta_{et},\mathbb{Q}) \simeq \mathbb{Q}$. As etale and Galois cohomology are identified for fields, it is enough to show that $R\Gamma_{cont}(G,\mathbb{Q}) \simeq \mathbb{Q}$ for the absolute Galois group $G$ of $\eta$, which is a standard fact in (profinite) group cohomology.

The lemma implies the claim in the first sentence of this answer for $V = \mathbb{Q}$ after applying the global sections functor $R\Gamma$ (and using the corresponding result for fields). In general, one writes $V$ as a direct sum of copies of $\mathbb{Q}$, and uses that that etale cohomology commutes with arbitrary direct sums (as $X$ is quasi-compact and quasi-separated) to reduce to the previous case.

| cite | improve this answer | |

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.