DOCSLIB.ORG

MAT 589 Some Notes on Category Theory

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
MAT 589 Some Notes on Category Theory MAT 589 Algebraic Geometry Jason Starr Stony Brook University Spring 2020 MAT 589 Some Notes on Category Theory Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 Algebraic Objects 2 3 Categories 5 4 Functors 11 5 Natural Transformations 14 6 Adjoint Pairs of Functors 17 7 Adjoint Pairs of Partially Ordered Sets 19 8 Adjoint Pair between Monoids and Semigroups 20 9 Adjoint Pairs of Free Objects 20 10 Adjoint Pairs of Limits and Colimits 33 11 Adjoint Pairs and Yoneda Functors 44 12 Preservation of Exactness by Adjoint Additive Functors 45 13 Derived Functors as Adjoint Pairs 45 14 Constructing Injectives via Adjoint Pairs 58 15 The Koszul Complex via Adjoint Pairs 61 16 Adjoint Pairs of Simplicial and Cosimplicial Objects 70 17 Topology Adjoint Pairs 73 1 MAT 589 Algebraic Geometry Jason Starr Stony Brook University Spring 2020 18 The Adjoint Pair of Discontinuous Sections (Godement Resolution) 88 1 Introduction These are notes cut-and-pasted from some previous courses I taught about the most basic algebraic objects (semigroups, monoids, groups, acts and actions, associative rings, commutative rings, and modules), elementary language of category theory, and adjoint pairs of functors. Most of the notes are exercises working through the details of adjoint pairs of functors that are useful in introductory algebraic geometry. 2 Algebraic Objects Definition 2.1. A semigroup is a pair G; m of a set G and a binary relation, (m G) G G; such that m is associative, i.e., the following∶ diagram× → commutes, m Id G G G × G G G IdG××m × ÐÐÐ→ ×m : × × G × G G× × m × Ö Ö The binary operation is equivalent to a set× function,ÐÐÐ→ L● G HomSets G; G ; g Lg; ′ ′ ′ ′ such that for every g; g G, the composition∶ → Lg ( Lg equals) ↦Lm(g;g ), where m g; g is defined to equal Lg g′ . When no confusion is likely, the element m g; g′ is often denoted g g′. ∈ ○ ( ) For semigroups G; m and G′; m′ a semigroup morphism from the first to the second is a set ( ) ( ) ⋅ map ( ) ( ) u G G′; such that the following diagram commutes, ∶ → u u G G × G′ G′ ′ m× ÐÐÐ→ ×m : × × G× G×′ × u × Ö Ö The set of semigroup morphisms is denoted HomÐÐÐ→Semigroups G; m ; G′; m′ . 2 (( ) ( )) MAT 589 Algebraic Geometry Jason Starr Stony Brook University Spring 2020 Definition 2.2. For a semigroup G; m , an element e of G of is a left identity element, resp. right identity element, if for every g G, g equals m e; g , resp. g equals m e; g . An iden- tity element is an element that( is both) a left identity element and a right identity element. A monoid is a triple G; m; e where G;∈ m is a semigroup( ) and e is an identity( element.) For monoids G; m; e and G′; m′; e′ a monoid morphism from the first monoid to the second is a semigroup morphism that( preserves) identity( ) elements. The set of monoid morphisms is denoted HomMonoids( G; m;) e ; (G′; m′; e′ ) . opp opp Example 2.3.(( For every) ( semigroup)) G; m , the opposite semigroup is G; m , where m g; g′ is defined to equal m g′; g for every g; g′ G G. A left identity element of a semigroup is equiv- alent to a right identity element of the( opposite) semigroup. In particular,( the opposite) semigroup( ) of a monoid is again( a monoid.) ( ) ∈ × Example 2.4. For every set I and for every collection Gα; mα α∈I of semigroups, for the Cartesian product set G α∈I Gα with its projections, ( ) ∶= ∏ prα G Gα; there exists a unique semigroup operation m ∶on →G such that every projection is a morphism of semigroups. Indeed, for every α, the composition prα m G G Gα equals mα prα prα . There exists an identity○ ∶ element× → e of G; m if and only if there exists an identity element eα of Gα; mα for every α, in which case e is the unique element such that prα e equals eα for○ ( every× α )I. ( ) ( ) ( ) Example 2.5. For every∈ set S, the set HomSets S; S of set maps from S to itself has a structure of monoid where the semigroup operation is set composition, f; g f g, and