7
$\begingroup$

For the sake of this question, we'll model a six functor formalism in the following way. Let $\mathsf{C}$ be a category of spaces (be it the category of schemes, or topological spaces) and consider a triangulated closed symmetric monoidal category $\mathsf{D}(X)$, with identity $\mathscr{O}_X$, for each $X\in\mathsf{C}$.

Given a morphism $f:X\to Y$ in $\mathsf{C}$, we have functors $f_*,f_!:\mathsf{D}(X)\leftrightarrows \mathsf{D}(Y):f^*,f^!$ such that $f^*\dashv f_*$, $f_!\dashv f^!$, and $f^*$ is strong symmetric monoidal.

If we also suppose that $\mathsf{C}$ has a final object $S$, it is natural to define cohomology and cohomology with compact support to be $$H^i(X,M):=\hom_{\mathsf{D}(S)}(\mathscr{O}_S,p_*M[i])\qquad\text{and}\qquad H_c^i(X,M):=\hom_{\mathsf{D}(S)}(\mathscr{O}_S,p_!M[i]),$$ where $p:X\to S$ is the natural morphism. If $\mathsf{C}$ is the category of ringed spaces (or even of ringed sites, I think), this coincides with the usual definitions.

I wonder then how could we obtain some sort of duality isomorphism similar to Poincaré and Serre duality. Perhaps we could begin with $$\operatorname{Ext}^i(M,p^!\mathscr{O}_S)=\hom_{\mathsf{D}(X)}(M,p^!\mathscr{O}_S[i])=\hom_{\mathsf{D}(S)}(p_!M[-i],\mathscr{O}_S)$$ and the latter should be something like $H^{-i}_c(X,M)^\vee$, but I'm not sure how to make this precise.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Have you looked at arxiv.org/abs/1501.01999? (Grothendieck-Neeman duality and the Wirthmüller isomorphism, by Balmer, Dell'Ambroglio and Sanders). I haven't thought closely enough to decide whether this answers your question, but it certainly involves related ideas. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 24, 2021 at 15:36
  • $\begingroup$ @NeilStrickland, I did! Actually, the approach I'm using is basically the one by Fausk-Hu-May, which was then continued by the paper you cited (but only in the Grothendieck duality context, which is not the only one that interests me). $\endgroup$
    – Gabriel
    Commented Sep 24, 2021 at 15:48

2 Answers 2

11
$\begingroup$

Your description of the six functors does not mention any relations between the $!$-functors and the $*$-functors or the tensor product, which is where these dualities are hiding.

Poincaré duality is a relation between the $*$-functors and the $!$-functors. Typically there are canonical isomorphisms $f_!=f_*$ when $f$ is proper and $f^!=f^*[d]$ when $f$ is nice (e.g. smooth) of relative dimension $d$. Depending on how the $!$-functors are constructed, one of these isomorphisms will hold by definition but the other one will be nontrivial to prove. When $f:X\to S$ is nice, we get isomorphisms (where $1_S$ is the unit object in $D(S)$) $$ H^n(X,M) := \mathrm{hom}(1_S, f_*f^*(M)[n]) = \mathrm{hom}(1_S,f_*f^!(M)[n-d])=:H_{d-n}^\mathrm{BM}(X,M) $$ and $$ H^n_c(X,M):= \mathrm{hom}(1_S, f_!f^*(M)[n]) = \mathrm{hom}(1_S,f_!f^!(M)[n-d])=:H_{d-n}(X,M), $$ On the other hand, there are vertical identifications when $f$ is proper.

Serre duality uses a relation between the $!$-functors and the tensor product. Namely, for $f:X\to S$, the functor $f_!$ is $D(S)$-linear; in particular we have the projection formula $f_!(A\otimes f^*(B))= f_!(A)\otimes B$. By adjunction this implies the isomorphism $$ f_*\mathrm{Hom}(A, f^!(B)) = \mathrm{Hom}(f_!(A),B). $$ One gets Serre duality when $f$ is proper (so $f_!=f_*$) and $B=1_S$ (so $f^!(B)$ is the "dualizing sheaf"). Combining the projection formula with Poincaré duality we can also deduce that $f_*$ preserves $\otimes$-dualizable objects when $f$ is both proper and nice, which gives a perfect pairing. But the usual formulation of Serre duality in terms of cohomology is specific to the derived category of quasi-coherent sheaves when $S=\mathrm{Spec}(k)$ is a field (note that in the quasi-coherent case the adjunction $(f_!,f^!)$ only exists when $f$ is proper).

There are further duality statements, such as Verdier duality, which says that $\mathrm{Hom}(-,f^!(1_S))$ is an equivalence of a certain subcategory $D_c(X)\subset D(X)$ of "constructible"/"coherent" objects with its opposite. But unlike the previous two, this statement does not directly follow from the various relations between the six functors.

$\endgroup$
9
  • $\begingroup$ Dear @MarcHoyois, while I indeed supposed a relation between $f^*$ and the tensor product (namely, the fact that $f^*$ is strong symmetric monoidal), I forgot to say that I accept the projection formula as well. $\endgroup$
    – Gabriel
    Commented Sep 25, 2021 at 10:19
  • $\begingroup$ That being said, I'm not sure I understand your definitions of cohomology and compactly supported cohomology (which differ from mine's). In your definition, $M$ has to be an object of $\mathsf{D}(S)$, while in mine's it's an object of $\mathsf{D}(X)$. Does that mean that homology only works with constant coefficients? If so, can't we obtain an isomorphism between cohomology and the dual of compactly supported cohomology as in Poincaré duality in de Rham cohomology? $\endgroup$
    – Gabriel
    Commented Sep 25, 2021 at 10:22
  • $\begingroup$ A sidenote: $f^!$ is a twisted shift of $f^*$ when $f$ is nice, especially when you talk about the coherent/Serre duality. $\endgroup$
    – Z. M
    Commented Sep 25, 2021 at 10:32
  • $\begingroup$ @Gabriel Yes, homology only makes sense with constant coefficients. The six functor formalism can give you dualities in $D(S)$ but it cannot say anything about the dual of an actual (co)homology group... $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 25, 2021 at 10:55
  • $\begingroup$ @MarcHoyois Not even if we consider $\hom_{\mathsf{D}(S)}(\underline{\hom}_{\mathsf{D}(S)}(\mathscr{O}_S,p_*M[i]),\mathscr{O}_S)$ to be the dual of $H^i(X,M)$? This seems very natural for me, since in most (all?) cases $\mathsf{D}(S)$ is the derived category of $\Gamma(S,\mathscr{O}_S)$-modules. $\endgroup$
    – Gabriel
    Commented Sep 25, 2021 at 11:46
1
$\begingroup$

@MarcHoyois It would help to have a further comparison between $\mathrm{hom}(1_S, f_!f^!M[m])$ and a naive definition of homology such as $H^{m}(X, M)^\lor$ in the case of field coefficients.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .