Arxiv:2010.10372V2 [Math.RT] 19 Dec 2020 Cu.Teobtcategory Orbit the Occur

arXiv:2010.10372v2 [math.RT] 19 Dec 2020 cu.Teobtcategory orbit The occur. G ftececetrn scagdfrom changed is ring coefficient the if on sheaves with iern ihiett.Udrtecrusac,an circumstance, the Under of identity. with ring tive R oiino h lsiyn space classifying the of homol the position to analogous representations, group decomposing rnpre aeoy c)otnosfntr opimo morphism functor, (co)continuous category, transporter objects ytefiiecategory finite the by T of 3 2,t aeafew. decompo a introdu homology name to to and 12], used conject complexes [3, weight subgroup be Alperin’s investigate can the to they study and to that [15], in functors useful Mackey very are categories bla ha aeoyon category sheaf abelian .) fM ri 1 . . i]ad[1 I19,w hl c shall we II.1.9], [11, and bis] categories 0.6 on & topologies 0.6 her Grothendieck [1, (recalled Artin result M. of classical 1.5), a Following importance. tal ersnain.Ide,tercn oko amr[]indi [4] Balmer fi of of work context recent the the in Indeed, result, Artin’s representations. of understanding better a NSEVSI IIEGOPREPRESENTATIONS GROUP FINITE IN SHEAVES ON ( euvratmp a enamjrsbetweee ru ac group whenever subject major a been has maps -equivariant ( Let h uhr ( authors The phrases. and words Key nteaoecss ucosoe aiu aeoisaeo f of are categories various over functors cases, above the In Z N G G G dnie ihasefof sheaf a with identified , G ) ( yMcLn n orik[0 III.9], [10, Moerdijk and Lane Mac By . ( G H fM ri ewe h aeoyo hae nteobtcate- of orbit categories the local equivale of on Analogous class sheaves a representations. of for group established category of that the equiv and the between to gory Artin proof new M. r intrinsic and an of give topologies We Grothendieck categories. their sheaf it, on built categories Abstract. h rnpre category transporter the H ) eafiiegop h category The group. finite a be /H \ G o l subgroups all for , ) mdls h hnmnncnb huh sawyof way a as thought be can phenomenon The -modules. 熊腾 O ie eea nt group finite general a Given 飞 ( G EGE IN N E XU FEI AND XIONG TENGFEI 、 ) O utemr h qiaec ean correct remains equivalence the Furthermore . 徐 ( 斐 ru ersnain sheaf, representation, Group G Set r upre yteNF rn o 11671245. No. grant NSFC the by supported are ) ) hsrpeettosof representations Thus . O - ( G G H .Atnsrsl set htacertain a that asserts result Artin’s ). R BG ) seuvln otemdl category module the to equivalent is mdlson -modules ⊂ 1 safl uctgr,cnitn of consisting subcategory, full a is G via ngoprpeettos both representations, group In . Set Z O to Set - ( G, G G R G ecnie several consider we , ) - nabtaycommuta- arbitrary an , . O Set G O 3 ,1] hsak for asks This 12]. 6, [3, ( ( oo,mdlso sites. on modules topoi, f G f(right) of G - ) G G ) and , le pvarious up glues , st ri category, orbit -set, R a ereplaced be may G -representation esulting sTheorem as e r identified are G alence c is nce g decom- ogy nie the onsider swl as well as , G r 9 17], [9, ure iegroup nite ae that cates undamen- st and -sets sitions ethe ce tions 2 TENGFEI XIONG AND FEI XU sheaf theoretic methods may find more applications in this area, apart from the well-known Deligne-Lusztig theory. As an attempt, we try to extract more information from Theorem 1.5. We shall use T (G) to provide an intrinsic proof of Artin’s result, and then take newly de- veloped tools to obtain more representation-theoretical statements. In fact, we do this in the larger context of abstract transporter categories, and thus obtain more general statements, see Theorems 3.8 and 4.4. The paper is organized as follows. In Section 1, we recall the definitions of a site and of a sheaf on a site, and the result of Artin (es- pecially a version of Mac Lane-Moerdijk), accompanied by motivating examples. Then in Section 2 we state the concepts of continuous and cocontinuous functors, for comparing sheaf categories. Through a certain class of abstract transporter categories, we establish an Artin-type equivalence for sheaf categories over many sites in Section 3. Finally based on the intrinsic properties of (ringed) topoi, we continue to deduce some interesting consequences on linear representations. Our key results are still correct for finitely generated modules (in terms of coherent sheaves).

1. Sheaves and group representations We begin with basics of sheaves of sets on sites. Then we will continue to discuss sheaves with algebraic structures, and their applications to linear representations. This is heavy machinery, but we try to make it comprehensible for the reader. Our main references on topos and sheaf theories are [2, 5, 7, 10]. However they use quite diﬀerent notations and terminologies. We try to follow [5, 10], but choices and adjustments have to be made in order to keep consistency. Modules will be right modules in this paper, if not otherwise speci- ﬁed.

1.1. Sites and sheaves. Let C be a small category. We assume the reader is familiar with the concept of a functor category. For consistency, we shall call a contravariant functor on C a presheaf (also called a representation of C, see [15]). We denote by PSh(C) the category of presheaves from C to Set. If R is a commutative ring with identity, we write PSh(C, R) for the category of presheaves of R-modules (contravariant functors from C to Mod- R). If R = Z, this is often dubbed as PSh(C, Z) = PSh(C, Ab). If G is a group, regarded as a category with one object, PSh(G) and PSh(G, R) are canonically identiﬁed the the categories Set- G and Mod- RG, respectively. One may put a Grothendieck topology JC on C, see [10]. SHEAVES IN FINITE GROUP REPRESENTATIONS 3

By definition a sieve S on x ∈ Ob C is simply a subfunctor of HomC(−, x). In fact a sieve S on x is identified with a set (also written as S) of morphisms with codomain x, satisfying the condition that if u ∈ S and uv exists then uv ∈ S. For instance maximal sieve HomC(−, x) is given by the set of all morphisms with codomain x. Definition 1.1. Let C be a small category. A Grothendieck topology is a function JC which assigns to each object x ∈ Ob C a class of sieves JC(x) on x, in such a way that

(1) the maximal sieve HomC(−, x) is in JC(x); ∗ (2) if S ∈ JC(x), then u (S) = {v uv ∈ S} lies in JC(y) for any u : y → x; ∗ (3) if S1 ∈JC(x) and S2 is any sieve on x such that u (S2) ∈JC(y) for all u : y → x in S1, then S2 ∈JC(x).

Any sieve in JC(x) is called a covering sieve on x. A small category C equipped with a Grothendieck topology JC is called a site C =(C, JC) (the subscript is often omitted when there is no confusion). Roughly speaking, a sheaf of sets on C is a presheaf of sets on C, satisfying certain glueing properties mandated by JC. A concise deﬁnition of a sheaf is the following. Deﬁnition 1.2. A presheaf F ∈ PSh(C) is a (J -)sheaf if, for every x ∈ Ob C and every S ∈J (x), the inclusion S ֒→ HomC(−, x) induces an isomorphism =∼ Nat(HomC (−, x), F)→ Nat(S, F). The category of sheaves of sets on C = (C, J ) is the full subcategory of PSh(C), consisting all all (J -)sheaves, denoted by Sh(C).

Note that by Yoneda Lemma, F(x) ∼= Nat(HomC(−, x), F). In the literature on Grothendieck topologies, many authors ask for the existence of ﬁbre products in C, see for example [11]. Although this condition is (essentially) met in our situation, we do not make the assumption, as we want to work with general ﬁnite categories.

1.2. Examples and motivations. We list some motivating examples, and state the result of M. Artin mentioned earlier. Example 1.3. Given any category C, one can deﬁne the trivial topology Jtriv such that Jtriv(x) = {HomC(−, x)}, ∀x ∈ Ob C. Since this topology does not impose any extra condition, according to Deﬁnition 1.2, all presheaves are sheaves. 4 TENGFEI XIONG AND FEI XU

A more interesting example is the atomic topology, [10, Section III.2]. This needs a mild assumption on C : the Ore condition, weaker than having ﬁbre products, which says that any two morphisms y → x and z → x, in Mor C, can be completed to a commutative square w / z

y / x and which is met by the categories we consider here. Then we put

Jat(x)= {all non-empty sieves on x}, ∀x ∈ Ob C.

A sieve S, as a subfunctor of HomC(−, x), is non-empty if there is at least one object y such that S(y) =6 ∅. In general, Sh(C) is a proper full subcategory of PSh(C), see Proposi- tion 3.5. However if C is given the trivial topology Jtriv, then Sh(C)= PSh(C). To some extent, the Grothendieck topologies allow us to add a new variance J on a category C and to specify finer structural information on its representations. Remark 1.4. One can continue to consider sheaves with algebraic structures, such as sheaves of R-modules for a given ring R and sheaves of rings. By definition, a presheaf of R-modules is a sheaf if and only if, considered as a presheaf of sets, it is a sheaf. Sheaves of R-modules on a site C form a category Sh(C, R), see [5, 7.44], which is abelian. This category has enough injectives, but usually not enough projectives. As our strategy, we will first prove results about topoi (categories of sheaves of sets). Then there are ways to obtain corresponding statements about sheaves with algebraic structures [5, 7.43 & 18.13]. Since we are interested in group representations, we convert module categories into sheaf categories. Example 1.5. Let G be a group, regarded as a category with one object • . Then PSh(G) is identified with Set- G. The atomic topology on G is Jat(•) = {HomG(−, •)} = {G} = Jtriv(•). The resulting site is written as G = (G, Jat)=(G, Jtriv). Under the circumstance, every presheaf on G is a sheaf, and we have Sh(G) = PSh(G). It follows immediately that, for a given coefficient ring R, Sh(G, R) = Mod- RG. Thus group representation theory is a sheaf theory. Deligne-Lusztig theory successfully applies sheaf theory and étale cohomology theory to the representatiton theory of finite groups of Lie SHEAVES IN FINITE GROUP REPRESENTATIONS 5 type. The more recent work of Balmer [4] demonstrates a fuller scope of sheaf theory, aiming at broader applications to representations of general finite groups. Our work is originally prompted by Balmer’s, but eventually pinned down to the following theorem. Theorem 1.6 (Artin, Mac Lane-Moerdijk). Let G be a finite group and O(G) be the orbit category. Then, on the site OG =(O(G), Jat), Sh(OG) ≃ Set- G. Consequently, Sh(OG, R) ≃ Mod- RG, where R is a commutative ring with identity. Proof. For future reference, we sketch the constructions of the two-way functors. For full details, see for instance [1, I.0] and [10, III.9]. If M is a G-set, one defines a presheaf FM such that FM (H\G) = H HomG(H\G, M) ∼= M . Then one can continue to verify it is a sheaf. Conversely, if F is a sheaf, F(1\G) is naturally a G-set.

Let BG (not the classifying space BG) be the site of Set- G with the canonical topology. The above theorem is originally proved for BG [1], that is, Sh(BG) ≃ Set- G. The present form is found in [10, III.9]. In fact, the canonical topology restricts to the atomic topology on O(G) (written as S(G) there). By the Comparison Lemma [10, Ap- pendix 4.3], one has Sh(BG) ≃ Sh(OG). Another way to understand this reduction is that Set- G is the additive extension of O(G), in the sense that every G-set is a disjoint union of objects of O(G), up to isomorphism. Thus every presheaf (resp. sheaf) on Set- G restricts to a presheaf (resp. sheaf) on O(G). While on the other hand, every presheaf (resp. sheaf) on O(G) extends to a presheaf (resp. sheaf) on Set- G. Note that by the axioms, we must have F(∅)= 1, the singleton set, for a sheaf on BG. Remark 1.7. In [1, 10, 11], the authors mainly dealt with (infinite) topological groups, continuous G-sets, and discrete G-modules. We focus on finite groups, with discrete topology. Under the circumstance, every G-set is continuous and every G-module is discrete. We prefer to work with O(G) because it is finite. The category of presheaves of R-modules is equivalent to the module category of RO(G), the orbit category algebra [3, 9, 17], which is finite-dimensional. The sheaf FM is also called the fixed-point functor or (pre)sheaf [12], which is a Mackey functor [15] and which is key to the Ronan-Smith theory, when M is a finitely generated RG-module. 6 TENGFEI XIONG AND FEI XU

2. Morphisms of sites and topoi Although the category equivalence in Theorem 1.5 is neatly pre- sented, it is not coming from functors between O(G) and G. For better understanding, we insert a third category, the transporter category T (G), and demonstrate that the equivalence is truly induced by functors among O(G), T (G) and G. Thus the equivalence can be considered as a generalized restriction and/or a generalized induction, in the sense of [18]. To this end, we need to compare sheaf categories. For future reference, we recall some fundamental concepts and constructions, found in many places, see for instance [5, 8]. Given a (covariant) functor α : C →D, there exists a restriction along α, Resα : PSh(D) → PSh(C) which is given by the precomposition with α. This functor admits two adjoint functors, the left and right Kan extensions along α, written as LKα,RKα : PSh(C) → PSh(D). Let d ∈ Ob D. Then the comma category (or category under d, or just undercategory) d/α has objects {(t, x) t : d → α(x), x ∈ Ob C}. A morphism (t, x) → (t′, x′) is given by u : x → x′ such that t′ = α(u)t. Comma categories (including undercategories and overcategories) are used to deﬁne the Kan extensions. To compare sheaves on two sites, we need the concepts of continuous and cocontinuous functors [5, 7]. Recall that given a set of morphisms {ui}i∈I with common codoamin x ∈ Ob C, the sieve S generated by {ui}i∈I is the smallest sieve that contains these ui’s, written as S = (ui|i ∈ I).

Deﬁnition 2.1. Let C = (C, JC) and D = (D, JD) be two sites. A functor α : C→D is called continuous if, for each Sx ∈ JC(x), α(Sx) generates a covering sieve on α(x) and, for each d ∈ Ob D, (d/α)op is ﬁltered. A functor β : C →D is called cocontinuous if for any covering sieve Sβ(x) ∈ JD(β(x)) on β(x) ∈ Ob D, there exists a covering sieve Sx ∈ JC(x) on x ∈ Ob C with β(Sx) ⊂ Sβ(x). (This is equivalent to saying that {u ∈ HomC(−, x) β(u) ∈ Sβ(x)} is a covering sieve on x.)

The original definition of continuity simply asks Resα to preserve sheaves [2]. Our definition is taken from [7, C2.3.7], see [7, C2.3.1] and [5, 7.13.1] for a version based on fibre products. The first condition on continuity is called cover-preserving and the second is said to be flat. A cocontinuous functor is also called cover-reflecting. The following is [5, 7.14.1], see also [7, C2.3.1]

Deﬁnition 2.2. Let C = (C, JC) and D = (D, JD) be two sites. A −1 morphism of sites Λ: D → C is a pair Λ = (Λ∗, Λ ), where Λ∗ = SHEAVES IN FINITE GROUP REPRESENTATIONS 7