where the identity element of the monoid is the identity function on( S.) For every semigroup G; m , a left act of G; m on S is a semigroup morphism ( ) ↦ ○ ( ) ( ) ρ G; m HomSets S; S ; : For every ordered pair S; ρ ; T; π∶ ( of) sets→ ( with left(G-acts,) ○) a left G-equivariant map from S; ρ to T; π is a set function u S T such that u ρ g s equals π g u s for every g G and for every s S. (( ) ( )) ( ) ( ) ∶ → ( ( ) ) ( ) ( ) ∈ For each set S, a right act of G on S is a semigroup morphism ρ from G; m to the opposite ∈ opp semigroup of HomSets S; S . Note, this is equivalent to a left act of the opposite semigroup G on S. For every ordered pair S; ρ ; T; π of sets with a right G-act, a(right) G-equivariant map is a set function(u S) T such that u sρ g equals u s π g for every g G and for every s S. Note, this is equivalent to(( a left) (Gopp))-equivariant map. ∶ → ( ( )) ( ) ( ) ∈ For an ordered pair G; m ; H; n of semigroups, for each set S, a G H-act on S is an ordered ∈ pair ρ, π of a left G-act on S, ρ, and a right H-act on S, π, such that ρ g s π h equals (( ) ( )) − ( ) 3 ( ( ) ) ( ) MAT 589 Algebraic Geometry Jason Starr Stony Brook University Spring 2020 ρ g sπ h for every g G, for every h H, and for every s S. This is equivalent to a left act on S by the product semigroup of G and Hopp.A G H-equivariant map is a map that is left equivariant( )( ( )) for the associated∈ left act by G∈ Hopp. ∈ − For every monoid G; m; e , a left action of G; m; e on S is a monoid morphism from G; m; e × to HomSets S; S . There is a category G Sets whose objects are pairs S; ρ of a set S and a left action of G; m; e ( on S,) whose morphisms are( left G) -equivariant maps, and where composition( ) is usual set( function) composition. A right− action is a monoid morphism( ) from G; m; e to the opposite monoid( of) HomSets S; S . There is a category Sets G whose objects are pairs S; ρ of a set S and a right action of G; m; e on S, whose morphisms are left G-equivariant maps,( and) where composition is usual set function( ) composition. Finally, for every− ordered pair G; m; e ;(H; n;) f of monoids, a G H-action( on S is) a G H act ρ, π such that each of ρ and π is an action. There is a category G H Sets whose objects are sets together with a G H-action,(( whose) morphisms( )) are G H-equivariant− maps, and where− composition( ) is usual set function composition. − − − Definition 2.6. A semigroup G; is called left cancellative, resp. right cancellative, if for − every f; g; h in G, if f g equals f h, resp. if g f equals h f, then g equals h. A semigroup is cancellative if it is both left cancellative( ⋅) and right cancellative. A semigroup is commutative if for every f; g G, f⋅ g equals g⋅ f, i.e., the identity⋅ function⋅ from G to itself is a semigroup morphism from G to the opposite semigroup. For an element f of a monoid, a left inverse, resp. right inverse, is∈ an element⋅ g such⋅ that g f equals the identity, resp. such that f g equals the identity. An inverse of f is an element that is both a left inverse and a right inverse. An element f is invertible if it has an inverse. ⋅ ⋅ Definition 2.7. A group is a monoid such that every element is invertible. If the monoid operation is commutative, the group is Abelian. A monoid morphism between groups is a group homomor- phism, and the set of monoid morphisms between two groups is denoted HomGroups G; m; e ; G′; m′; e′ . ′ ′ ′ If both groups happen to be Abelian, this is also denoted HomZ−mod G; m; e ; G ; m ; e . In this case, this set is itself naturally an Abelian group for the operation that associates(( to a pair) u;( v )) of group homomorphisms the group homomorphism u v defined by((u v g) ( m′ u g )); v g . ( ) Definition 2.8. An associative ring is an ordered pair A; ; 0 ;L of an Abelian group A; ; 0 ⋅ ●( ⋅ )( ) = ( ( ) ( )) and a homomorphism of Abelian groups, (( + ) ) ( + ) L● A HomZ−mod A; A ; a La A A such that for every a; a′ A, the composition L L ′ equals L ′ , where a a′ denotes L a′ . The ∶ → (a )a ↦ ( a⋅∶a → ) a set map L● is equivalent to a biadditive binary operation, ∈ ○ ⋅ ( ) A A A; a; a′ a a′; that is also associative, i.e., for every⋅ ∶ a;× a′;→ a′′ in A(, the) = element⋅ a a′ a′′ equals a a′ a′′ . In particular, A; is a semigroup. For associative rings A; ; 0; and A′; ′; 0′; ′ , a ring homo- morphism from the first to the second is a set function that is( simultaneously⋅ ) ⋅ a morphism⋅ ( ⋅ ) of Abelian groups( ⋅) from A; ; 0 to A′; ′; 0′ and a morphism( + of⋅) semigroups( + from⋅ ) A; to A′; ′ .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Algebras in Which Every Subalgebra Is Noetherian
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Volume 142, Number 9, September 2014, Pages 2983–2990 S 0002-9939(2014)12052-1 Article electronically published on May 21, 2014 ALGEBRAS IN WHICH EVERY SUBALGEBRA IS NOETHERIAN D. ROGALSKI, S. J. SIERRA, AND J. T. STAFFORD (Communicated by Birge Huisgen-Zimmermann) Abstract. We show that the twisted homogeneous coordinate rings of elliptic curves by infinite order automorphisms have the curious property that every subalgebra is both finitely generated and noetherian. As a consequence, we show that a localisation of a generic Skylanin algebra has the same property. 1. Introduction Throughout this paper k will denote an algebraically closed field and all algebras will be k-algebras. It is not hard to show that if C is a commutative k-algebra with the property that every subalgebra is finitely generated (or noetherian), then C must be of Krull dimension at most one. (See Section 3 for one possible proof.) The aim of this paper is to show that this property holds more generally in the noncommutative universe. Before stating the result we need some notation. Let X be a projective variety ∗ with invertible sheaf M and automorphism σ and write Mn = M⊗σ (M) ···⊗ n−1 ∗ (σ ) (M). Then the twisted homogeneous coordinate ring of X with respect to k M 0 M this data is the -algebra B = B(X, ,σ)= n≥0 H (X, n), under a natu- ral multiplication. This algebra is fundamental to the theory of noncommutative algebraic geometry; see for example [ATV1, St, SV]. In particular, if S is the 3- dimensional Sklyanin algebra, as defined for example in [SV, Example 8.3], then B(E,L,σ)=S/gS for a central element g ∈ S and some invertible sheaf L over an elliptic curve E.WenotethatS is a graded ring that can be regarded as the “co- P2 P2 ordinate ring of a noncommutative ” or as the “coordinate ring of nc”.
    [Show full text]
  • Derived Functors and Homological Dimension (Pdf)
    DERIVED FUNCTORS AND HOMOLOGICAL DIMENSION George Torres Math 221 Abstract. This paper overviews the basic notions of abelian categories, exact functors, and chain complexes. It will use these concepts to define derived functors, prove their existence, and demon- strate their relationship to homological dimension. I affirm my awareness of the standards of the Harvard College Honor Code. Date: December 15, 2015. 1 2 DERIVED FUNCTORS AND HOMOLOGICAL DIMENSION 1. Abelian Categories and Homology The concept of an abelian category will be necessary for discussing ideas on homological algebra. Loosely speaking, an abelian cagetory is a type of category that behaves like modules (R-mod) or abelian groups (Ab). We must first define a few types of morphisms that such a category must have. Definition 1.1. A morphism f : X ! Y in a category C is a zero morphism if: • for any A 2 C and any g; h : A ! X, fg = fh • for any B 2 C and any g; h : Y ! B, gf = hf We denote a zero morphism as 0XY (or sometimes just 0 if the context is sufficient). Definition 1.2. A morphism f : X ! Y is a monomorphism if it is left cancellative. That is, for all g; h : Z ! X, we have fg = fh ) g = h. An epimorphism is a morphism if it is right cancellative. The zero morphism is a generalization of the zero map on rings, or the identity homomorphism on groups. Monomorphisms and epimorphisms are generalizations of injective and surjective homomorphisms (though these definitions don't always coincide). It can be shown that a morphism is an isomorphism iff it is epic and monic.
