Suppose I have two (constructible) sheaves of vector spaces $F$ and $G$ over the same base space that have isomorphic cohomology (degree by degree), but no sheaf map inducing this isomorphism (i.e. they are not quasi-isomorphic).

Now imagine I apply any of Grothendieck's 6 operations (or other functors) to $F$ and $G$, will the resulting sheaves, say $\Psi(F)$ and $\Psi(G)$, have isomorphic cohomology as well?


EDIT: I suppose the answer in general is no. Consider an injective (acyclic) sheaf and any functor that doesn't preserve injectives. A concrete example would be nice though.

EDIT 2: Thanks to Algori's comments I need to substantially limit the sheaves of interest. Assume additionally that the sheaves have identical support and furthermore that when we take the function that assigns to a point the euler characteristic of the stalk over that point (thereby producing a constructible function) to these two sheaves, these functions are identical. If we are using real sub-analytic partitions then a theorem of Kashiwara's says that the Grothendieck group of the bounded derived category of real constructible sheaves is isomorphic to the group of constructible functions. If I understand things correctly this would mean that these two sheaves are equivalent in the Grothendieck group (which seems weird since this function ignores gluing data). I am dealing with particular examples of two constructible (cellular) sheaves over a simplicial complex, which are not isomorphic yet produce identical constructible functions.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This is a trivial example, but still: consider a space with more than one closed point and the constant sheaves supported on two different closed points. $\endgroup$ – algori May 26 '11 at 20:20
  • $\begingroup$ .. or did you mean to ask about maps in the derived category? $\endgroup$ – algori May 26 '11 at 20:28
  • $\begingroup$ (.. in which case the same argument applies) $\endgroup$ – algori May 26 '11 at 20:46
  • $\begingroup$ @algori, What is the functor that you are applying? Yes, maps in the derived category, but other examples are good. $\endgroup$ – Justin Curry May 26 '11 at 21:59
  • $\begingroup$ Justin -- e.g. the pullback to one of the points. $\endgroup$ – algori May 26 '11 at 22:58

Then how about this example:

Let $X$ be the wedge of two circles. To give a local system on $X$ with stalk a complex vector space $V$ is to give two matrices $A_1,A_2\in GL(V)$. If the subgroup $\langle A_1,A_2\rangle$ of $GL(V)$ generated by $A_1,A_2$ has no invariants in $V$, then $H^0$ of the resulting local system will be $0$ and $H^1$ will be of rank $\dim V$ for Euler characteristic reasons.

To give a map in $Sh(X)$ between the local systems that correspond to $(V,A_1,A_2)$ and $(W,B_1,B_2)$ is to give a linear map $f:V\to W$ such that $f A_1=B_1f,f A_2=B_2f$. Now suppose that $V=W$, that both the groups $\langle A_1,A_2\rangle$ and $\langle B_1,B_2\rangle$ have no invariants in $V$, that $A_1$ is diagonalizable and that the eigenvalues of $A_1$ and $B_1$ are pairwise distinct. Then any map between the local systems is zero.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ So these two local systems have isomorphic cohomology, but are not q.i. Can they ever be distinguished by applying any standard endofunctors and then taking cohomology? $\endgroup$ – Justin Curry May 27 '11 at 22:43
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Justin -- I think so. E.g., tensor both with the dual of one of them. Then in one case there will be a constant subsheaf, hence $H^0$ will bo $\neq 0$, while in the other case probably not. $\endgroup$ – algori May 27 '11 at 22:52

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.