0
$\begingroup$

Given a flat and projective morphism of noetherian schemes, $f: X \rightarrow Y$ and $F$, $G$ two coherent $O_X$-modules, flat over $Y$. Furthermore given a morphism $u: Y' \rightarrow Y$ of noetherian schemes and a quasi coherent $O_{Y'}$-module $\mathcal{M}$. Then we have $X':=X\times_YY'$ with $p_i$ the i-th projection.

1) Take a locally free resolution $P_{\cdot} \rightarrow F \rightarrow 0$. Now the article says: "Since $f$ and $F$ are flat over $Y$, $p_1^{\*}P_{\cdot}$ is a resolution of $p_1^{\*}F$". Don't we need $u$ to be flat for this? Why is this implied by the flatness of $f$ and $F$?

2) Assume $Y$ and $Y'$ are affine, say $Y=Spec(A)$ and $Y'=Spec(A')$. Given an $A'$-module $M$. For a descending induction, the article says there is an exact sequence:

$0\rightarrow p_1^{\*}G'(n)\otimes_{A'} M \rightarrow \bigoplus\limits_{i=1}^r O_{X'}(-k+n)\otimes_{A'} M \rightarrow p_1^{\*}G(n)\otimes_{A'} M\rightarrow 0$.

I see that we have $0\rightarrow G'(n) \rightarrow \bigoplus\limits_{i=1}^r O_{X}(-k+n)\rightarrow G(n)\rightarrow 0$ on X, now if $p_1$ would be flat (see (1)), we'd have $0\rightarrow p_1^{\*}G'(n) \rightarrow \bigoplus\limits_{i=1}^r O_{X'}(-k+n) \rightarrow p_1^{\*}G(n)\rightarrow 0$ on $X'$, but why is $\otimes_{A'} M$ exact in this case? Or is there any other way to construct such a sequence?

Background: I'm reading the article "Universal families of extensions" by Herbert Lange (J. Algebra 83 (1983), 101–112), where he constructs base change homomorphisms for relative $Ext$-sheaves on schemes. I get the basic idea of the construction, but now i'm trying to understand the details, and these two questions stayed open.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

It is easy, $p_1^*G = G\otimes_A A'$ is flat over $A'$ since $G$ is flat over $A$. Hence $Tor_1^{A'}(p_1^*G,M) = 0$, hence your sequence is exact after tensoring with $M$. The same argument works for the first question as well.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, of course. Thanks for your help. Again :-). These little details start to annoy me, since i should see this myself. $\endgroup$ – TonyS Nov 17 '10 at 21:33

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.