    [Show full text]
  • Lie Group Homomorphism Φ: → Corresponds to a Linear Map Φ: →
    More on Lie algebras Wednesday, February 14, 2018 8:27 AM Simple Lie algebra: dim 2 and the only ideals are 0 and itself. Have classification by Dynkin diagram. For instance, , is simple: take the basis 01 00 10 , , . 00 10 01 , 2,, 2,, . Suppose is in the ideal. , 2. , , 2. If 0, then X is in the ideal. Then ,,, 2imply that H and Y are also in the ideal which has to be 2, . The case 0: do the same argument for , , , then the ideal is 2, unless 0. The case 0: , 2,, 2implies the ideal is 2, unless 0. The ideal is {0} if 0. Commutator ideal: , Span,: , ∈. An ideal is in particular a Lie subalgebra. Keep on taking commutator ideals, get , , ⊂, … called derived series. Solvable: 0 for some j. If is simple, for all j. Levi decomposition: any Lie algebra is the semi‐direct product of a solvable ideal and a semisimple subalgebra. Similar concept: , , , , …, ⊂. Sequence of ideals called lower central series. Nilpotent: 0 for some j. ⊂ . Hence nilpotent implies solvable. For instance, the Lie algebra of nilpotent upper triangular matrices is nilpotent and hence solvable. Can take the basis ,, . Then ,,, 0if and , if . is spanned by , for and hence 0. The Lie algebra of upper triangular matrices is solvable but not nilpotent. Can take the basis ,,,, ,,…,,. Similar as above and ,,,0. . So 0. But for all 1. Recall that any Lie group homomorphism Φ: → corresponds to a linear map ϕ: → . In the proof that a continuous homomorphism is smooth. Lie group Page 1 Since Φ ΦΦΦ , ∘ Ad AdΦ ∘.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:2008.00486V2 [Math.CT] 1 Nov 2020
    Anticommutativity and the triangular lemma. Michael Hoefnagel Abstract For a variety V, it has been recently shown that binary products com- mute with arbitrary coequalizers locally, i.e., in every fibre of the fibration of points π : Pt(C) → C, if and only if Gumm’s shifting lemma holds on pullbacks in V. In this paper, we establish a similar result connecting the so-called triangular lemma in universal algebra with a certain cat- egorical anticommutativity condition. In particular, we show that this anticommutativity and its local version are Mal’tsev conditions, the local version being equivalent to the triangular lemma on pullbacks. As a corol- lary, every locally anticommutative variety V has directly decomposable congruence classes in the sense of Duda, and the converse holds if V is idempotent. 1 Introduction Recall that a category is said to be pointed if it admits a zero object 0, i.e., an object which is both initial and terminal. For a variety V, being pointed is equivalent to the requirement that the theory of V admit a unique constant. Between any two objects X and Y in a pointed category, there exists a unique morphism 0X,Y from X to Y which factors through the zero object. The pres- ence of these zero morphisms allows for a natural notion of kernel or cokernel of a morphism f : X → Y , namely, as an equalizer or coequalizer of f and 0X,Y , respectively. Every kernel/cokernel is a monomorphism/epimorphism, and a monomorphism/epimorphism is called normal if it is a kernel/cokernel of some morphism.
