10
$\begingroup$

In certain concrete situations, I can show that the small étale topos of an inverse limit of schemes is the inverse limit of the associated toposes, for example, if $X$ is a (qcqs) scheme relative over some affine scheme $\operatorname{Spec}(R)$, and $S$ is a filtered colimit of $R$-algebras where $S=\varinjlim S_i$, I can show that there is an equivalence of small étale toposes

$$\operatorname{\acute{E}t}(X\times_{\operatorname{Spec}(R)} \operatorname{Spec}(S))\simeq \varprojlim \operatorname{\acute{E}t}(X\times_{\operatorname{Spec}(R)} \operatorname{Spec}(S_i)).$$

(Note: The inverse limit here is being taken in the category of toposes, not in the category of locally ringed toposes!!)

I heard from a friend that there is a general statement that given an inverse system $\{X_i\}$ of schemes with affine transition maps and limit $X$, then we have an equivalence of étale toposes:

$$\operatorname{\acute{E}t}(X)\simeq \varprojlim\operatorname{\acute{E}t}(X_i).$$

I looked high and low for a reference, and I couldn't find a proof of this statement. Can someone provide a reference?

$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ The first "asking for a friend" MO question? :-) $\endgroup$ – LSpice Oct 17 '19 at 21:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm not entirely sure how the 2-limit of topoi is constructed, but is it possible that there are some finiteness issues (even in your first situation)? For example, I think that the sheaf of sets $\coprod_{d > 0} \underline{\mathbf Z/2}_{V(x-\sqrt{d}y)}$ on $\mathbf A^2_{\bar{\mathbf Q}}$ (the disjoint union of the constant $\mathbf Z/2$-sheaf supported on $V(x-\sqrt{d}y) \subseteq \mathbf A^2_{\bar{\mathbf Q}}$ for all $d$) does not descend to any finite extension $\mathbf Q \subseteq K$. I'm not sure if this is a problem... $\endgroup$ – R. van Dobben de Bruyn Oct 18 '19 at 3:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @R. van Dobben de Bruyn It's definitely true for affine schemes by an argument using the sites. I don't understand the definition of your sheaf, but any étale S-algebra descends to some S_i, so you get that in the category of sites, the étale site of S is the colimit of the S_i. Standard arguments then give the statement for the toposes. $\endgroup$ – Harry Gindi Oct 18 '19 at 8:19
  • $\begingroup$ I agree about the site-theoretic statement. I just don't see how that says anything about sheaves. But again, I don't know what the 2-limit of topoi is (but it seems I was thinking more about a 2-colimit). $\endgroup$ – R. van Dobben de Bruyn Oct 18 '19 at 14:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ See the references in the proof of Lemma 1.17, Chept III, of Milne Etale Cohomology. $\endgroup$ – anon Oct 19 '19 at 14:04
3
$\begingroup$

I think I found the answer (with some help) in SGA 4, Exposé VII, Lemma 5.6.

The statement (translated and with context added) reads:

Lemma 5.6 [Given a cofiltered poset $I$ and a functor $\mathscr{X}:I\to \mathbf{Sch}$ with affine transition maps and limit $X$, valued in qcqs schemes], the induced functor $$\varinjlim_{\mathcal{G}_{\mathscr{X}}/I} \mathcal{G}_{\mathscr{X}}\to \mathcal{G}_X$$ determines an equivalence, respecting the topologies, of the site given by the inductive limit of the restricted étale sites of the $\mathscr{X}_i$ and the restricted étale site of $X$.

(where the restricted étale site $\mathcal{G}_S$ is full subcategory of the étale site spanned by the objects of finite presentation). This implies an equivalence of topoi by SGA4, Exposé VII, Corollary 3.2, since the schemes are quasi-separated.

I'm not sure if it's true without assuming that the schemes appearing in the limit are qcqs, but I'd like to know!

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Milne Etale Cohomology, III Lemma 1.16:

Let $I$ be a small filtered category and $i\rightsquigarrow X_{i}$ a contravariant functor from $I$ to schemes over $X$. Assume that all schemes $X_{i}$ are quasi-compact and that the maps $X_{i}\leftarrow X_{j}$ are affine. Let $X_{\infty}=\varprojlim X_{i}$, and, for a sheaf $F$ on $X_{\mathrm{et}}$, let $F_{i}$ and $F_{\in fty}$ be its inverse images on $X_{i}$ and $X_{\infty}$ respectively. Then $$ \injlim H^{p}((X_{i})_{\mathrm{et}},F_{i})\overset{\simeq}{\longrightarrow}H^{p}((X_{\infty})_{\mathrm{et}},F_{\infty}). $$

The proof is highly technical. It is based on the fact [EGA. IV.17] that the category of etale schemes of finite-type over $X_{\infty}$ is the direct limit of the categories of such schemes over the $X_{i}$ and (III, 3) that etale cohomology commutes with direct limits of sheaves. (See [SGA. 4, VII, 5.8] or Artin, Grothendieck Topologies, Harvard notes, 1962, III, 3] for the details.)

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I tracked back all of these results, and it looks like you need quasi-separated as well. The distinction might come from Milne requiring his schemes to be separated by definition, maybe? The proof in SGA also uses the quasi-separatedness to say that you can replace the small étale site with its finite presentation variant. $\endgroup$ – Harry Gindi Oct 22 '19 at 21:06

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.