In "The Geometry of moduli spaces of sheaves" a coherent sheaf $\mathcal{F}$ is defined to be pure of dimension $d$ if dim$(\mathcal{E})=d$ for all non-trivial proper subsheaves $\mathcal{E} \subset \mathcal{F}$. By this definition, the skyscraper sheaf sky$_p(\mathbb{C}^n)$ should be pure. This is because the only non-trivial proper subsheaves of sky$_p(\mathbb{C}^n)$ are of the form sky$_p(\mathbb{C}^k)$ for $0 < k < n$ and $$dim({\rm sky}(\mathbb{C}^n)) = dim({\rm sky}(\mathbb{C}^k)) = 0.$$ However, I am under the impression that purity is supposed to be a generalization of torsion-freeness and skyscraper sheaves are torsion sheaves. Have I incorrectly classified the non-trivial proper subsheaves of skyscraper sheaves?


There is nothing wrong here. Let $X$ be irreducible of dimension $n$. Any sheaf of dimension less than $n$ is torsion, since it is annihilated by a function vanishing on the support of the sheaf. Sheaves which are pure of dimension $n$ are torsion free, since if they were not torsion free they would have a torsion subsheaf supported on a proper subvariety.

A pure sheaf with irreducible support is torsion-free when view as a sheaf on its support.

  • $\begingroup$ Oh, I see. So in the phrase "$\mathcal{F}$ is pure of dimension $d$" where $\mathcal{F}$ is a sheaf on an $n$-equidimensional scheme $X$ one must take $n=d$. Thank you. $\endgroup$ – LarryFisherman Jul 10 at 9:36
  • $\begingroup$ That's if you want to get torsion-free sheaves. It is totally fine to study e.g. sheaves of pure dimension 1 on a surface, but they will all be torsion sheaves supported on curves. $\endgroup$ – Jack Huizenga Jul 10 at 18:19

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.