    [Show full text]
  • Gauging the Octonion Algebra
    UM-P-92/60_» Gauging the octonion algebra A.K. Waldron and G.C. Joshi Research Centre for High Energy Physics, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 8052, Australia By considering representation theory for non-associative algebras we construct the fundamental and adjoint representations of the octonion algebra. We then show how these representations by associative matrices allow a consistent octonionic gauge theory to be realized. We find that non-associativity implies the existence of new terms in the transformation laws of fields and the kinetic term of an octonionic Lagrangian. PACS numbers: 11.30.Ly, 12.10.Dm, 12.40.-y. Typeset Using REVTEX 1 L INTRODUCTION The aim of this work is to genuinely gauge the octonion algebra as opposed to relating properties of this algebra back to the well known theory of Lie Groups and fibre bundles. Typically most attempts to utilise the octonion symmetry in physics have revolved around considerations of the automorphism group G2 of the octonions and Jordan matrix representations of the octonions [1]. Our approach is more simple since we provide a spinorial approach to the octonion symmetry. Previous to this work there were already several indications that this should be possible. To begin with the statement of the gauge principle itself uno theory shall depend on the labelling of the internal symmetry space coordinates" seems to be independent of the exact nature of the gauge algebra and so should apply equally to non-associative algebras. The octonion algebra is an alternative algebra (the associator {x-1,y,i} = 0 always) X -1 so that the transformation law for a gauge field TM —• T^, = UY^U~ — ^(c^C/)(/ is well defined for octonionic transformations U.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes on Mathematical Logic David W. Kueker
    Notes on Mathematical Logic David W. Kueker University of Maryland, College Park E-mail address: [email protected] URL: http://www-users.math.umd.edu/~dwk/ Contents Chapter 0. Introduction: What Is Logic? 1 Part 1. Elementary Logic 5 Chapter 1. Sentential Logic 7 0. Introduction 7 1. Sentences of Sentential Logic 8 2. Truth Assignments 11 3. Logical Consequence 13 4. Compactness 17 5. Formal Deductions 19 6. Exercises 20 20 Chapter 2. First-Order Logic 23 0. Introduction 23 1. Formulas of First Order Logic 24 2. Structures for First Order Logic 28 3. Logical Consequence and Validity 33 4. Formal Deductions 37 5. Theories and Their Models 42 6. Exercises 46 46 Chapter 3. The Completeness Theorem 49 0. Introduction 49 1. Henkin Sets and Their Models 49 2. Constructing Henkin Sets 52 3. Consequences of the Completeness Theorem 54 4. Completeness Categoricity, Quantifier Elimination 57 5. Exercises 58 58 Part 2. Model Theory 59 Chapter 4. Some Methods in Model Theory 61 0. Introduction 61 1. Realizing and Omitting Types 61 2. Elementary Extensions and Chains 66 3. The Back-and-Forth Method 69 i ii CONTENTS 4. Exercises 71 71 Chapter 5. Countable Models of Complete Theories 73 0. Introduction 73 1. Prime Models 73 2. Universal and Saturated Models 75 3. Theories with Just Finitely Many Countable Models 77 4. Exercises 79 79 Chapter 6. Further Topics in Model Theory 81 0. Introduction 81 1. Interpolation and Definability 81 2. Saturated Models 84 3. Skolem Functions and Indescernables 87 4. Some Applications 91 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Borel Subgroups and Flag Manifolds
    Topics in Representation Theory: Borel Subgroups and Flag Manifolds 1 Borel and parabolic subalgebras We have seen that to pick a single irreducible out of the space of sections Γ(Lλ) we need to somehow impose the condition that elements of negative root spaces, acting from the right, give zero. To get a geometric interpretation of what this condition means, we need to invoke complex geometry. To even define the negative root space, we need to begin by complexifying the Lie algebra X gC = tC ⊕ gα α∈R and then making a choice of positive roots R+ ⊂ R X gC = tC ⊕ (gα + g−α) α∈R+ Note that the complexified tangent space to G/T at the identity coset is X TeT (G/T ) ⊗ C = gα α∈R and a choice of positive roots gives a choice of complex structure on TeT (G/T ), with the holomorphic, anti-holomorphic decomposition X X TeT (G/T ) ⊗ C = TeT (G/T ) ⊕ TeT (G/T ) = gα ⊕ g−α α∈R+ α∈R+ While g/t is not a Lie algebra, + X − X n = gα, and n = g−α α∈R+ α∈R+ are each Lie algebras, subalgebras of gC since [n+, n+] ⊂ n+ (and similarly for n−). This follows from [gα, gβ] ⊂ gα+β The Lie algebras n+ and n− are nilpotent Lie algebras, meaning 1 Definition 1 (Nilpotent Lie Algebra). A Lie algebra g is called nilpotent if, for some finite integer k, elements of g constructed by taking k commutators are zero. In other words [g, [g, [g, [g, ··· ]]]] = 0 where one is taking k commutators.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1908.01212V3 [Math.CT] 3 Nov 2020 Step, One Needs to Apply a For-Loop to Divide a Matrix Into Blocks