Resα : Sh(D) → Sh(C) for a continuous functor α : C →D and −1 ♯ C D Λ = LKα : Sh( ) → Sh( ) is exact. C ♯ ♯ ♯ Here for a sheaf G on , LKαG := (LKαG) , where (−) means sheafification. See Proposition 3.5 where we recall the construction of a sheafification in the proof. Sheafification functor is exact and is left adjoint to the forgetful functor Sh(C) → PSh(C), which is left exact. The definition of cocotinuity is [7, Page 574], see also [5, 7.19.1]. For those who worry about fibre products, see Remark 3.2 for the relevant constructions in our sites in mind. The following is [5, 7.15.1], see also [7, A4.1.1] and [10, VII.1]. Definition 2.3. A (Grothendieck) topos is a category that is equivalent to some Sh(C), a sheaf category of sets on a site C. A (geometric) morphism of topoi −1 Ψ=(Ψ∗, Ψ ) : Sh(D) → Sh(C) −1 consists of a pair of functors Ψ∗ : Sh(D) → Sh(C) and Ψ : Sh(C) → −1 Sh(D) such that Ψ is left exact and is left adjoint to Ψ∗. A morphism of sites always induces a morphism of topoi. There is a broader concept of an elementary topos [7, 10]. We only work with Grothendieck topoi in this paper. Remark 2.4. By [5, 7.21.1] and [7, C.2.3.18], if β : C →D is cocontinuous, then RKβF ∈ Sh(D), for any F ∈ Sh(C). Moreover ♯ D C Resβ : Sh( ) → Sh( ) is exact and left adjoint to RKβ. The cocontinuous functor β : C→D also gives rise to a morphism of topoi −1 Φ=(Φ∗, Φ ) : Sh(C) → Sh(D), −1 ♯ where Φ∗ = RKβ and Φ = Resβ. For future applications, we record the following ([5, 7.20.5], also see the comments before [7, C.2.3.23]). Lemma 2.5. Let C and D be two sites. If there is a continuous and cocontinuous functor β : C→D, for the associated morphism of topoi −1 Φ=(Φ∗, Φ ) : Sh(C) → Sh(D), we have −1 (1) Φ = Resβ, ♯ −1 (2) Φ! = LKβ is left adjoint to Φ . Many results on topoi may be readily applied to sheaves with algebraic structures. This is vital for investigating linear representations. Once again, from [5, 7.43] the aforementioned constructions and properties we know about sheaves of sets sustain on sheaves of abelian 8 TENGFEI XIONG AND FEI XU groups, R-modules etc., in the sense that the morphism Ψ of topoi gives −1 rise to a pair of adjoint functors (Ψ∗, Ψ ) on categories of sheaves with suitable algebraic structures.

3. The transporter category We will use the transporter category to give an alternative proof, as well as a strengthening, of Theorem 1.5. We shall carry on the tasks within a broader context. Let P be a G-poset. Given an object x ∈ Ob P and a morphism u ∈ Mor P, we denote by gx and gu their images under the action by g ∈ G. By deﬁnition, the (abstract) transporter category P ⋊ G, constructed on a G-category P, is a special kind of Grothendieck construction and has the same objects as P. Its morphisms are the formal products ug, u ∈ Mor P and g ∈ G. If vh is another morphism that can be composed with ug, then (ug)(vh) := (ugv)(gh). In fact, these two morphisms are composable in P ⋊ G if and only if u and gv are composable in P. For instance, ug ∈ HomP⋊G(x, y) itself is a composite (u1)(1gxg), of g g 1gxg : x → x and u1 : x → y. Thus ug may be understood as a “conjugation” followed by an “inclusion”. (Be aware that in general g (1gxg)(u1) =6 ug. The former equals ug.) Note that P ⋊ G does not have to meet the Ore condition. Think of a poset with at least two minimal objects. Example 3.1. One can check that a subgroup H is identiﬁed with the skeleton of (H\G) ⋊ G, and thus they are equivalent. (Here G acts on H\G by right multiplication.) Then P ⋊ G can be regarded as a generalized subgroup of G, see [18].

y Let P be a G-poset. The morphisms in P will be written as ιx if ⋊ y x ≤ y. While the morphisms in P G are of the form ιg xg : x → y. When P = S(G) is the poset of all subgroups of G, equipped with the conjugation action, T (G) = S(G) ⋊ G is called the (complete) transporter category. In fact, a morphism set can be characterized by K −1 HomT (G)(H,K)= {ιgH g : H → K gHg ⊂ K}, where gH = gHg−1. The orbit category O(G ) is a quotient category of T (G), in the sense that there is a functor ρ : T (G) → O(G) with K ρ(H) = H\G (bijection on objects) and ρ(ιg H g) = cg (surjection on morphism sets), where cg : H\G → K\G is given by H 7→ Kg. One easily checks that ∼ HomO(G)(H\G,K\G) = K\ HomT (G)(H,K). SHEAVES IN FINITE GROUP REPRESENTATIONS 9

Remark 3.2. The category T (G) has fibre products, and thus satis- L L ′ ′ fies the Ore condition. If ιgH g : H → L and ιg Kg : K → L are two morphisms in the transporter category, then the fibre product is ′ simply gH ∩ g K since by definition these two morphisms are injective homomorphisms. We put TG =(T (G), Jat). A description of the fibre products in Set- G can be found in [15, 2.1]. Although the fibre products do not always exist in O(G), it will not affect our upcoming discussions because of the equivalence Sh(OG) ≃ Sh(BG). Here BG stands for the site on Set- G with canonical topology. Finally in the single-object category G, one has the fibre product • ×• • = •. Every transporter category P ⋊ G admits a natural functor to G. The functor π send every objects to • and each morphism αg to g. Given a category extension [15, 18], we have the following picture K ✇ ✇✇ ✇✇ ✇✇ {✇✇ P ⋊ G ① ●● ρ ①① ●● π ①① ●● ①① ●● ①① ●# C { G where K(x) ⊂ AutP⋊G(x) is a subgroup, for each x ∈ Ob P ⋊ G = Ob C, and K = x∈Ob C K(x). In fact, if K(x) is always trivial, then C = P ⋊ G. ` These two functors induce several pairs of adjoint functors PSh(P ⋊ G) RKρ,LKρ ; c LKπ,RKπ

