I'll write the two lemmas I have questions about, and then ask my questions. For reference, I'm using the following definition of Gorenstein:

$\mathbf{Definition\ 1.15}$ A local noetherian ring $A$ is called Gorenstein if $A$ as a module over itself has a finite injective resolution.

Moreover, I am assuming, as stated, that this implies that $A$ is a dualizing complex for itself, so that the natural map

$M \rightarrow \mathbf{R}Hom^.(\mathbf{R}Hom^.(M,A),A)$

is an isomorphism.

$\mathbf{Lemma\ 1.19}$ Let $X$ be Gorenstein (and noetherian, finite krull dimension, separated, and coh(X) has enough injectives). The the following conditions on a coherent sheaf $\mathscr{F}$ are equivalent.

1) The sheaves $\underline{Ext}^i(\mathscr{F}, \mathscr{O}_x)$ are trivial for all i>0.

2) There is a right locally free resolution

$0 \rightarrow \mathscr{F} \rightarrow Q^0 \rightarrow Q^1 \dots$

$\mathbf{Proof} $ $(ii \implies i)$ Consider a brutal truncation $\sigma^{\leq k} Q^.$ for sufficiently large $k$. Denote by $\mathscr{G}$ the nontrivial cohomology $H^k(\sigma^{\leq k} Q^.)$. For any $i>0$ we have isomorphisms

$\underline{Ext}^i(\mathscr{F}, \mathscr{O}_X) \cong \underline{Ext}^{i+k+1}(\mathscr{G}, \mathscr{O}_X)=0$,

where the last equality comes from the fact that we choose $k$ large, and the remark that since $X$ is Gorenstein, there exists an integer $n_0$ such that $\underline{Ext}^i(\mathscr{F}, \mathscr{O}_X)=0$ for all quasi-coherent $\mathscr{F}$ and all $i>n_0$.

$\mathbf{Question}$: Why can we make any comparison between $\mathscr{F}$ and $\mathscr{G}$? I understand that in the category $D_{Sg}(X)$ we may be able to get an isomorphism $\mathscr{F} \simeq \mathscr{G}[-k-1]$, which would resolve this problem, but here we are just working in the category of chains of complexes of coherent sheaves, no?

Second, related, question-

$\mathbf{Proposition\ 1.23}$ Let $X$ be as above and Gorenstein.Then any object $A \in D_{Sg}(X)$ is isomorphic to the image of a coherent sheaf $\mathscr{F}$ such that $\underline{Ext}^i(\mathscr{F}, \mathscr{O}_X)=0$ for all $i>0$.

Note: My question does not actually use any information about $D_{Sg}(X)$, and can be understood without knowledge of it

$\mathbf{Proof}$: An object $A$ is a bounded complex of coherent sheaves. Let us take a locally free bounded above resolution $P^. \rightarrow A^.$ which we know exists. Consider a brutal truncation $\sigma^{\geq -k}P^.$ for sufficiently large $k>0$. Denote by $\mathscr{G}$ the cohomology $H^{-k}(\sigma^{\geq -k}P^.)$. Since $A$ is bounded and $X$ is Gorenstein we know that the comples $\mathbf{R}Hom^.(A, \mathscr{O}_X)$ is bounded. This implies that if $k>>0$ then $\underline{Ext}^i(\mathscr{G}, \mathscr{O}_X)=0$ for all $i>0$. (...)

$\mathbf{Question}$: I am content with absolutely everything in this proof except for the last line. If we compute $\underline{Ext}^i(\mathscr{G}, \mathscr{O}_X)$ as $H^i(Hom^.(\mathscr{G}, I^.)$ (where I let $I^.$ be a right, locally free, finite resolution of $\mathscr{O}_X$, which exists by $X$ being Gorenstein), then I cannot see where $k$ even plays a role. Is there some property of truncating these complexes far enough out (where the complexes ought to have 0 cohomology groups) such that there can be no nonzero maps into the locally free $I^j$ sheaves?

  • $\begingroup$ Have you asked Orlov himself? $\endgroup$ Jan 21, 2018 at 4:41
  • $\begingroup$ I have not; I figured I'd try here before emailing him directly. $\endgroup$ Jan 21, 2018 at 6:11

1 Answer 1


The first question. Denote $Q^{-1} = \mathscr{F}$ and $Q^{k+1} = \mathscr{G}$, so that we have an exact sequence $$ 0 \to Q^{-1} \to Q^0 \to \dots \to Q^k \to Q^{k+1} \to 0. $$ Consider the spectral sequence whose first term is $\underline{Ext}^i(Q^j,O_X)$ and which converges to $0$. Then the required comparison is given by an appropriate differential in this spectral sequence.

The second question. By a similar spectral sequence argument there is an isomorphism $\underline{Ext}^i(\mathscr{F},O_X) \cong \underline{Ext}^{i+k+1}(A,O_X)$ for $i > 0$ and any $k$. Now, if $k$ is sufficiently big, $\underline{Ext}^{i+k+1}(A,O_X) = 0$, hence $\underline{Ext}^i(\mathscr{F},O_X) = 0$ as well.

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you! I'm going to try to work this out in a moment. A quick follow up question: In the 2nd proposition, $A^.$ is a bounded complex of coherent sheaves; where does the chain complex degree appear in your answer? $\endgroup$ Jan 21, 2018 at 14:21
  • $\begingroup$ @MarcBesson: What do you mean by the chain complex degree? $\endgroup$
    – Sasha
    Jan 21, 2018 at 14:23
  • $\begingroup$ Well, since $A^.$ is a chain complex, I don't really understand what $\underline{Ext}^{i+k+1}(A^., O_X)$ is. I'm sorry, I realize in my original question that I didn't write $A^.$ consistently. $\endgroup$ Jan 21, 2018 at 14:28
  • $\begingroup$ @MarcBesson: It is defined in the usual way --- choose a locally free resolution for $A$, dualize it, and then consider the cohomology sheaves of the obtained complex. $\endgroup$
    – Sasha
    Jan 21, 2018 at 15:07

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.