6
$\begingroup$

The singular cohomology with integer coefficients of a projective variety is isomorphic to the Čech cohomology of the constant sheaf of integers on this variety. If the above statement is correct then consider the following example: Look at $\mathbb{P}^1$ and the standard open cover $U_0,U_1$. Then the Čech complex for any sheaf $\mathcal{F}$ on $\mathbb{P}^1$ would be $$ 0 \rightarrow \mathcal{F}(U_0)\oplus\mathcal{F}(U_1) \rightarrow \mathcal{F}(U_0\cap U_1) \rightarrow 0. $$ If we consider the constant sheaf of integers this becomes $$ 0 \rightarrow \mathbb{Z}\oplus\mathbb{Z} \rightarrow \mathbb{Z} \rightarrow 0 $$ with non-trivial map $(a,b)\mapsto a-b$. But the singular cohomology of $\mathbb{P}^1$ is $$H^i\mathbb{P}^1=\begin{cases} \mathbb{Z},\quad i=0,2 \\ 0,\quad \text{else.}\end{cases}$$ Where am I going wrong?

$\endgroup$
3
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ The comparison between singular and Cech cohomology only holds if you use Cech cohomology on the variety equipped with the analytic topology, which differs from the one using Zariski topology. $\endgroup$
    – Wojowu
    Apr 25, 2022 at 15:08
  • $\begingroup$ @Wojowu Which of the above statements would not hold if we would fix the analytical topology? I can't see where Zariski topology is required. $\endgroup$
    – thrn
    Apr 25, 2022 at 15:26
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ In the definition of Čech cohomology (for analytic topology), you should take the (filtered) colimit over all coverings, not a single one. $\endgroup$
    – Z. M
    Apr 25, 2022 at 18:02

1 Answer 1

23
$\begingroup$

The Cech complex only computes cohomology if the subspaces have vanishing cohomology themselves: you need $$ H^i(U_0; \mathcal{F}) \cong H^i(U_1; \mathcal{F}) \cong H^i(U_0 \cap U_1; \mathcal{F}) \cong 0 $$ for all $i > 0$. In the example you've written, this is not true for $U_0 \cap U_1$. In general there is actually a Mayer-Vietoris long exact sequence relating the cohomology of $X$, $U_0$, $U_1$, and $U_0 \cap U_1$, or more generally a Mayer-Vietoris spectral sequence if the cover has more open sets.

(As a remark, you may have seen this constraint pushed under the rug because it is automatically true in special cases. If $X$ is a scheme and the subspaces $U_0$, $U_1$, and $U_0 \cap U_1$ are affine---the last automatic if $X$ is separated---then Serre's vanishing theorem says that these higher cohomologies vanish whenever $\mathcal{F}$ is a quasicoherent sheaf of $\mathcal{O}_X$-modules.)

$\endgroup$
0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.