Let $A$ be non-positively graded commutative DG-algebra almost of finite type over a field $k$ of characteristic $0$. Most of these assumptions (affine, commutative, characteristic, bound) are only to ensure that the question isn't answered negatively by exhibiting a not so convincing counter-example.

Let $Coh(A)$ be the stable infinity category of DG-modules over $A$ with coherent cohomologies in finitely many degrees. Let $Perf(A)$ be the stable infinity category of perfect $DG$ modules over $A$.

  1. Does there exist a closed symmetric monoidal structure (in the $\infty-$sense) on $Perf(A)$ which induces the familiar symmetric monoidal structure on the homotopy category $Ho(Perf(A))$ corresponding to $\{\mathcal{Hom}_A(-,-),-\otimes-\}$ (both understood as derived bi-functors between triangulated categories)? If so, is this easy? If not where can I find a proof?
  2. Same question for $Coh(A)$ the stable $\infty$-category of perfect complexes.

Should we expect that the stable category of all modules $QCoh(A)$ to admit a closed symmetric monoidal structure? In the classical non-derived setting $QCoh(A)$ is a symmetric monoidal abelian category however it doesn't have an internal hom as the sheaf hom is not quasi-coherent in general. Despite this I've seen in several places claims that the derived $\infty$-category $QCoh(A)$ has a closed symmetric monoidal structure which is odd for me even from the classical perspective. What am I missing?

Assume $A$ is perfect as a bi-module over itself and suppose there's monoidal structure on $Perf(A)$ as above. Let $A\otimes_k A \to A$ be the diagonal morphism and $\pi_1, \pi_2$ the 2 projections $A \to A \otimes_k A$. and consider the following bi-functor:

$$Perf(A)\times Perf(A) \to Perf(A)$$

$$(M,N) \mapsto M \overset{!}{\otimes}_A N := \mathcal{Hom}_{A \otimes_k A}(A, \pi_1^* M \otimes_{A \otimes_k A} \pi_2^* N)$$

I've seen in several places cryptic remarks suggesting that this functor gives a symmetric monoidal structure on the derived category for which the unit is a dualizing complex.

  1. Does the shriek tensor product $\overset{!}{\otimes}$ defined above extend to a symmetric monoidal structure on $Perf(A)$? If so is it closed? What is its unit? What will be the correct generalization for non-smooth $A$? Would one must enlarge to the category $IndCoh$ or $QCoh$?

The main point of this question is trying to understand if there's something behind said cryptic remarks about $\overset{!}{\otimes}$.

  • $\begingroup$ What exactly is $\pi_1^*M$? $\endgroup$ May 13 '17 at 20:07
  • $\begingroup$ @მამუკაჯიბლაძე The usual pullback of modules $M \otimes_A ( A\otimes_kA)$. $\endgroup$ May 13 '17 at 20:08

Let me answer the question in the title and explain the notation $- \otimes^{!}-$, forgive me for ignoring some finiteness conditions. Let's start with something somewhat simpler - take any field $k$, and for any finitely generated $k$-algebra $A$ with structure map $f:k \to A$, let $R_A = f^{!}(k)$, the canonical (or rigid) dualizing complex of $A$. Let $D_A(-) = RHom_A(-,R_A)$ be the dualizing functor.

Given any functor $F:D_f(A) \to D_f(B)$ between such $k$-algebras, we can define its twist as follows: $F^{!}(-) = D_B(F(D_A(-))$. For example, if $g:A \to B$ is a $k$-algebra map and you take $G(-) = B\otimes^L_A -$ then (with suitable boundedness conditions), you will get that $G^{!}$ is just $g^{!}$, so this construction can be thought of a generalization of the construction of the twisted inverse image from the usual inverse image functor.

Now, we can co the same construction for functors in several variables. For instance, twisting $-\otimes^L_A -$, we would get the following functor:

$D_A(D_A(-)\otimes^L_A D_A(-))$, and so it makes sense to denote this by $-\otimes^{!}-$. Observe now that since $D_A(D_A(-)) \cong 1$, at least when restricted to things with f.g cohomologies, the operation $-\otimes^{!}-$ will remain associative and commutative up to natural isomorphisms. What is the unit of this operation? it is $D_A(A) = R_A$, the dualizing complex.

You have asked about another operation, which I will write as $(M,N) \mapsto RHom_{A\otimes^L_k A} (A, M\otimes^L_k N)$.

How are they related? turns out, they are the same! This was essentially shown for $k$-algebras in Theorem 4.1 of

Avramov, L. L., Iyengar, S. B., Lipman, J., & Nayak, S. (2010). Reduction of derived Hochschild functors over commutative algebras and schemes. Advances in Mathematics, 223(2), 735-772.

(you don't need $k$ to be a field).

It is also true for commutative DG-algebras (again, under some assumptions), see Theorem 5.5 of my preprint https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.05583


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.