2
$\begingroup$

Let $X$ be a smooth projective surface and $C$ a Cartier divisor on $X$. Denote by $\mathcal{H}^1_C(\mathcal{O}_X)$ the sheaf associated to the presheaf $U \mapsto H^1_{C \cap U}(\mathcal{O}_X|_U)$. Let $j:X\backslash C \to X$ be the natural immersion. Using the local cohomology sequence (see Hartshorne Ex. III.$2.3$) and the fact $\mathcal{H}^0_C(\mathcal{O}_X)=0$, we have a short exact sequence, $$0 \to \mathcal{O}_X \to j_*\mathcal{O}_{X\backslash C} \xrightarrow{\delta_i} \mathcal{H}^1_C(\mathcal{O}_X) \to 0.$$

My question is about two conflicting descrptions of $\mathrm{Tor}^1_X(\mathcal{O}_C,\mathcal{H}^1_C(\mathcal{O}_X))$. I elaborate on them.

Since $C$ is a Cartier divisor, for any small enough open affine subset $U$ of $X$, $C \cap U$ is defined by exactly one equation, say $f_U$, on $U$. Then, $\mathrm{Tor}^1_U(\mathcal{O}_{C \cap U},\mathcal{H}^1_C(\mathcal{O}_X)|_U)$ consists of all elements of the form $\delta_i|_U(g/f)$, where $g \in \mathcal{O}_X(U)$ and $\delta_i|_U:\Gamma(U,j_*\mathcal{O}_{X\backslash C}) \to \Gamma(U,\mathcal{H}^1_C(\mathcal{O}_X))$ described above. Indeed, this follows directly from the above short exact sequence and the fact that $\mathrm{Tor}^1_U(\mathcal{O}_{C \cap U},\mathcal{H}^1_C(\mathcal{O}_X)|_U)$ consists of elements of the form $\delta_i|_U(g/f_U^r)$ such that $f.\delta_i|_U(g/f_U^r)=0$ (use that $\mathcal{O}_C(U)=\mathcal{O}_X(U)/(f_U)$). It seems to me that there is a natural morphism from $\mathcal{O}_X(C)$ to $\mathcal{T}or^1_X(\mathcal{O}_C,\mathcal{H}^1_C(\mathcal{O}_X))$ induced by $\delta_i$, the kernel of which is $\mathcal{O}_X$. To summarize, I suspect that there exists a short exact sequence of the form $$0 \to \mathcal{O}_X\ \to \mathcal{O}_X(C)\to \mathcal{T}or^1_X(\mathcal{O}_C,\mathcal{H}^1_C(\mathcal{O}_X)) \to 0$$ This is my first interpretation.

My second interpretation is as follows. By checking on open affine sets, we observe that $j_*\mathcal{O}_{X\backslash C} \otimes_{\mathcal{O}_X} \mathcal{O}_C=0$ as well as $\mathcal{T}or^1_X(\mathcal{O}_C,j_*\mathcal{O}_{X\backslash C})=0$. This would imply by the above short exact sequence, after applying $- \otimes_{\mathcal{O}_X} \mathcal{O}_C$, that $\mathcal{T}or^1_X(\mathcal{O}_C,\mathcal{H}^1_C(\mathcal{O}_X)) \cong \mathcal{O}_C$.

But both the interpretations cannot be correct due to the short exact sequence $$0 \to \mathcal{O}_X \to \mathcal{O}_X(C) \to \mathcal{O}_C \otimes _{\mathcal{O}_X} \mathcal{O}_X(C) \to 0 $$