{ Resρ Resπ # PSh(C) PSh(G). We already know PSh(G) = Set- G. Given a G-set M, the restriction along π sends it to the constant presheaf κM = Resπ(M) ∈ PSh(P ⋊ G). Be aware that κM is only constant on objects, not constant on morphisms (which are induced by the G-action on M). The Kan extensions are computed in [18]. The left and right Kan extensions along π are isomorphic to lim and lim , respectively. −→P ←−P We want to deduce an analogous picture for sheaf categories. To this end, we shall classify the sheaves on a certain type of sites defined over P ⋊ G. The following key lemma will allow us to compute the sheaffification of a presheaf. 10 TENGFEI XIONG AND FEI XU

Lemma 3.3. Let P be a G-poset with an initial object. Then P ⋊ G satisﬁes the Ore condition and can be given the atomic topology. Meanwhile on each x ∈ Ob P ⋊ G, there is a unique minimal non- empty sieve.

Proof. Set x0 as the (unique) initial object in P. It is ﬁxed under the g x x G-action, that is, x0 = x0, ∀g ∈ G. Let ιg yg : y → x and ιhzh : z → x y −1 z −1 be two morphisms. Then ιx0 g : x0 → y and ιx0 h : x0 → z will complete the square in the Ore condition. Thus one can introduce the atomic topology on P ⋊ G. x Suppose S is a non-empty sieve on x with a morphism ιgyg : y → x ⋊ y −1 in Mor P G. Consider the morphism ιx0 g : x0 → y. The composite x y −1 x (ιgyg)(ιx0 g ): x0 → x belongs to S. Since the composite is ιx0 1 ∈ S, x x0 ′ x ′ ′ (ιx0 1)(ιx0 g ) = ιx0 g ∈ S for all g ∈ G. One immediately veriﬁes that min x ′ ′ Sx = {ιx0 g g ∈ G} is a sieve on x, and it is minimal and unique among non-empty sieves on x. max min In terms of a subfunctor of Sx = HomP⋊G(−, x), Sx is characterized by

Hom ⋊ (x , x), if y = x ; Smin(y)= P G 0 0 x ∅ , otherwise.

Note that HomP⋊G(x0, x) can be identiﬁed with G, as a right G-set. For future reference, we set PG = (P ⋊ G, Jat) whenever P has an initial object. Then TG is a special case of PG. The above properties are inherited by quotient categories. Corollary 3.4. Let P be a G-poset with an initial object. Suppose we have a covariant functor ρ : P ⋊ G → C, which is identity on objects and which is surjective on morphism sets. Then C satisﬁes the Ore condition and can be given the atomic topology. There is a unique minimal non-empty sieve on each x ∈ Ob C. Proof. For convenience, we identity the objects of P ⋊ G and C. Take two morphisms y → x and z → x in C. Their preimages in P ⋊ G are still two morphisms with codomain x and can be completed to a commutative square. The image of the square provides a commutative square in C. Let S be a non-empty sieve on x ∈ Ob C. Then ρ−1(S)= {α ∈ Mor P ⋊ G ρ(α) ∈ S ⊂ Mor C} ′ is a non-empty sieve on x ∈ Ob P ⋊ G. Meanwhile if S is a non- empty sieve on x ∈ Ob P ⋊ G, ρ(S′) becomes a non-empty sieve on SHEAVES IN FINITE GROUP REPRESENTATIONS 11

min −1 min x ∈ Ob C. Therefore we have Sx ⊂ ρ (S) and ρ(Sx ) ⊂ S. One min immediately sees that ρ(Sx ) has to be minimal within non-empty sieves on x ∈ Ob C, and it is unique. max In terms of a subfunctor of Sx = HomC(−, x), it is characterized by Hom (x , x), if y = x ; Smin(y)= C 0 0 x ∅ , otherwise.

If C = P ⋊ G and ρ is the identity functor, then we go back to the situation in Lemma 3.3.

Proposition 3.5. Let P be a G-poset with an initial object x0, and suppose the following is a category extension (see [15, 18]) ρ K → P ⋊ G → C. Given the atomic topology on C, the sheafification of G ∈ PSh(C) is C the fixed-point sheaf FG(x0) ∈ Sh( ) in the sense that FG(x0)(x) = K(x) G(x0) . Consequently sheaves on C are of the form FM with M running over all G-sets. Particulary the sheaves on PG are all the constant sheaves κM . Proof. By standard procedures of construction (see for instance [10, III.5] or [5, 7.10]), given a presheaf G, we shall first construct G† ∈ PSh(C) which, for each x ∈ Ob C, we have G†(x) = lim Nat(S, G). −→S∈J (x) If G† is not a sheaf, then we repeat the construction and G♯ =(G†)† ∈ Sh(C) is the sheafification of G. By Corollary 3.4, on every x ∈ Ob C there is always a unique minimal min non-empty sieve Sx ∈J (x) characterized by Hom (x , x), if y = x ; Smin(y)= C 0 0 x ∅ , otherwise.