    Typing Tensor Calculus in 2-Categories Fatimah Ahmadi Department of Computer Science University of Oxford November 4, 2020 Abstract We introduce semiadditive 2-categories, 2-categories with binary 2- biproducts and a zero object, as a suitable framework for typing tensor calculus. Tensors are the generalization of matrices, whose components have more than two indices. 1 Introduction Linear algebra is the primary mathematical toolbox for quantum physicists. Categorical quantum mechanics re-evaluates this toolbox by expressing each tool in the categorical language and leveraging the power of graphical calculus accompanying monoidal categories to gain an alternative insight into quantum features. In the categorical description of quantum mechanics, everything is typed in FHilb; the category whose objects are finite dimensional Hilbert spaces and morphisms are linear maps/matrices. In this category, Hilbert spaces associated with physical systems are typed as objects, and processes between systems as morphisms. MacLane [7] proposed the idea of typing matrices as morphisms while intro- ducing semiadditive categories(categories with well-behaved additions between objects). This line of research, further, has been explored by Macedo and Oliveira in the pursuit of avoiding the cumbersome indexed-based operations of matrices [6]. They address the quest for shifting the traditional perspective of formal methods in software development[10]. To observe why index-level operations do not offer an optimal approach, take the divide-and-conquer algorithm to multiplicate two matrices. In each arXiv:1908.01212v3 [math.CT] 3 Nov 2020 step, one needs to apply a for-loop to divide a matrix into blocks. While the division happens automatically if one takes matrices whose sources or targets are biproducts of objects.
    [Show full text]
  • Topoi for a Super-Noetherian Subalgebra Equipped with a Riemannian Number
    Topoi for a Super-Noetherian Subalgebra Equipped with a Riemannian Number M. Lafourcade, Q. Germain and H. D´escartes Abstract Let λ be a Gaussian, integrable, canonically Hadamard modulus. Re- cent developments in dynamics [32] have raised the question of whether V 2 i. We show that jm^j ∼ P. Now in this setting, the ability to char- acterize categories is essential. It is not yet known whether ξ 6= −∞, although [4, 4, 10] does address the issue of minimality. 1 Introduction In [33], the authors address the separability of Weierstrass, stochastically anti- hyperbolic graphs under the additional assumption that every subset is measur- able. Is it possible to compute Clifford sets? The work in [36] did not consider the meromorphic case. This could shed important light on a conjecture of Sylvester. Is it possible to characterize stable subgroups? It is well known that z ≥ !(f). In [32], the authors address the admissibility of sets under the additional assumption that every Fourier, contra-Gauss, contra-stable set is smoothly Lobachevsky and simply Bernoulli. This could shed important light on a con- jecture of Clairaut. The work in [29] did not consider the null case. The ground- breaking work of D. Anderson on regular homomorphisms was a major advance. 1 It is well known that 0p ∼ 1 . Recently, there has been much interest in the description of ultra-discretely tangential equations. It would be interesting to apply the techniques of [32] to prime vector spaces. In [23], the main result was the extension of unique monoids. In [27], the authors address the admissibility of intrinsic matrices under the additional assumption that there exists an orthogonal, stochastically pseudo- minimal and simply super-separable super-Artinian, almost everywhere intrin- sic, conditionally semi-onto random variable.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 18: April 15 Direct Images and Coherence. Last Time, We Defined
