2
$\begingroup$

As far as I know, the inverse limit and its derived functors can be defined even in case we are dealing with a functor $F: I \to A$ from a category $I$ that is not cofiltered. I would content myself with understanding the case in which $I$ is the opposite category of a non-directed poset and $A$ is the category of abelian groups.

Now, my question is, how much of the theory of derived limits for inverse systems as presented for instance in Mardesic's Strong Shape and Homology or Jensen's Les foncteurs derivées de lim is preserved without that directedness assumption?

My interest lies mainly in the following results:

  1. Flasque Goblot's Theorem: If $\mathbf{G}$ is an inverse system of abelian groups with surjective bonding morphisms of cofinality $\aleph_n$, then $\lim^k \mathbf{G} = 0$ for all $k \geq n+1$.
  2. Cofinality Theorem: If $C \subseteq I$ is cofinal in the indexing poset, then $\lim^n \mathbf{G} \cong \lim^n ( \mathbf{G} \restriction C)$.
  3. $\lim^n \mathbf{G} \cong \check{H} ((I, \tau(I) ), \mathcal{G})$ where $\tau(I)$ is the topology of downwards-closed subsets of $I$ and $\mathcal{G}$ is the sheaf on it given by $U \mapsto \lim (\mathbf{G} \restriction U ) $.

Since the questions are quite general maybe I should narrow it down by saying that I am mostly concerned with diagrams of countably generated abelian groups with surjective morphisms and that regarding question 1 I think I might need the case $cof(I) \leq \aleph_0 $ as the base case of an induction.

$\endgroup$
5
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I don't know about 1 and 3, but certainly 2 remains true if you replace "cofinal" with "homotopy cofinal", namely, instead of asking only each $i$ to be $\leq c$ for some $c$, you need to ask that for each $i$, the poset $\{c\in C \mid c\geq i\}$ is weakly contractible $\endgroup$ Mar 23, 2023 at 19:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 1 and 3 both fail. Take the pull back indexing category. $\endgroup$ Mar 23, 2023 at 21:13
  • $\begingroup$ @FernandoMuro I see why the $\lim^0$, that is, the pullback can fail to be trivial in that case, but what about higher derived limits? Are there some assumptions under which I still have the vanishing of $\lim^n$ for $n>0$ ? $\endgroup$ Mar 23, 2023 at 21:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @MatteoCasarosa yes, I think that pull backs don’t go beyond $\lim^1$ and they are exact if one of the morphisms is always surjective. I’ll try to think of a better example tomorrow if you don’t get a good answer in the meantime. $\endgroup$ Mar 23, 2023 at 23:38
  • $\begingroup$ @FernandoMuro any ideas? $\endgroup$ Mar 26, 2023 at 11:07

1 Answer 1

6
$\begingroup$

Let $F:C\to Ab$ be the constant functor on an Abelian group $A$. Then $${\lim}^n F = H^n(BC, A),$$ where $BC$ is the classifying space or simplicial nerve of $C$. Take $C$ to be a finite poset with the homotopy type of $S^n$, e.g. the poset of faces of the usual CW structure with two cells in each dimension up to $n$. Then you get a nontrivial ${\lim}^n F$. This gives you an example where 1 doesn’t hold.

$\endgroup$

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.