I asked this question on Mathematics Stack Exchange, but got no answer.

I don't understand why the definition of a sheaf (Definition 17.3.1 (ii)) given in the book

[KS] Categories and Sheaves by Kashiwara and Schapira

is equivalent to the definition of a sheaf (Definition 2.1) given in

[V] Verdier, Exposé II, SGA4, http://www.normalesup.org/~forgogozo/SGA4/02/02.pdf

To simplify, let me consider only set-valued presheaves.

Here is, in the terminology of [KS], how I understand the two definitions. (Warning: my understanding might be incorrect!)

Let $\mathcal U$ be a universe, let $X$ be a small site and let $F$ be a $\mathcal U$-set-valued presheaf over $X$. Then:

$\bullet\ F$ is sheaf in the sense of [V] if $F(f)$ is an isomorphism for any $A$ in $(\mathcal C_X)^\wedge$, any $U$ in $\mathcal C_X$, and any local isomorphism $f:A\to U$ which is a monomorphism,

$\bullet\ F$ is sheaf in the sense of [KS] if $F(f)$ is an isomorphism for any $A$ in $(\mathcal C_X)^\wedge$, any $U$ in $\mathcal C_X$, and any local isomorphism $f:A\to U$.

The difference is that the local isomorphism $f$ is supposed to be a monomorphism in Verdier's definition.

A "KS-sheaf" is of course a "V-sheaf", but I'm unable to prove the converse.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think these might be equivalent by the argument that proves "Ken Brown's lemma" in model category theory. $\endgroup$ Oct 11 '17 at 12:10
  • $\begingroup$ @DylanWilson - Thanks! Unfortunately I know nothing about model categories. You're most welcome to give further details in a new comment or in an answer. (I may accept an answer I don't fully understand.) $\endgroup$ Oct 11 '17 at 12:35
  • $\begingroup$ I've just noticed that the equivalence of the definitions follows from Proposition 5.3, implication "(i) $\implies$ (ii bis)", in Verdier’s Exposé normalesup.org/~forgogozo/SGA4/02/02.pdf $\endgroup$ Oct 18 '17 at 20:33

Actually I couldn't quite figure out how to do a Ken Brown sort of argument, but here's an argument that works:

Let $L$ denote the usual sheafification functor, a la Grothendieck and Verdier etc. Then I claim it's enough to show $L$ sends local epimorphisms to epimorphisms and local monomorphisms to monomorphisms. Indeed, if this is the case then $L$ takes local isomorphisms to epi-monomorphisms, and such things are isomorphisms in toposes.

Since $L$ preserves finite limits, we need only check that $L$ takes local epis to epis (since $A \to B$ is a local mono iff $A \to A\times_BA$ is a local epi). But that's not so bad: If $A \to B$ is a local epimorphism then the map $im(A \to B) \to B$ is a local epimorphism and a monomorphism, and hence a monic, local isomorphism. But $L$ preserves images (since they're computed as colimits and L preserves those) and takes monic, local isomorphisms to isomorphisms. Thus $LA \to LB$ has the property that $im(LA \to LB) \to LB$ is an isomorphism (NB: that image is computed in the category of sheaves), and so the map is epi in the category of sheaves, which is what we wanted.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks a lot for this awesome answer! Would you have enough time to answer also the MSE question math.stackexchange.com/q/2463353/660 - for instance by a link to the above answer of yours? (I would of course upvote it and accept it.) $\endgroup$ Oct 12 '17 at 13:30
  • $\begingroup$ I suddenly realize that I didn't understand your argument. In the penultimate sentence you write that $L$ "takes monic, local isomorphisms to isomorphisms". Why is this true? $\endgroup$ Oct 12 '17 at 18:05
  • $\begingroup$ Isn't that the defining feature of $L$? A 'monic, local isomorphism' with target a representable is the same as a covering sieve I think. But every monic, local isomorphism is built out of these from colimits (express the target as a colimit of representables, and pull-back the source to each of these, getting covering sieves throughout by the axioms of a topology) $\endgroup$ Oct 12 '17 at 18:39
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! One of the things you're saying is that, given an object $U$ of $\mathcal C$ and $S\hookrightarrow U$ a covering sieve viewed as a subobject of $U$ in $\mathcal C^\wedge$, the morphism $LS\to LU$ is an isomorphism. Right? If so, could you explain this as simply as possible? $\endgroup$ Oct 12 '17 at 19:26
  • $\begingroup$ It's basically the definition of $L$ that it inverts those, but if you have a different definition in mind that's fine: The map $LS \to LU$ is an isomorphism iff for all sheaves $F$, $\mathrm{Hom}(LU, F) \to \mathrm{Hom}(LS, F)$ is an isomorphism. Now use that $L$ is left adjoint to the inclusion and the definition of $F$ being a sheaf. $\endgroup$ Oct 12 '17 at 20:08

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.