What am I doing wrong? Any idea or reference on this question will be most welcome.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I do not understand your first construction. Perhaps this is the source of the confusion: for an ideal sheaf $\mathcal{I}$ in $\mathcal{O}_X$, for an $\mathcal{O}_X$-module $\mathcal{F}$, there is a canonical isomorphism between $\text{Tor}^{\mathcal{O}_X}_1(\mathcal{O}_X/\mathcal{I},\mathcal{F})$ and the kernel of the natural map $\mathcal{I}\otimes_{\mathcal{O}_X} \mathcal{F} \to \mathcal{F}$. If $\mathcal{I}$ is an invertible sheaf, the domain of that morphism locally is isomorphic to $\mathcal{F}$. However, globally, the Tor sheaf maps to $\mathcal{I}\otimes_{\mathcal{O}_X}\mathcal{F}$. $\endgroup$ – Jason Starr Oct 8 '15 at 13:08
  • $\begingroup$ @JasonStarr I elaborate on the first construction a bit. We know that for any ring $R$ and $r \in R$ a non-zero divisor, $Tor^1_R(R/(r),M)$ consists of those elements $m \in M$ such that $r.m=0$. Using this description, we see that (under the above notations) $f.\delta_i(g/f^r)=\delta_i(g/f^{r-1})$ is zero if and only if $r-1=0$. Does this help? I do not think I use the local identification of $\mathcal{F}$ that you mention, but will check once again. I also wanted to clarify, is the second observation correct or it might also be wrong? $\endgroup$ – user46578 Oct 8 '15 at 13:25
  • $\begingroup$ Consider the computation of $\text{Tor}^R_1(R/I,M)$ where $I$ is not a principal ideal. This should clear up your confusion. Invertible sheaves (e.g., fractional ideals) are "locally" isomorphic to $R$, but the canonical isomorphism does not use $R$, but $I$. $\endgroup$ – Jason Starr Oct 8 '15 at 13:36
1
$\begingroup$

I believe I understand now your first construction. You are comparing the following two short exact sequences. $$\begin{array}{ccccccccc} 0 & \rightarrow & \mathcal{O}_X & \rightarrow & \mathcal{O}_X(C) & \rightarrow & \mathcal{O}_X(C)/\mathcal{O}_X & \rightarrow& 0 \\ & & =\downarrow & & \downarrow & &\downarrow \\ 0 & \rightarrow & \mathcal{O}_X & \rightarrow & j_*\mathcal{O}_{X\setminus C} & \rightarrow & \mathcal{H}^1_C(\mathcal{O}_X) & \rightarrow & 0\end{array}$$ This induces a morphism of Tor sheaves, $$ \textit{Tor}^{\mathcal{O}_X}_1(\mathcal{O}_X/\mathcal{O}_X(-C),\mathcal{O}_X(C)/\mathcal{O}_X) \to \textit{Tor}^{\mathcal{O}_X}_1(\mathcal{O}_X/\mathcal{O}_X(-C),\mathcal{H}^1_C(\mathcal{O}_X)),$$ and this turns out to be an isomorphism. Moreover, from my comment above, there is an isomorphism of $\textit{Tor}^{\mathcal{O}_X}_1(\mathcal{O}_X/\mathcal{O}_X(-C),\mathcal{O}_X(C)/\mathcal{O}_X)$ with the kernel of the morphism $$r:\mathcal{O}_X(-C)\otimes_{\mathcal{O}_X}(\mathcal{O}_X(C)/\mathcal{O}_X) \to (\mathcal{O}_X(C)/\mathcal{O}_X).$$ Since $r$ is a zero morphism, this finally gives an isomorphism, $$\textit{Tor}^{\mathcal{O}_X}_1(\mathcal{O}_X/\mathcal{O}_X(-C),\mathcal{H}^1_C(\mathcal{O}_X)) \cong \mathcal{O}_X(-C)\otimes_{\mathcal{O}_X}(\mathcal{O}_X(C)/\mathcal{O}_X).$$ Of course the second sheaf is isomorphic to $\mathcal{O}_X/\mathcal{O}_X(-C)$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ This makes a lot of sense. This clears up my mistake. Thank you very much. $\endgroup$ – user46578 Oct 8 '15 at 15:20

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.