There is a theorem in scheme theory due to Gabber which makes our life easier when setting up the theory of cohomology of quasi-coherent sheaves.

I am trying to understand why should I appreciate this result; it is not as geometric as e.g. Zariski's main theorem (I mean, it even has the word "cardinal" in it) so I wonder if there are some geometric/topological contexts in which the natural analogues of Gabber's theorem fail and this causes observable difficulties for the development of the theory. Any examples?


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy