4
$\begingroup$

Let $A$ be an abelian variety and $\hat A$ be the dual abelian variety. If $P$ is the (normalized) Poincare line bundle, then Mukai defines $R\hat S:D(A)\to D (\hat A)$ via $R\hat S(?)=Rp_{\hat A,*}(Lp_A^*(?)\otimes P)$ and $RS:D(\hat A)\to D(A)$ via $R S(?)=Rp_{ A,*}(Lp_{\hat A}^*(?)\otimes P)$. He then shows that $R\hat S\circ R\hat S =(-1_A)^*[-g]$ on $D^b_{qcoh}(A)$ and $R\hat S\circ R\hat S =(-1_{\hat A})^*[-g]$ on $D^b_{qcoh}(\hat A)$. The proof uses the projection formula which can fail for non-quasi coherent sheaves and hence for $D(A)$. My question is: Is there a counter example to $R\hat S\circ R\hat S =(-1_A)^*[-g]$ in $D(A)$?

$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ What do you denote by $D(A)$? $\endgroup$
    – Sasha
    Jun 28 '16 at 8:01
  • $\begingroup$ The derived category of $\mathcal O _A$ modules. I am not so worried about bounded vs unbounded, but I am more worried / interested about the non-quasi coherent case. $\endgroup$
    – Hacon
    Jun 28 '16 at 11:50
3
$\begingroup$

I think it is clear that $R\hat{S}$ is not an equivalence on the categories of all $O$-modules. Indeed, if it were an equivalence, it would send product to product, and also preserve quasi-coherence. Let $M_x$ be a sky-scraper sheaf at $x\in A$; its image under $R\hat{S}$ is an invertible $O$-module on $A^\vee$ (up to a shift). However, an infinite product of copies of $M_x$ is quasi-coherent, while the infinite product of invertible $O$-modules is not quasi-coherent.

$\endgroup$

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.