5
$\begingroup$

Let $X$ be a smooth hypersurface in $\mathbb{P}^n$ and let $\mathfrak{P}$ be the completion of $\mathbb{P}^n$ along $X$.

Let $\mathcal{R}$ denote the category of reflexive sheaves on $\mathbb{P}^n$ which are bundles outside a finite set of points in $X$ (the finite set is not fixed, it could/will be different for different sheaves). The motivation for this is Grothendieck's effective Lefschetz condition.

Let $\mathcal{V}$ denote the category of (formal) locally free sheaves on $\mathfrak{P}$ and consider the functor

$$F: \mathcal{R} \to \mathcal{V}.$$ Then by Grothendieck's Lefschetz conditions, this functor is an equivalence of categories. This therefore implies that

$$K_0(\mathbb{P}^n) \cong K_0(\mathfrak{P}).$$

On the other hand, the subgroup $CH^{n}(\mathbb{P}^n) \subset K_0(\mathbb{P}^n)$ maps to zero in $K_0(\mathfrak{P})$. This can be seen in the following way:

take any point $x \in \mathbb{P}^n \setminus X$ and consider the resolution of the skyscraper sheaf $k_x$ $$0 \to F_{\bullet} \to k_x.$$ On restricting this resolution to $\mathfrak{P}$ (restrict to any thickening $X_m$ otherwise), we get an exact sequence $$ 0 \to F_{\bullet}\otimes O_{\mathfrak{P}} \to 0.$$

Therefore we see that $\sum(-1)^iF_i \mapsto 0$ under the map $K_0(\mathbb{P}^n) \to K_0(\mathfrak{P})$.

Clearly I am making some (stupid) mistake. I would be glad if someone points out what it is. In particular which of the arguments is wrong.

Thanks!

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

I will first assume that, by $K_0$, you mean the quotient of the free abelian group generated by isomorphism classes of objects in your category, modulo the relation $$\sum_i(-1)^i [F_i] = 0 \quad (A)$$ for every exact sequence $0 \to F_0 \to F_1 \to \dots \to F_{n-1} \to F_n \to 0$.

Well, since the functor does not preserve exactness of such long exact sequences, there is no reason that it should induce an isomorphism of $K_0$ using this definition.

OTOH, if you use as definition of the K-group the quotient generated by relations for short exact sequences, then I do not see why the relation (A) should hold. Of course, in an abelian category, you can decompose a long exact sequence into short exact sequences, and deduce it from the relation . Then the above relation for long exact sequences follows from the relation coming from the short exact sequences. But in an exact category, I do not see how to deduce (A).

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ @ABayer: Thanks. I realise the mistake I am making. I was indeed considering relations by short exact sequences. $\endgroup$ – MOfan Apr 11 '11 at 15:47
4
$\begingroup$

Dear all,

First, I apologize for writing this as an "answer" -- it is just a comment on ABayer's answer (but I don't have permission to comment on answers). ABayer's point is right on: the kernels and cokernels in the standard resolution of a skyscraper sheaf of a point are not reflexive. So you cannot break things up into short exact sequences. One case where you do get a short exact sequence is for P^2. But Grothendieck rules out the equivalence in this case (because he requires depth at least 3 or 4, can't remember which at the moment).

Best regards,

Jason

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The text inside <> is supposed to be "not". I am not sure what is wrong with the parser. $\endgroup$ – Jason Starr Apr 11 '11 at 11:15
  • $\begingroup$ Hi Jason. It seems the computer thinks your method of emphasis looks a lot like an HTML tag. I changed it to a boldface. $\endgroup$ – S. Carnahan Apr 11 '11 at 16:12

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.