Moreover HomC(x0, x) = K(x)\ HomP⋊G(x0, x) is identiﬁed with the min right G-set K(x)\G. Thus we ﬁnd Nat(Sx , G) is isomorphic to ∼ K(x) HomG(K(x)\G, G(x0)) = G(x0) . † ∼ K(x) It implies that G (x) = G(x0) for each x ∈ Ob C and it is straight- G† ∼ F F† F forward to verify that = G(x0). However G(x0) = G(x0) is already ♯ ∼ a sheaf, that is, G = FG(x0). 12 TENGFEI XIONG AND FEI XU

Note that G(x0) is always a G-set. Moreover if M is a G-set, we can define a presheaf GM such that G(x0) = M and G(x) = ∅, whenever x =6 x0. Its sheafification is simply FM . Particularly if C = P ⋊ G, then ♯ ∼ K(x)=1 for all objects. Under the circumstance, we have G = κG(x0), a constant sheaf. In order to establish functors between sheaf categories, we discuss the continuity and/or cocontinuity of π and ρ. Proposition 3.6. Suppose P is a G-poset with an initial object. Let π : P ⋊ G → G and ρ : P ⋊ G → C be the above two functors. Then, under atomic topologies on three categories, (1) π is both continuous and cocontinuous; (2) ρ is concontinuous. Remark 3.2 hints that when P = S(G) ρ will not preserve fibre products, regarded as a functor T (G) → Set- G. Hence it is not continuous.

Proof. To verify that π is continuous, we ﬁrst note that, for any Sx ∈ J (x), π(Sx) generates exactly the only covering sieve on •. Then since •\π has the poset P as a skeleton [18], its opposite has a terminal object and thus is ﬁltered. To show π is cocontinuous, we need to demonstrate that for each object x ∈ Ob P ⋊ G and the unique covering sieve S ∈ J (π(x)), the maps y → x such that π(y) → π(x) factors through S is a covering sieve on x. These maps include all those with codomain x, and form the maximal sieve which covers x. In a similar fashion, one establishes the cocontinuity of ρ.

One can also use [10, III.4.2] to verify directly that κM = Resπ(M) is a sheaf, for all M ∈ PSh(G) = Sh(G). We note that π usually does not give rise to a morphism of sites, for LK (Sh(PG) ֒→ PSh(P ⋊ G)−→π PSh(G) = Sh(G is not exact. Nonetheless we have two morphisms of topoi. Corollary 3.7. Suppose P is a G-poset with an initial object. The functor π : P ⋊ G → G induces a morphism of topoi −1 Ξ=(Ξ∗, Ξ ) : Sh(G) → Sh(PG). as well as another morphism of topoi −1 Π=(Π∗, Π ) : Sh(PG) → Sh(G). The functor ρ : P ⋊ G → C induces a morphism of topoi −1 Θ=(Θ∗, Θ ) : Sh(PG) → Sh(C). SHEAVES IN FINITE GROUP REPRESENTATIONS 13

Proof. Deﬁne Ξ∗ = Resπ : Sh(G) → Sh(PG) and

LK (Ξ−1 : Sh(PG) ֒→ PSh(P ⋊ G)−→π PSh(G) = Sh(G It is crucial to see that Ξ−1 is left exact. In fact, The forgetful functor is left exact. Meanwhile LK = LK♯ is exact since LK ∼= lim and π π π −→P −1 P has an initial object x0. Note that Ξ (F)= F(x0). The cocontinuity of π says that RK F = lim F ∈ Sh(G), for any π ←−P −1 F ∈ Sh(PG). Then we put Π∗ = RKπ and Π = Resπ. The cocontinuity of ρ implies that RKρF ∈ Sh(C), for any F ∈ PG −1 ♯ Sh( ). We set Θ∗ = RKρ and Θ = Resρ. While for each G ∈ C ♯ ♯ −1 Sh( ), Resρ G := (Resρ G) . The functor Θ is exact. Suppose P is a G-poset with an initial object. By Proposition 3.5, the sheaves on PG are the constant sheaves κM and those on C are all the ﬁxed-point sheaves FM , with M varying over all G-sets. In summary we have the following adjoint functors between sheaf categories

Sh(PG) Θ∗ > ` Π∗

~ Θ−1 Π−1 Sh(C) Sh(G).

All the constructions are intrinsic to G, and by the characterizations of sheaves, these functors give equivalences. (Since Sh(PG) consists of constant sheaves only, we have LKπ = RKπ on them.) It implies that Ξ, Π and Θ are equivalences of topoi. Theorem 3.8. Suppose P is a G-poset with an initial object, and P ⋊ G → C is a category extension. (1) Both Sh(G) and Sh(C) are equivalent to Sh(PG), given by Ξ and Θ. (2) Let Υ=ΘΞ. The composed morphism between topoi

−1 Υ=(Υ∗, Υ ) : Sh(G) → Sh(C)

−1 ♯ is an equivalence, with Υ∗ = RKρ Resπ and Υ = LKπ Resρ, both preserving sheaves. Proof. The ﬁrst part follows from Corollary 3.4 and Proposition 3.5 −1 (and comments afterwards). Indeed, Υ∗ and Υ are exactly the two functors constructed in Theorem 1.5. Direct calculations show that they together provide a topos equivalence. The second follows from Proposition 3.5. 14 TENGFEI XIONG AND FEI XU

In the extreme case of C = P ⋊ G, Θ is the identity and Υ=Ξ. We may apply the result to the following posets, which are built on various collections [6, 7.6] and [13, Sections 37 & 40] of subgroups of G posets P collections (k being a ﬁeld of characteristic p) S(G) all subgroups Sp(G) all p-subgroups for a prime p Sb(G) all b-Brauer pairs for a p-block of kG P(G) all defect pointed groups over kG

In terms of homology decompositions of classifying spaces, the above collections are called trivial [6, 8.6] as they are contractible. The resulting transporter categories are as follows.

