I was trying to understand the Mukai Fourier transform from his paper : Duality between $D(X)$ and $D(\hat X)$ with its application to Picard sheaves, Nagoya Math Journal, 1981.

I am not very familiar with Derived categories and even less familiar with $D^-(X)$ and so this question, as Mukai works with $D^-(X)$. My knowledge of derived categories has been obtained from Iversen's book Cohomology of Sheaves.

I usually think of the bounded below derived category $D^+(X)$ by an analogy with injective resolutions modulo quasi isomorphism/homotopy equivalence. For example, $f:X\to Y$ is a morphism of algebraic varieties, then we can define the higher direct images $R^if_*F$ for any sheaf $F$ on $X$. If we have a short exact sequence $0\to F\to G\to H\to 0$, then we can find injective resolutions which are term wise split and we can get long exact sequences of higher direct images. Now instead of thinking of each of the $R^if_*F$ individually we could just take the whole complex $f_*I^\bullet$ and call this $Rf_*I^\bullet$, where $0\to F\to I\bullet$ is an injective resolution.

Since I have mostly seen only injective resolutions in action, could someone explain to me the motivation for working with $D^-(X)$, where I guess one would have to work with projective resolutions, which may not always exist.

For my purpose, I convinced myself about Proposition 1.3 in the paper of Mukai by working with $D^+(X)$ as in the case of interest (abelian varieties) the projection morphisms are flat and we are tensoring with a flat sheaf.

Thanks in advance.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Thoughtless answer: read the book "Fourier-Mukai Transforms in Algebraic Geometry", by Huybrechts. (Not to obtain an answer to your specific question, necessarily.) $\endgroup$
    – user5117
    Apr 28, 2011 at 11:03
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ After Spaltenstein (1988), you have unbounded flat and injective resolutions, so you don't really need to restrict to $D^+$ or $D^-$ to compute right derived functors of Hom, or left derived functors of tensor, respectively. $\endgroup$
    – Leo Alonso
    Apr 28, 2011 at 11:33
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Even if you don't have time to really read Huybrechts' book, the first two chapters are a good reference for derived category stuff. In particular, they have some information about how to deal when you don't have enough projectives, injectives, etc. And I found this source works as well as anything is likely to as a "random access" reference for this stuff--i.e., to understand a proposition, you don't have to carefully read through everything that came before (although you may need to assume some of the statements and/or look back at a few definitions). $\endgroup$ Apr 28, 2011 at 14:20
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Traditionally, for injective resolutions you start with the left most nonzero point and built it to the right. Since you need a place to start the process, you work in $D^+$. For flat resolutions, its the opposite, hence the need for $D^-$. But as Leo says, it is now possible to work in derived category ubounded in both directions. $\endgroup$ Apr 28, 2011 at 15:54
  • $\begingroup$ ...unless one worries about some finiteness conditions, e.g. $D_c$ or $D_{coh}.$ $\endgroup$
    – shenghao
    Apr 28, 2011 at 17:12

1 Answer 1


For geometry the most informative category is $D^b(coh X)$. However, not every functor preserves coherence and boundedness. For example, it is possible that $L_if^*(F) \ne 0$ for arbitrary large $i$ even if $F$ is a sheaf. This is why sometimes people have to work in $D^-(X)$ --- otherwise the derived pullback will not be defined. So, the reason is not a choice of specific resolutions, but the properties of functors which you work with.


Your Answer

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

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