    89 Lecture 18: April 15 Direct images and coherence. Last time, we defined the direct image functor (for right D-modules) as the composition L op DX Y op Rf op b ⌦ ! b 1 ⇤ b D (DX ) D (f − DY ) D (DY ) f+ where f : X Y is any morphism between nonsingular algebraic varieties. We also ! showed that g+ f+ ⇠= (g f)+. Today, our first◦ task is to◦ prove that direct images preserve quasi-coherence and, in the case when f is proper, coherence. The definition of the derived category b op D (DX )didnot include any quasi-coherence assumptions. We are going to denote b op b op by Dqc(DX ) the full subcategory of D (DX ), consisting of those complexes of right DX -modules whose cohomology sheaves are quasi-coherent as OX -modules. Recall that we included the condition of quasi-coherence into our definition of algebraic b op D-modules in Lecture 10. Similarly, we denote by Dcoh (DX ) the full subcategory b op of D (DX ), consisting of those complexes of right DX -modules whose cohomology sheaves are coherent DX -modules (and therefore quasi-coherent OX -modules). This b op category is of course contained in Dqc(DX ). Theorem 18.1. Let f : X Y be a morphism between nonsingular algebraic ! b op b op varieties. Then the functor f+ takes Dqc(DX ) into Dqc(DY ). When f is proper, b op b op it also takes Dcoh (DX ) into Dcoh (DY ). We are going to deduce this from the analogous result for OX -modules. Recall that if F is a quasi-coherent OX -module, then the higher direct image sheaves j R f F are again quasi-coherent OY -modules.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5 Subalgebras and Unions
    CHAPTER 5 SUBALGEBRAS AND UNIONS §a Weak and relative subalgebras The subalgebra concept has two very natural weakenings. The first of these concerns the algebraic structure that is inherited by arbitrary subsets of the universe of an algebra, as opposed to subuniverses; one of the more compel- ling ways in which partial algebras arise in the study of total algebras. The second corresponds with the algebraic structure necessary for a mapping from another algebra to be a homomorphism. a1 Definition. Let A = 〈A, I〉 and B = 〈B, J〉 be algebras such that A ⊆ B. (a) A is a relative subalgebra of B, notation A ⊆ B, and B a outer extension of A, if Dom(I) = Dom(J), and for every symbol S ∈ Dom(J), I(S) = J(S)A. (b) A is a weak subalgebra of B, notation A ⊆w B, if Dom(I) = Dom(J), and for every symbol S ∈ Dom(I), I(S) ⊆ J(S). Observe that any subset A of the universe of an algebra B determines a unique relative subalgebra of B that has A for universe. We denote it by AB. On the other hand, there may be many weak subalgebras of B that have A for a universe. In particular, there may be many weak subalgebras of B that have B for a universe; we shall call them weakenings of B. If A is a weakening of B, then B is an inner extension of A. If B is a total algebra, and A is dense in B, we say that B is a completion of AB.
    [Show full text]
  • A CATEGORICAL INTRODUCTION to SHEAVES Contents 1
    A CATEGORICAL INTRODUCTION TO SHEAVES DAPING WENG Abstract. Sheaf is a very useful notion when defining and computing many different cohomology theories over topological spaces. There are several ways to build up sheaf theory with different axioms; however, some of the axioms are a little bit hard to remember. In this paper, we are going to present a \natural" approach from a categorical viewpoint, with some remarks of applications of sheaf theory at the end. Some familiarity with basic category notions is assumed for the readers. Contents 1. Motivation1 2. Definitions and Constructions2 2.1. Presheaf2 2.2. Sheaf 4 3. Sheafification5 3.1. Direct Limit and Stalks5 3.2. Sheafification in Action8 3.3. Sheafification as an Adjoint Functor 12 4. Exact Sequence 15 5. Induced Sheaf 18 5.1. Direct Image 18 5.2. Inverse Image 18 5.3. Adjunction 20 6. A Brief Introduction to Sheaf Cohomology 21 Conclusion and Acknowlegdment 23 References 23 1. Motivation In many occasions, we may be interested in algebraic structures defined over local neigh- borhoods. For example, a theory of cohomology of a topological space often concerns with sets of maps from a local neighborhood to some abelian groups, which possesses a natural Z-module struture. Another example is line bundles (either real or complex): since R or C are themselves rings, the set of sections over a local neighborhood forms an R or C-module. To analyze this local algebraic information, mathematians came up with the notion of sheaves, which accommodate local and global data in a natural way. However, there are many fashion of introducing sheaves; Tennison [2] and Bredon [1] have done it in two very different styles in their seperate books, though both of which bear the name \Sheaf Theory".
    [Show full text]