5
$\begingroup$

I am trying to understand "de Cataldo, Migliorini. The perverse filtration and the Lefschetz hyperplane theorem. Annals of Mathematics, 171(2010), 2089-2113." My question is about one detail in the paper. Here is my reproduction of the situation.

Let $\Sigma$ be a stratification of $\mathbb{P}^N$ adapted to a bounded complex $K$ with $\Sigma$-constructible cohomology. Let $\Sigma$ be also adapted to the embedding $Y \subseteq \mathbb{P}^N$ of an affine variety $Y$. Let $\Lambda \subset \mathbb{P}^N$ be a hyperplane, $H = \Lambda \cap Y$ and $\bar{H} = \Lambda \cap \bar{Y}$. Set $\bar{U} = \bar{Y} \setminus \bar{H}$ and $U = Y \setminus H$. Consider the cartesian diagram

$$\begin{array}[c]{ccccc} H&{\xrightarrow{i}}&Y&{\xleftarrow{j}}&U\\ \downarrow\scriptstyle{J}&&\downarrow\scriptstyle{J} && \downarrow\scriptstyle{J}\\ \bar{H}&{\xrightarrow{i}}&\bar{Y}&{\xleftarrow{j}}&\bar{U} \end{array}$$

Now the two authors stated (page 2101, following the same diagram) "By the octahedron axiom, the map $J_!j_*j^*K \to j_*J_!j^*K$ is an isomorphism if and only if the natural base change map $i^*J_*K \to J_*i^*K$ is an isomorphism."

My question is: what is exactly used about the octahedron axiom for the statement?

Thanks!

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

I'm not sure what's going on, but here's a guess:

Firstly, the base change map goes the other way: $i^*J_*\mathcal{F}\rightarrow J_*i^*\mathcal{F}$. Say this is an isomorphism for the Verdier dual of $K$ (they end up saying that the condition they impose makes the base change morphism an isomorphism independent of $K$, so this is ok).

Then taking the Verdier dual of this isomorphism we get an isomorphism $J_!i^!K\rightarrow i^!J_!K$. Next note that the similarly defined base change map $J_!j^*K\rightarrow j^*J_!K$ gives an isomorphism, since $j$ is an open embedding and $j^*=j^!$.

The distinguished triangles to plug into the octahedron axiom are then

$J_!K\rightarrow J_!j_*j^*K\rightarrow J_!i_*i^!K[1]\rightarrow$

and

$J_!K\rightarrow j_*j^*J_!K\rightarrow i_*i^!J_!K[1]\rightarrow$

and

$J_!j_*j^*K\xrightarrow{f}j_*j^*J_!K\rightarrow cone(f)\rightarrow$

By the axiom, there is a distinguished triangle

$J_!i_*i^!K[1]\xrightarrow{g} i_*i^!J_!K[1]\rightarrow cone(f)\rightarrow$

and so if $g$ is an isomorphism, $cone(f)=0$ and $f$ is an isomorphism.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much for the thorough answer! You are certainly right that my base change arrow should be reversed. $\endgroup$ – Xudong Mar 15 '17 at 12:01

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.