P ⋊ G C transporter category T (G) O(G) orbit category p-transporter category Tp(G) Op(G) p-orbit category b-transporter category Tb(G) Ob(G) b-orbit category p-local transporter category TLP (G) OLP (G) p-local orbit category

Here in the category extension K → P ⋊ G → C, K consists of all the subgroups in the corresponding collection. On each subgroup H in a collection, its automorphism groups in K, P ⋊ G and C, respectively, form a group extension H → NG(H) → NG(H)/H. In either case, the functor π induces a homotopy equivalence between the classifying spaces of P ⋊ G and G [6, 8.6],

B(P ⋊ G) ≃ hocolimGBP ≃ hocolimG• ≃ BG. Below may be regarded as a representation-theoretic counterpart of this. Corollary 3.9. There are natural category equivalences among

Sh(G), Sh(TG), Sh(OG), Sh(TpG), Sh(OpG) for any prime p. Since all the categories and functors are constructed intrinsically from G, our proof reveals more information than that found in [1, 10]. A natural question to ask is that what else posets may be used to ◦ obtain category equivalences, or something close? The poset Sp (G) of non-trivial p-subgroups stands out prominently, see [6, 8.7-8.10]. It seems that very diﬀerent techniques are needed to deal with it. SHEAVES IN FINITE GROUP REPRESENTATIONS 15

The local categories of [13, Section 47] form opposite extensions with certain transporter categories [18]. Their sheaf categories also require different treatments. Remark 3.10. If P is a G-poset with a terminal object, then we can still obtain some category equivalences. The reason is that (P ⋊ G)op ∼= Pop ⋊ Gop while Pop has an initial object and Gop ∼= G. The results in this section are still true for sheaves with suitable algebraic structures. We make these explicit in the next section. 4. Modules on sites In finite group representations, we often need to work with finitely generated modules. The corresponding concept is a coherent sheaf on a ringed site. To this end, we shall recall some more definitions from [5]. 4.1. Ringed sites and ringed topoi. For the reader’s convenience, we copy the definitions from [5].

Definition 4.1. (1) A ringed site is a pair (C, RC) where C is a site and RC is a sheaf of rings on C. The sheaf RC is called the structure sheaf of the ringed site. (2) A ringed topos is a pair (Sh(C), RC) where C is a site and RC is a sheaf of rings on C. The sheaf RC is the structure sheaf of the ringed site. ′ (3) Let (Sh(C), RC), (Sh(C ), RC′ ) be ringed sites. A morphism of ♯ ′ ringed topoi (Ψ, Ψ ) : (Sh(C), RC) → (Sh(C ), RC′ ) is given by a morphism of topoi Ψ : Sh(C) → Sh(C′) together with a map ♯ −1 of sheaves of rings Ψ :Ψ RC′ → RC, which by adjunction is ♯ the same thing as a map of sheaves of rings Ψ : RC′ → Ψ∗(RC). Note that here Ψ♯ is not a sheafification, as Ψ is not a sheaf! It might be an unfortunate choice of symbol, but it wouldn’t cause much confusion. We shall make G into a ringed site with the structure sheaf RG such that RG(•) = R. Suppose P is a G-poset with an initial object and P ⋊ G → C is a category extension. For PG and C, they are ringed sites with the structure sheaves RPG = κR and RC = FR. All of these are constant sheaves of commutative rings. Lemma 4.2. Suppose P is a G-poset with an initial object and P ⋊ G → C is a category extension. The functors π : P ⋊ G → G and ρ : P ⋊ G → C induces morphisms of ringed topoi ♯ (Ξ, Ξ ) : (Sh(G), RG) → (Sh(PG), RPG ) 16 TENGFEI XIONG AND FEI XU

♯ −1 with Ξ :Ξ RPG → RG being identity, and ♯ (Θ, Θ ) : (Sh(PG), RPG ) → (Sh(C), RC) ♯ −1 with Θ :Θ RC → RPG being identity. Proof. These follow from Corollary 3.7.

4.2. Modules on sites. Since we want to understand group representations through the equivalence Sh(C, R) ≃ Sh(G, R) =∼ Mod- RG, we are keen to characterize ﬁnitely generated modules by sheaves.

Deﬁnition 4.3. Let (C, RC) be a ringed site. (1) A presheaf of RC-modules is given by an abelian presheaf F together with a map of presheaves of sets F × RC → F such that, for every object x of C, the map F(x)×RC(x) → F(x) de- ﬁnes the structure of an RC(x)-module structure on the abelian group F(x). (2) A sheaf of RC-modules is a presheaf of RC-modules F, such that the underlying presheaf of abelian groups F is a sheaf. (3) A morphism of sheaves of RC-modules is a morphism of presheaves of RC-modules. The category of sheaves of RC-modules is denoted Mod- RC. Given sheaves of RC-modules F and G we denote HomRC (F, G) the set of morphism of sheaves of RC-modules.

Let C be a site and R a commutative ring with identity. If RC is the sheafification of the constant presheaf κR, then Sh(C, R) = Mod- RC, see for instance [8, 18.1]. We refer the reader to [5, 18.23.1] for the definition of a coherent sheaf. The coherent objects of Mod- RC form a subcategory coh(RC). Now we are at the position to state results on Mod- RPG , Mod- RC and Mod- RG, as well as on the coherent objects. Theorem 4.4. Suppose P is a G-poset with an initial object and P ⋊ G → C is a category extension. We have an equivalence of ringed topoi ♯ ≃ (Υ, Υ ) : (Sh(G), RG)→(Sh(C), RC), ♯ −1 where Υ = ΘΞ : Sh(G) → Sh(C) and Υ : Υ (RC) → RG is the identity. (1) It induces an equivalence between module categories

Mod- RC ≃ Mod- RG ∼= Mod- RG. SHEAVES IN FINITE GROUP REPRESENTATIONS 17

(2) If R is noetherian, there is an equivalence for the categories of coherent sheaves

coh(RC) ≃ coh(RG) ∼= mod- RG. Proof. Following [5, 18.13], Υ in Theorem 3.8 leads to an equivalence ♯ ≃ of ringed topoi (Υ, Υ ) : (Sh(G), RG)→(Sh(C), RC). It induces two functors

Υ∗ : Mod- RG → Mod- RC and ∗ −1 Υ =Υ : Mod- RC → Mod- RG, which still form an equivalence. The second statement follow because being coherent is an intrinsic property (in the sense that it is preserved by equivalences of ringed topoi), see [5, 18.18] (and [5, 18.23] for the deﬁnition of a coherent module). When R is noetherian, RG is noetherian. The coherent objects in Mod- RG are just the ﬁnitely generated RG-modules.

Because of the equivalences Mod- RC ≃ Mod- RG and coh(RC) ≃ mod- RG, many classical results on group representations can be readily translated to its counterpart of modules on C. Suppose P ⋊ G (and hence C) are finite. Since Mod- RC ⊂ Mod- RC, and the category algebra RC is noetherian when R is, the objects of coh(RC) are simply those RC-modules F such that F(x) is a finitely generated R-modules, for each x ∈ Ob C. When C = OG, the second statement is comparable to the one in the theory of Mackey functors, which says that the category of group representations is embedded into the category of Mackey functors MackR(G) [14, Section 6]. In fact, the latter embedding is also M 7→ FM , regarded as the fixed-point Mackey functor on G.

References

[1] Artin, M., Grothendieck Topologies, Harvard Mathematics Department Semi- nar Notes (1962). [2] Artin, M., Grothendieck, A., Verdier, J.-L., Théorie des topos et cohomologie étale des schémas, Séminaire de Géométrie Algébrique du Bois-Marie 1963-64, Lecture Notes in Math. 269, 270, 305, Springer-Verlag (1972 & 1973). [3] Aschbacher, M., Kessar, R., Oliver, B., Fusion Systems in Algebra and Topol- ogy, LMS Lecture Notes 391, Cambridge University Press (2011). [4] Balmer, P., Stacks of group representations, J. Eur. Math. Soc. 17 (2015), 189-228. [5] De Jong, A. J. et al, The Stacks Project, open source reference available at: https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/download/book.pdf. 18 TENGFEI XIONG AND FEI XU

[6] Dwyer, W., Henn, H.-W., Advanced Course on Classifying Spaces and Coho- mology of Groups, Birkhäuser (1998). [7] Johnstone, P., Sketches of an Elephant: a Topos Theory Compendium, Oxford University Press (2002). [8] Kashiwara, M., Schapira, P., Categories and Sheaves, Springer (2006). [9] Linckelmann, M., Fusion category algebras, J. Algebra 277 (2004), 222–235. [10] Mac Lane, S., Moerdijk, I., Sheaves in Geometry and Logic, Springer (1992). [11] Milne, J., Étale Cohomology, Princeton Math. Studies 33, Princeton University Press (1980). [12] Smith, S. D., Subgroup Complexes, AMS (2013). [13] Thévenaz, J., G-Algebras and Modular Representation Theory, Oxford Univer- sity Press (1995). [14] Thévenaz, J., Webb, P. J., Simple Mackey Functors, in: Proc. 2nd Intern. Group Theory Conf., Suppl. Rend. Circ. Mate. Palermo 23 (1990), pp 299- 319. [15] Webb, P. J., A Guide to Mackey Functors, in: Handbook of Algebra Vol. 2, Ed: M. Hazewinkel, Elsevier (2000), pp 805-836. [16] Webb, P. J., An introduction to the representations and cohomology of categories, in: Group Representation Theory, EPFL Press (2007), pp 149-173. [17] Webb, P. J., Standard stratifications of EI categories and Alperin’s weight con- jecture, J. Algebra 320 (2008), 4073-4091. [18] Xu, F., On local categories of finite groups, Math. Z. 272 (2012), 1023-1036. [19] Xu, F., Local representation theory of finite transporter categories, J. Algebra 512 (2018), 119-159.

Email address: [email protected] Email address: [email protected] Department of Mathematics, Shantou University, Shantou, Guang- dong 515063, China