Flat quasi-coherent sheaves as directed colimits,
and quasi-coherent cotorsion periodicity
Abstract.
We show that every flat quasi-coherent sheaf on a quasi-compact quasi-separated scheme is a directed colimit of locally countably presentable flat quasi-coherent sheaves. More generally, the same assertion holds for any countably quasi-compact, countably quasi-separated scheme. Moreover, for three categories of complexes of flat quasi-coherent sheaves, we show that all complexes in the category can be obtained as directed colimits of complexes of locally countably presentable flat quasi-coherent sheaves from the same category. In particular, on a quasi-compact semi-separated scheme, every flat quasi-coherent sheaf is a directed colimit of flat quasi-coherent sheaves of finite projective dimension. In the second part of the paper, we discuss cotorsion periodicity in category-theoretic context, generalizing an argument of Bazzoni, Cortés-Izurdiaga, and Estrada. As the main application, we deduce the assertion that any cotorsion-periodic quasi-coherent sheaf on a quasi-compact semi-separated scheme is cotorsion.
Contents
- 1 Preliminaries on Categories of Flat Modules and Complexes
- 2 Flat Quasi-Coherent Sheaves as Directed Colimits I
- 3 Flat Quasi-Coherent Sheaves as Directed Colimits II
- 4 Complexes of Flat Quasi-Coherent Sheaves as Directed Colimits
- 5 Quasi-Coherent Sheaves of Finite Projective Dimension
- 6 Preliminaries on Ext-Orthogonal Classes
- 7 Exact Categories with Exact Directed Colimits
- 8 Cotorsion Periodicity in Category-Theoretic Context
- 9 Cotorsion Periodicity for Quasi-Coherent Sheaves
Introduction
A classical theorem of Govorov and Lazard [20, 25] tells that any flat module over an associative ring is a directed colimit of finitely generated free modules. Several attempts have been made in the literature to obtain an analogue of this result for quasi-coherent sheaves on schemes [11, Theorem 5.4], [16], but the theory of flat and projective quasi-coherent sheaves is more complicated than for modules.
First of all, on a nonaffine scheme , there are usually no nonzero projective objects in the abelian category of quasi-coherent sheaves . Instead of projective objects, one might want to consider the locally projective quasi-coherent sheaves, otherwise known as (finite- or infinite-dimensional) vector bundles over . A celebrated theorem of Raynaud and Gruson [40, § II.3.1], [28] tells that projectivity of modules over commutative rings is indeed a local property; so the notion of a locally projective quasi-coherent sheaf on is well-defined.
A Noetherian scheme with enough (finite-dimensional) vector bundles is said to have the resolution property. Noetherian schemes (and stacks) having the resolution property were characterized by several equivalent conditions in the paper [48]. In particular, [48, Proposition 1.3] tells that any Noetherian scheme with the resolution property is semi-separated. It seems to be an open problem whether there exists a semi-separated Noetherian scheme (or even a separated scheme of finite type over a field) not having the resolution property.
On the other hand, it is known [26, Section 2.4], [12, Lemma A.1] that there are enough flat quasi-coherent sheaves on any quasi-compact semi-separated scheme. Conversely, any quasi-compact quasi-separated scheme with enough flat quasi-coherent sheaves is semi-separated [43, Theorem 2.2]. Moreover, over a quasi-compact semi-separated scheme , there are enough very flat quasi-coherent sheaves; so any quasi-coherent sheaf is a quotient of a very flat one [30, Lemma 4.1.1]. Very flat quasi-coherent sheaves form a special class of flat quasi-coherent sheaves locally of projective dimension at most . Given these results, the question about extending the Govorov–Lazard characterization of flat modules to flat quasi-coherent sheaves on quasi-compact semi-separated schemes naturally arises.
Let be a quasi-compact semi-separated scheme. Assuming that has enough locally countably generated vector bundles, Estrada, Guil Asensio, and Odabaşi proved in [16] that every flat quasi-coherent sheaf on can be presented as a directed colimit of locally countably generated flat quasi-coherent sheaves locally of projective dimension at most [16, Theorem B or Theorem 4.9].
The aim of this paper is to remove the “enough locally countably generated vector bundles” assumption in the latter result, and relax the quasi-compactness and semi-separatedness assumptions. We prove that, on any quasi-compact quasi-separated scheme , any flat quasi-coherent sheaf is a directed colimit of locally countably presentable flat quasi-coherent sheaves. It is well-known that any countably presentable flat module over a ring has projective dimension at most ; in fact, any countably presentable flat module is a directed colimit of a countable directed diagram of finitely generated free modules [19, Corollary 2.23]. Thus our theorem is indeed a generalization of the one of Estrada, Guil Asensio, and Odabaşi.
More generally, we say that a scheme is countably quasi-compact and countably quasi-separated if can be covered by at most countably many affine open subschemes, and the intersection of any two affine open subschemes in can be so covered as well. For such schemes, we also prove that any flat quasi-coherent sheaf is a directed colimit of locally countably presentable flat quasi-coherent sheaves. It follows from our result that any morphism from a locally countably presentable quasi-coherent sheaf on to a flat quasi-coherent sheaf factorizes through a locally countably presentable flat quasi-coherent sheaf. Thus “a locally countably presentable version of the Govorov–Lazard theory of flatness” holds over countably quasi-compact, countably semi-separated schemes.
We also briefly turn our attention to arbitrary (not necessarily flat) quasi-coherent sheaves. Our methods allow one to prove that the abelian category is locally -presentable for any regular cardinal and any -quasi-compact, -quasi-separated scheme . The -presentable objects of are precisely all the locally -presentable quasi-coherent sheaves on in this case. This provides a stronger version of a well-known result of Gabber [23, Lemma Tag 077N], which established local -generatedness of , as well as an extension of a theorem of Grothendieck [21, Corollaire I.6.9.12] from the case of to that of an arbitrary regular cardinal .
Moreover, we discuss three categories of complexes of flat quasi-coherent sheaves on a scheme : arbitrary complexes of flats, acyclic complexes of flats with flat sheaves of cocycles, and homotopy flat complexes of flats (otherwise known as “semiflat complexes”). In all the three cases, we show that all complexes from the respective category are directed colimits of complexes of locally countably presentable sheaves from the same category. The only caveat is that, in the case of homotopy flat complexes, we need the scheme to be semi-separated.
Concerning the homotopy flat complexes of flats, let us mention here that a theorem of Christensen and Holm [8, Theorem 1.1] describes the homotopy flat complexes of flat modules over an arbitrary ring as the directed colimits of bounded complexes of finitely generated projective -modules. Our result provides a countable version of the Christensen–Holm theorem for quasi-coherent sheaves.
Let us say a few words about the proofs. The proofs of the main results of this paper are based on category theory. Let be a regular cardinal and be a smaller infinite cardinal. A very general category-theoretic principle going back to Ulmer [49, Section 3] claims that -accessible categories with directed colimits of -indexed chains are preserved by various “limit-type” category-theoretic constructions. These include the pseudopullback [6, 39], as well as the inserter, equifier, and isomorpher [33] with respect to functors preserving -directed colimits and colimits of -indexed chains and taking -presentable objects to -presentable objects. Moreover, the simplest expected description of the full subcategory of -presentable objects in the resulting -accessible category holds true.
The category of flat modules over any ring , as well as various categories of complexes of flat -modules we are interested in, is -accessible with directed colimits of countable chains. That is what makes the proofs in this paper possible.
In the case of a quasi-compact semi-separated scheme, we explain that having finite projective dimension is a local property of quasi-coherent sheaves. In other words, every quasi-coherent sheaf locally of finite projective dimension on a quasi-compact semi-separated scheme has finite projective dimension as an object of the abelian category of quasi-coherent sheaves . Therefore, it follows from our result that every flat quasi-coherent sheaf on is a directed colimit of flat quasi-coherent sheaves of finite projective dimension in .
In the second part of the paper, we discuss cotorsion periodicity, first in an abstract category-theoretic setting and then specifically for quasi-coherent sheaves on quasi-compact semi-separated schemes, based on the results of the first part of the paper. The subject of periodicity theorems in homological algebra goes back to the now-classical paper of Benson and Goodearl [4], where it was shown that any flat projective-periodic module is projective. This means that if is a short exact sequence of flat modules over an associative ring , and the module is projective, then the module is projective as well [4, Theorem 2.5]. The original argument in [4] was module-theoretic.
Later the same result was independently obtained (and strengthened) by Neeman [27], who used a very different technique of complexes of modules and their morphisms up to cochain homotopy. In Neeman’s formulation, the flat/projective periodicity theorem tells that, in any (unbounded) acyclic complex of projective modules over an associative ring with flat modules of cocycles, the modules of cocycles are actually projective [27, Remark 2.15 and Theorem 8.6].
Cotorsion periodicity was discovered by Bazzoni, Cortés-Izurdiaga, and Estrada [2], who showed that any cotorsion-periodic module is cotorsion [2, Theorem 1.2(2), Proposition 4.8(2), or Theorem 5.1(2)]. This theorem tells that if is a short exact sequence of modules and is a cotorsion module, then the module is cotorsion as well. In other words, this means that, in any acyclic complex of cotorsion modules over an associative ring, the modules of cocycles are also cotorsion. Here a module over a ring is said to be cotorsion if for all flat -modules . The reader can find a general discussion of periodicity theorems in the introduction to the paper [3] and in the preprint [35, Sections 7.8 and 7.10].
We work out a category-theoretic version of the the argument of Bazzoni, Cortés-Izurdiaga, and Estrada for cotorsion periodicity, replacing the considerations of purity with ones of flatness, which relaxes and simplifies the assumptions. Then, as an application of our result about presenting flat quasi-coherent sheaves as directed colimits, we show that that the cotorsion periodicity holds for quasi-coherent sheaves on any quasi-compact semi-separated scheme . This means that, in any (unbounded) acyclic complex of cotorsion quasi-coherent sheaves on , the sheaves of cocycles are cotorsion. We recall that a quasi-coherent sheaf on is said to be cotorsion if for all flat quasi-coherent sheaves [13], and that this property of being cotorsion cannot be in general detected locally on modules of sections (cf. the discussion in [35, Section 8]).
Let us say a few more words about the connection between periodicity and the cocycles in acyclic complexes. This is a simple observation going back to [8, proof of Proposition 7.6] and [14, Propositions 1 and 2]. Let be an abelian category with countable products and be a class of objects closed under direct summands and countable products. Assuming that the countable product functor in is exact, it is known that the following two properties are equivalent: every -periodic object of belongs to if and only if, in every acyclic complex in with the terms in , the objects of cocycles belong to . In this paper, we generalize this result by working out an additional assumption on an abelian (or exact) category and its full subcategory under which this equivalence of two properties holds even if the countable products in are not exact.
As a final application, we deduce the assertion that the derived category of the abelian category of quasi-coherent sheaves on a quasi-compact semi-separated scheme is equivalent to the derived category of the exact category of cotorsion quasi-coherent sheaves, . Thus the derived category of quasi-coherent sheaves can be described in terms of cotorsion sheaves.
Sections 1–5 form the first part of the paper. Section 1 supplies preliminary material on accessibility of various categories of modules and complexes of modules over rings. The countable Govorov–Lazard theorem for flat quasi-coherent sheaves on quasi-compact quasi-separated schemes is proved in Section 2. This result is extended to countably quasi-compact, countably quasi-separated schemes in Section 3. Our discussion of the local presentability rank of the abelian category of quasi-coherent sheaves can be also found in Section 3. Three classes of complexes of flat quasi-coherent sheaves are discussed in Section 4. The connection between the local and global projective dimensions of quasi-coherent sheaves is explained in Section 5.
The second part of the paper consists of Sections 6–9. Section 6 contains the preliminaries for the second part. An important technical proposition about closure properties of classes of objects in exact categories with exact directed colimits (such as the categories of flat modules or flat sheaves) is proved in Section 7. Based on that, we flesh out our category-theoretic approach to cotorsion periodicity in Section 8. The cotorsion periodicity for quasi-coherent sheaves is established in the final Section 9 by combining the results of the first and second parts of the paper.
Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful to Michal Hrbek, Silvana Bazzoni, Souvik Dey, and Alexander Slávik for helpful discussions. We also want to thank the anonymous referee for his insightful reading of our manuscript and several helpful suggestions. In particular, the problem described in Remark 2.3 was spotted by the referee. This work is supported by the GAČR project 20-13778S. The first-named author is also supported by research plan RVO: 67985840.
1. Preliminaries on Categories of Flat Modules and Complexes
This paper is written in category-theoretic language, and accessible categories play an important role. We use the book [1] as the main background reference source on accessible categories.
Let be a regular cardinal. We refer to [1, Definition 1.4, Theorem and Corollary 1.5, Definition 1.13(1), and Remark 1.21] for a relevant discussion of -directed posets vs. -filtered small categories, and colimits indexed by these. For the purposes of this paper, we are mainly interested in two cases: or .
We denote by the category of sets and by the category of abelian groups.
Let be a category with -directed colimits. An object is said to be -presentable if the functor preserves -directed colimits [1, Definition 1.13(2)]. When the category is additive, this condition is equivalent to the functor preserving -directed colimits. Given a category with -directed colimits, we denote by the full subcategory of -presentable objects in .
A category with -directed colimits is said to be -accessible if there is a set of -presentable objects such that all the objects of are -directed colimits of objects from [1, Definition 2.1]. If this is the case, then the -presentable objects of are precisely all the retracts of the objects from . A -accessible category where all colimits exist is called locally -presentable [1, Definition 1.17].
-presentable objects are called finitely presentable [1, Definition 1.1], locally -presentable categories are called locally finitely presentable [1, Definition 1.9], and -accessible categories are called finitely accessible [1, Remark 2.2(1)].
We refer to [1, Theorem 2.11 and Definition 2.12] for the definition of the partial order on the class of all regular cardinals. For our purposes, it is only important that for every uncountable regular cardinal [1, Example 2.13(1)].
A set is said to be -small if it has less than elements. A category is said to be -small if it has less than morphisms. The -small colimits are the ones indexed by -small posets or categories.
Proposition 1.1.
Let be a pair of regular cardinals, and let be a -accessible category. Then is also a -accessible category. The -presentable objects of are precisely all the retracts of the -small -directed colimits of the -presentable objects of .
Proof.
Let be an associative ring. We are interested in the additive category of flat -modules , but we start with a discussion of the ambient abelian category of arbitrary -modules . The following lemma is well-known and standard.
Lemma 1.2.
For any ring , the abelian category is locally finitely presentable, and consequently, locally -presentable for every regular cardinal . The -presentable objects of are precisely all the -modules that can be represented as the cokernel of a morphism of free -modules with less than generators. ∎
We will use the terminology countably presentable for -presentable -modules. So an -module is said to be countably presentable if it can be represented as the cokernel of a morphism of free -modules with at most countable sets of generators.
Proposition 1.3.
For any ring , the additive ctategory is finitely accessible, and consequently, -accessible for every regular cardinal . The -presentable objects of are precisely all the flat -modules that are -presentable in .
Proof.
Obviously, the full subcategory is closed under directed colimits in . Hence any object of that is -presentable in is also -presentable in .
The Govorov–Lazard characterization of flat -modules [20, 25], [19, Corollary 2.22] tells that the flat -modules are precisely the directed colimits of finitely generated projective -modules. As finitely generated projective -modules are finitely presentable, it follows that the category is finitely accessible.
It remains to refer to Proposition 1.1, which describes the -presentable objects of as the direct summands of -small directed colimits of finitely generated projective -modules. Obviously, all such modules are -presentable in . ∎
Now we pass to complexes of flat -modules. Given an additive category , we denote by the category of cochain complexes in .
Proposition 1.4.
The category of complexes of flat -modules is -accessible. The -presentable objects of are precisely all the complexes of countably presentable flat -modules.
Lemma 1.5.
The category of short exact sequences of flat -modules is -accessible. The -presentable objects of are precisely all the short exact sequences of countably presentable flat -modules.
Proof.
It is instructive to notice that the kernel of any surjective morphism of countably presentable flat -modules is countably presentable [32, Lemma 4.1], [33, Corollary 10.12], [34, Corollary 4.7]. Hence, if two terms of a short exact sequence of flat -modules are countably presentable, then so is the third term.
Proposition 1.6.
The category of acyclic complexes of flat -modules with flat -modules of cocycles is -accessible. The -presentable objects of are precisely all the acyclic complexes of countably presentable flat -modules with flat modules of cocycles.
A complex of left -modules is said to be homotopy flat [44] if, for every acyclic complex of right -modules , the complex of abelian groups is acyclic. In this paper, we are interested in homotopy flat complexes of flat -modules; in the terminology of the paper [8], these are called semi-flat complexes. We denote the full subcategory of homotopy flat complexes of flat -modules by .
Proposition 1.7.
The category of homotopy flat complexes of flat -modules is finitely accessible, and consequently, -accessible for all regular cardinals . The finitely presentable objects of are precisely all the bounded complexes of finitely generated projective -modules. For any uncountable regular cardinal , the -presentable objects of are precisely all the homotopy flat complexes of -presentable flat -modules.
Proof.
It is easy to see that all bounded complexes of finitely presentable -modules are finitely presentable in . Since the full subcategory is closed under directed colimits in , all bounded complexes of finitely generated projective -modules are finitely presentable in .
Similarly, for any uncountable regular cardinal , all complexes of -presentable -modules are -presentable in . Consequently, all homotopy flat complexes of -presentable flat -modules are -presentable in .
2. Flat Quasi-Coherent Sheaves as Directed Colimits I
We start with a lemma showing that a “locally countably presentable quasi-coherent sheaf” is a well-defined notion.
Lemma 2.1.
Let be an affine scheme covered by a finite number of affine open subschemes. Let be an -module. Then
(a) the -module is finitely generated if and only if, for every index , the -module is finitely generated;
(b) the -module is finitely presentable if and only if, for every index , the -module is finitely presentable;
(c) the -module is countably generated if and only if, for every index , the -module is countably generated;
(d) the -module is countably presentable if and only if, for every index , the -module is countably presentable.
Proof.
All the claims follow from the observations that
-
•
the localization/tensor product functors are exact;
-
•
for any -module , any index , and any finitely generated -submodule , there exists a finitely generated -submodule such that ;
-
•
if, for a given -module , one has for all the indices , then ;
-
•
the kernel of a surjective morphism from a finitely generated module to a finitely presentable one is finitely generated; and similarly, the kernel of a surjective morphism from a countably generated module to a countably presentable one is countably generated.
We leave details to the reader. ∎
A quasi-coherent sheaf on a scheme is said to be locally finitely generated (respectively, locally finitely presentable, locally countably generated, or locally countably presentable) if, for every affine open subscheme , the -module is finitely generated (resp., finitely presentable, countably generated, or countably presentable). Lemma 2.1 tells that it suffices to check these properties for affine open subschemes belonging to any chosen affine open covering of a scheme .
The next lemma allows to glue quasi-coherent sheaves on a scheme from a covering by two open subschemes.
Lemma 2.2.
Let be a covering of a scheme by two open subschemes , . Then the category of quasi-coherent sheaves on is equivalent to the category formed by the following sets of data:
-
(1)
a quasi-coherent sheaf on and a quasi-coherent sheaf on are given;
-
(2)
an isomorphism between the two restrictions of quasi-coherent sheaves to an open susbcheme is given.
Here morphisms between the sets of data are defined in the obvious way.
Proof.
Standard and straightforward. ∎
Let be a scheme. A quasi-coherent sheaf is said to be flat if, for every affine open subscheme , the -module is flat. It suffices to check this condition for the affine open subschemes belonging to any fixed affine open covering of . If the scheme is quasi-separated, then a quasi-coherent sheaf on is flat if and only if the tensor product functor is exact (as a functor on the abelian category ).
We denote the abelian category of quasi-coherent sheaves on a scheme by and the full subcategory of flat quasi-coherent sheaves by .
Remark 2.3.
It is obvious that, for any scheme and any flat quasi-coherent sheaf , the tensor product functor is exact. Conversely, let be a quasi-coherent sheaf on for which the functor is exact on . Then, in order to deduce flatness of the -module for an affine open subscheme , one would need to be able to extend any quasi-coherent sheaf on with a quasi-coherent subsheaf to a quasi-coherent sheaf on with a quasi-coherent subsheaf .
This problem of prolongation of quasi-coherent sheaves is easily solvable for a quasi-compact open immersion morphism ; one can simply put and (see [21, Proposition I.6.9.2] or [23, Lemma Tag 01PE]). We do not know how to solve this problem otherwise. It would be even sufficient (for the purposes of characterizing flat quasi-coherent sheaves as above) to assume that ; then one can take . Still we do not know how to extend a quasi-coherent subsheaf to a quasi-coherent subsheaf (i. e., how to extend a quasi-coherent sheaf of ideals from an open subscheme) without assuming the open immersion morphism to be quasi-compact. Hence the assumption of quasi-separatedness of the scheme in the paragraph preceding this remark. (Cf. Lemma 4.3 and Corollary 4.4 below.) We are grateful to the anonymous referee for bringing this issue to our attention.
Let , , and be three categories, and let and be two functors. The pseudopullback of the two functors and is defined as the category of all triples , where and are objects, and is an isomorphism in . It is important for us that Lemma 2.2 represents the category of quasi-coherent sheaves on as a pseudopullback of the categories and over .
Given a category and a ordinal , by a -indexed chain (of objects and morphisms) in we mean a functor , where the directed set is viewed as a category in the usual way. So an -indexed chain is a directed diagram in . In the following proposition, a cardinal is considered as an ordinal.
Proposition 2.4.
Let be a regular cardinal, and be a smaller infinite cardinal. Let , , and be -accessible categories in which the colimits of all -indexed chains exist. Let and be two functors preserving -directed colimits and colimits of -indexed chains, and taking -presentable objects to -presentable objects. Then the pseudopullback of the pair of functors and is a -accessible category, and the -presentable objects of are precisely all the objects with and .
Proof.
Now we can prove a more restricted version of the main result of this paper.
Theorem 2.5.
Let be a quasi-compact quasi-separated scheme. Then the category of flat quasi-coherent sheaves is -accessible. The -presentable objects of are precisely all the locally countably presentable flat quasi-coherent sheaves on . Hence every flat quasi-coherent sheaf on is an -directed colimit of locally countably presentable flat quasi-coherent sheaves.
Proof.
The proof proceeds in two steps. On the first step, we assume that the scheme is semi-separated. Then we argue by induction on the number of affine open subschemes in an affine open covering of the scheme . The affine case holds by Proposition 1.3.
For , put and . Then is an open covering of the intersection by affine open subschemes. By the induction assumption, we know the assertion of the theorem to hold for all the three schemes , , and . By Lemma 2.2 (restricted to the full subcategories of flat quasi-coherent sheaves), the category is the pseudopullback of the pair of categories and over the category (with respect to the functors of restriction of quasi-coherent sheaves to open subschemes). It remains to apply Proposition 2.4 (for and ).
On the second step, we consider an arbitrary quasi-compact quasi-separated scheme . Once again, we argue by induction on the number of affine open subschemes in an affine open covering , and put and . Then is a quasi-compact, semi-separated scheme (as it is an open subscheme in an affine scheme ). By the induction assumption and by the first step of this proof, we know the assertion of the theorem to hold for all the three schemes , , and . Once again, it remains to apply Proposition 2.4 (for and ) together with Lemma 2.2 (restricted to the categories of flat quasi-coherent sheaves). ∎
3. Flat Quasi-Coherent Sheaves as Directed Colimits II
The following lemma spells out the gluing of quasi-coherent sheaves from an affine open covering of an arbitrary scheme. Let be a scheme and be its affine open covering, indexed by a set of indices . The rule if defines a partial (pre)order on . Introduce the notation for the ring of functions on the affine scheme , .
Lemma 3.1.
Let be a scheme with a chosen affine open covering as per the notation above. Assume that for all , we have . Then the category of quasi-coherent sheaves on is equivalent to the category formed by the following sets of data:
-
(1)
for every , an -module is given; and
-
(2)
for every , an isomorphism of -modules (“gluing datum”)
is given
satisfying the following equations:
-
(3)
for all , the triangular diagram of isomorphisms of -modules
is commutative.
Proof.
The rule defines a functor from to the category of sets of data (1–3). It is clear that this functor is fully faithful. To recover a quasi-coherent sheaf on from a set of data (1–3), notice that it suffices to define a quasi-coherent sheaf on on affine open subschemes subordinate to any given covering , that is, for which there exists with [21, Section 0.3.2] (cf. [13, Section 2]). If this is the case, put .
Given an affine open subscheme and an index with , an isomorphism of -modules
can be constructed using the inclusion and the full-and-faithfulness assertion above applied to the affine open covering of the scheme . The point is that, denoting by the quasi-coherent sheaf on corresponding to the -module and by the quasi-coherent sheaf on corresponding to the -module , the quasi-coherent sheaves and on the scheme are naturally isomorphic, because so are the related sets of data indexed by with , . ∎
The following category-theoretic result is easy, but one has to be careful.
Lemma 3.2.
Let be a regular cardinal and be a family of -accessible categories, indexed by a set of the cardinality smaller than . Then the Cartesian product of the categories is also a -accessible category, and the -presentable objects of are precisely all the collections of objects with for every .
Proof.
Let and be two categories, and let and be a pair of parallel functors. The isomorpher [33, Remark 5.2] of the two functors and is defined as the category of all pairs , where is an object and is an isomorphism in .
Proposition 3.3.
Let be a regular cardinal, and be a smaller infinite cardinal. Let and be -accessible categories in which the colimits of all -indexed chains exist. Let and be two functors preserving -directed colimits and colimits of -indexed chains, and taking -presentable objects to -presentable objects. Then the isomorpher of the pair of functors and is a -accessible category, and the -presentable objects of are precisely all the objects with .
Let and be two categories, let , be a pair of parallel functors, and let , be a pair of parallel natural transformations. The equifier [1, Lemma 2.76] of the pair of natural transformations and is the full subcategory consisting of all the objects for which the two morphisms and in are equal to each other, that is .
Proposition 3.4.
Let be a regular cardinal, and be a smaller infinite cardinal. Let and be -accessible categories in which the colimits of all -indexed chains exist. Let and be two functors preserving -directed colimits and colimits of -indexed chains; assume further that the functor takes -presentable objects to -presentable objects. Let and be two natural transformations. Then the equifier of the pair of natural transformations and is a -accessible category, and the -presentable objects of are precisely all the objects of that are -presentable in .
Proof.
Let be a scheme. We will say that is countably quasi-compact if every open covering of contains an at most countable subcovering. Equivalently, a scheme is countably quasi-compact if and only if it can be covered by (at most) countably many affine open subschemes.
Let be a morphism of schemes. We will say that the morphism is countably quasi-compact if, for every countably quasi-compact open subscheme , the preimage is a countably quasi-compact scheme. Equivalently, is countably quasi-compact if and only if, for every affine open subscheme , the scheme is countably quasi-compact. It suffices to check this condition for open subschemes belonging to any fixed affine open covering of .
We will say that a scheme is countably quasi-separated if the diagonal morphism to the Cartesian product is countably quasi-compact. Equivalently, is countably quasi-separated if and only if the intersection of any two countably quasi-compact open subschemes in is countably quasi-compact, and if and only if the intersection of any two affine open subschemes in is countably quasi-compact.
The following theorem is the full version of the main result of this paper.
Theorem 3.5.
Let be a countably quasi-compact, countably quasi-separated scheme. Then the category of flat quasi-coherent sheaves is -accessible. The -presentable objects of are precisely all the locally countably presentable flat quasi-coherent sheaves on . So every flat quasi-coherent sheaf on is an -directed colimit of locally countably presentable flat quasi-coherent sheaves.
Proof.
An easy inductive argument produces a countable affine open covering of the scheme such that for all , . Then Lemma 3.1 is applicable. We are interested in flat quasi-coherent sheaves; so we will consider sets of data as in the lemma with flat -modules .
Let us first deal with the category of sets of data (1–2), disregarding condition (3). Consider the categories and . Proposition 1.3 together with Lemma 3.2 (for ) tell us that both the categories and are -accessible, and describe their full subcategories of -presentable objects.
Consider the following pair of parallel functors , . To a collection of flat modules , the functor assigns the collection of flat modules with . To the same collection of flat modules , the functor assigns the collection of flat modules with .
Then the isomorpher of the pair of functors and is the desired category of sets of data (1–2). Proposition 3.3 (for and ) tells us that the category is -accessible, and provides a description of its full subcategory of -presentable objects.
In order to impose condition (3), we need to apply the construction of the equifier. Put and . Proposition 1.3 together with Lemma 3.2 (for ) tell us that the category is -accessible, and describe its full subcategory of -presentable objects.
Consider the following pair of parallel functors , . To a set of data the functor assigns the collection of flat modules with . To the same set of data , the functor assigns the collection of flat modules with .
Furthermore, consider the following pair of parallel natural transformations , . To a set of data , the natural transformation assigns the collection of morphisms of flat modules . To the same set of data , the natural transformation assigns the collection of compositions of morphisms of flat modules
Then the equifier of the pair of natural transformations and is the category of sets of data (1–2) satisfying condition (3), i. e., . Proposition 3.4 (for and ) tells us that the category is -accessible, and provides the desired description of its full subcategory of -presentable objects. ∎
Remark 3.6.
Let be a regular cardinal. Similarly to the definitions above, one defines -quasi-compact and -quasi-separated schemes (so that these properties for reduce to the usual quasi-compactness and quasi-separatedness, while gives the countable versions). Theorem 3.5 generalizes to the claims that, for an uncountable regular cardinal and a -quasi-compact, -quasi-separated scheme , the category is -accessible, and its -presentable objects are precisely all the locally -presentable flat quasi-coherent sheaves.
Furthermore, one can consider the abelian category instead of the additive category . Then it is long known that, for a quasi-compact quasi-separated scheme , the category is locally finitely presentable, and its finitely presentable objects are precisely all the locally finitely presentable quasi-coherent sheaves [21, 0.5.2.5 and Corollaire I.6.9.12], [23, Definition Tag 01BN and Lemma Tag 01PJ or 01PK]. For an uncountable regular cardinal , the result of Gabber [23, Lemma Tag 077N] essentially tells that, on a -quasi-compact, -quasi-separated scheme , any quasi-coherent sheaf is a -directed union of its locally -generated quasi-coherent subsheaves. This can be restated by saying that the category is “locally -generated” in the sense that it safisfies the assumptions of [1, Local Generation Theorem 1.70] for the cardinal .
Gabber’s theorem can be strengthened using the techniques of the proof of Theorem 3.5 above. In fact, for any regular cardinal and any -quasi-compact, -quasi-separated scheme , the abelian category is localy -presentable. All colimits exist in , so it suffices to show that is -accessible. The case of is due to Grothendieck and covered by the references to [21] and [23] above. In the case when is uncountable, one argues as in the proof of Theorem 3.5, replacing the reference to Proposition 1.3 by Lemma 1.2 and all mentions of the categories of flat modules by the categories of all modules . Otherwise, the argument is the same. (Cf. [32, Remarks 3.2 and 3.4].)
4. Complexes of Flat Quasi-Coherent Sheaves as Directed Colimits
In this section we prove three theorems about complexes of quasi-coherent sheaves, based on the respective module versions provided by Propositions 1.4, 1.6, and 1.7.
Theorem 4.1.
Let be a countably quasi-compact, countably quasi-separated scheme. Then the category of complexes of flat quasi-coherent sheaves is -accessible. The -presentable objects of are precisely all the complexes of locally countably presentable flat quasi-coherent sheaves on . Hence every complex of flat quasi-coherent sheaves on is an -directed colimit of complexes of locally countably presentable flat quasi-coherent sheaves.
Proof.
Theorem 4.2.
Let be a countably quasi-compact, countably quasi-separated scheme. Then the category of acyclic complexes of flat quasi-coherent sheaves on with flat sheaves of cocycles is -accessible. The -presentable objects of are precisely all the acyclic complexes of locally countably presentable flat quasi-coherent sheaves on with flat sheaves of cocycles. So every acyclic complex of flat quasi-coherent sheaves on with flat sheaves of cocycles is an -directed colimit of acyclic complexes of locally countably presentable flat quasi-coherent sheaves with flat sheaves of cocycles.
Proof.
The proof is similar to that of Theorem 3.5 and based on Proposition 1.6 (instead of Proposition 1.3). In the case of a quasi-compact quasi-separated scheme , an argument similar to the proof of Theorem 2.5 is also possible.
For both versions of the argument, one needs to make the obvious observation that a complex of flat quasi-coherent sheaves on has flat sheaves of cocycles if and only if, for every affine open subscheme , the complex of flat -modules has flat -modules of cocycles. Moreover, it suffices to check this condition for affine open subschemes belonging to any given affine open covering of the scheme . So being a complex of flat quasi-coherent sheaves with flat sheaves of cocycles is a local property. ∎
In order to obtain the quasi-coherent sheaf version of the Christensen–Holm theorem [8, Theorem 1.1], based on Proposition 1.7, we will need a preparatory lemma. The resulting theorem will require stronger assumptions on the scheme than the previous theorems, because of the assumption in part (b) of the lemma.
But first of all, let us give the definition. A complex of flat quasi-coherent sheaves on a scheme is said to be homotopy flat if, for every acyclic complex of quasi-coherent sheaves on , the complex of quasi-coherent sheaves on is also acyclic.
Lemma 4.3.
(a) If is complex of quasi-coherent sheaves on a scheme and is an open covering of , and if the quasi-coherent sheaves are homotopy flat on for all , then the quasi-coherent sheaf on is homotopy flat.
(b) If is a homotopy flat complex of quasi-coherent sheaves on a scheme and is an open subscheme such that the open immersion is an affine morphism, then is a homotopy flat complex of flat quasi-coherent sheaves on .
Proof.
Part (a) is easy. Let be an acyclic complex of quasi-coherent sheaves on . Then is an acyclic complex of quasi-coherent sheaves on for every . By assumption, it follows that the complex of quasi-coherent sheaves is acyclic on . Since and acyclicity of a complex of quasi-coherent sheaves is a local property, we can conclude that the complex of quasi-coherent sheaves is acyclic on .
Part (b): let be an acyclic complex of quasi-coherent sheaves on . Since the direct image functor is exact, the complex of quasi-coherent sheaves on is acyclic as well. By assumption, it follows that the complex of quasi-coherent sheaves is acyclic on . Hence the complex of quasi-coherent sheaves is acyclic on . ∎
Corollary 4.4.
Let be a semi-separated scheme and be its affine open covering. Then a complex of quasi-coherent sheaves on is homotopy flat if and only if, for every , the complex of -modules is homotopy flat.
Proof.
Theorem 4.5.
Let be a countably quasi-compact, semi-separated scheme. Then the category of homotopy flat complexes of flat quasi-coherent sheaves on is -accessible. The -presentable objects of are precisely all the homotopy flat complexes of locally countably presentable flat quasi-coherent sheaves on . So every homotopy flat complex of flat quasi-coherent sheaves on is an -directed colimit of homotopy flat complexes of locally countably presentable flat quasi-coherent sheaves.
Proof.
5. Quasi-Coherent Sheaves of Finite Projective Dimension
Much of the rest of this paper is written in the setting of exact categories (in Quillen’s sense). We refer to the overview [5] for background material on exact categories.
Let be an exact category, be an object, be an integer. One says that the projective dimension of in does not exceed and writes if for all objects and integers . Here denotes the Yoneda Ext groups in the exact category .
For a scheme , we denote by the Yoneda Ext groups in the abelian category . Given a quasi-coherent sheaf on a scheme , we denote by the projective dimension of the object . Notice that the definition of the projective dimension in the previous paragraph does not require any projective resolutions in (which usually do not exist).
The following Ext-adjunction lemma is standard.
Lemma 5.1.
Let and be exact categories, be a functor, and be a functor right adjoint to . Assume that both the functors and are exact. Then for any two objects and , and every integer , there is a natural isomorphism of the Ext groups
Proof.
One simple approach consists in establishing a more general result, viz., that an adjunction of exact functors and leads to an adjunction of the induced triangulated functors between the (bounded or unbounded) derived categories and . For this purpose, one constructs the adjunction morphisms for the pair of triangulated functors and and checks the required equations on the compositions. ∎
The adjoint pairs of exact functors we are interested in in this section are the inverse and direct images for affine open immersions of affine open subschemes. Given a semi-separated scheme and an affine open subscheme with the identity open immersion denoted by , we have an exact functor of direct image and an exact functor of inverse image . The latter functor is left adjoint to the former one.
The following well-known lemma provides Čech coresolutions in the categories of quasi-coherent sheaves on a quasi-compact semi-separated scheme.
Lemma 5.2.
Let be a finite afffine open covering of a quasi-compact semi-separated scheme . For any sequence of indices , denote by the identity open immersion of the corresponding (affine) intersection of the affine open subschemes . Then, for any quasi-coherent sheaf on , there is a natural -term exact sequence of quasi-coherent sheaves on
(1) |
Proof.
This is standard; see [22, Lemma III.4.2]. ∎
The following theorem is the main result of this section.
Theorem 5.3.
Let be a finite affine open covering of a quasi-compact semi-separated scheme , and let be a quasi-coherent sheaf on . Then the projective dimension of on is finite if and only if the projective dimension of on is finite for every . More precisely:
(a) if , then for any affine open subscheme with the identity open immersion morphism ;
(b) if for all , then .
Proof.
Part (a) follows from the isomorphisms provided by Lemma 5.1 for all quasi-coherent sheaves on and integers .
To prove part (b), consider the Čech coresolution (1) of a quasi-coherent sheaf on and use it to describe the groups . By part (a), the projective dimension of the quasi-coherent sheaf on , where , does not exceed that of . The isomorphism provided by Lemma 5.1 then tells us that
which vanishes for . Using the exactness of (1), a straightforward induction shows that whenever . ∎
Remark 5.4.
One can notice that the proof of Theorem 5.3(a) does not need the open subscheme to be affine. Rather, it is the open immersion morphism that has to be affine for the argument to work (cf. the assumptions of Lemma 4.3(b)). On the other hand, for nonaffine open immersion morphisms , the assertion of Theorem 5.3(a) is certainly not true. For a counterexample, it suffices to take to be the affine plane over a field , and to be the complement to a closed point, , where . Then the structure sheaf is a projective object in the category ; indeed, corresponds to the free -module with one generator under the equivalence of with the module category . But the object is not projective in ; in fact, .
Lemma 5.5.
Any countably presentable flat module over an associative ring can be presented as a countable directed colimit of finitely generated projective -modules. Consequently, the projective dimension of any countably presentable flat module does not exceed .
Proof.
This is [19, Corollary 2.23]. ∎
Corollary 5.6.
Let be a finite affine open covering of a quasi-compact semi-separated scheme . Then the projective dimension of any locally countably presentable flat quasi-coherent sheaf on does not exceed . Therefore, any flat quasi-coherent sheaf on is an -directed colimit of flat quasi-coherent sheaves of projective dimension .
Proof.
Remark 5.7.
By [26, Section 2.4] or [12, Lemma A.1], every quasi-coherent sheaf on a quasi-compact semi-separated scheme is a quotient sheaf of a flat quasi-coherent sheaf . The stronger result of [30, Lemma 4.1.1] tells that one can choose to be a very flat quasi-coherent sheaf; then, for any affine open subscheme , the -module is flat of projective dimension at most .
Theorem 2.5 together with Lemma 5.5 allow us to arrive to the same conclusion in a different way. Let be a quasi-coherent sheaf on . By [26, Section 2.4] or [12, Lemma A.1], is a quotient sheaf of a flat quasi-coherent sheaf . By Theorem 2.5, is a directed colimit of some locally countably presentable flat quasi-coherent sheaves . By Lemma 5.5, the -module is flat of projective dimension at most for any affine open subscheme and every . It remains to observe that , and consequently also , is a quotient sheaf of the quasi-coherent sheaf whose module of sections over any affine open subscheme also has projective dimension at most .
6. Preliminaries on Ext-Orthogonal Classes
Let be an exact category. We are interested in -orthogonal and -orthogonal pairs of classes of objects in . The classical theory of such Ext-orthogonal classes involves the concepts of a cotorsion pair and particularly a complete cotorsion pair. These notions include conditions that are not relevant for the purposes of the present paper, so we discuss a more general setting.
Let and be two classes of objects. The notation stands for the class of all objects such that for all . Dually, is the class of all objects such that for all .
Furthermore, denotes the class of all objects such that for all and . Dually, is the class of all objects such that for all and .
A class of objects is said to be generating if every object of is an admissible quotient object of (i. e., the codomain of an admissible epimorphism acting from) an object from . Dually, a class of objects is said to be cogenerating if every object of is an admissible subobject of (i. e., the domain of an admissible monomorphism acting into) an object from .
More generally, a class of objects is said to be self-generating if for any admissible epimorphism in with there exists a morphism in with such that the composition is an admissible epimorphism in . A class of objects is said to be self-cogenerating if for any admissible monomorphism in with there exists a morphism in with such that the composition is a admissible monomorphism in . Clearly, any generating class is self-generating, and any cogenerating class is self-cogenerating.
Lemma 6.1.
Let be an exact category and be a self-generating class of objects closed under the kernels of admissible epimorphisms. Then .
Dually, if is a self-cogenerating class of objects closed under the cokernels of admissible monomorphisms, then .
Proof.
Let be a class of objects. An object is said to be -periodic if there exists an admissible short exact sequence in with . The following two lemmas are essentially due to Bazzoni, Cortés-Izurdiaga, and Estrada [2].
Lemma 6.2.
Let be an exact category and , be a pair of classes of objects such that for all , , and . Let be a -periodic object. Then there is an isomorphism of abelian groups for all and .
Proof.
See [2, Lemma 4.1]. ∎
Let be a full subcategory closed under extensions in an exact category . Then the class of all short exact sequences in with the terms belonging to defines an exact category structure on (called the exact category structure inherited from the exact category structure of ). We will speak about admissible monomorphisms, admissible epimorphisms, and admissible short exact sequences in presuming the inherited exact category structure on .
Lemma 6.3.
Let be an exact category and , be a pair of classes of objects such that for all , , and . Assume that the class is closed under extensions in , and let be a -periodic object. Then the class of objects is closed under the kernels of admissible epimorphisms, the cokernels of admissible monomorphisms, and extensions in the exact category .
Proof.
The argument from [2, Lemma 4.4] applies. ∎
Another consequence of Lemma 6.2 is the following interaction of -periodic objects with objects of finite projective dimension.
Lemma 6.4.
Let be an exact category and , be a pair of classes of objects such that for all , , and . Let be a -periodic object and be an object having finite projective dimension in . Then for all . In particular, the class of objects contains all objects of having finite projective dimension in .
Proof.
Follows immediately from Lemma 6.2. ∎
The next definition appeared already in Section 2. By a well-ordered chain (of objects and morphisms) in a category one means a directed diagram indexed by an ordinal . For convenience, we put (assuming that the directed colimit exists). A well-ordered chain is said to be smooth if for all limit ordinals .
A smooth well-ordered chain in is said to be a filtration (of the object ) if and the morphisms are admissible monomorphisms in for all ordinals . In this case, the object is said to be filtered by the cokernels of the morphisms , . In an alternative terminology, the object is said to be a transfinitely iterated extension of the objects , , in this case.
Notice that we make no assumptions of exactness of directed colimits in (or even existence of any other directed colimits than those appearing in a particular smooth chain). Given a class of objects , the class of all objects filtered by objects from is denoted by .
The following result is known classically as the Eklof lemma [19, Lemma 6.2].
Lemma 6.5.
For any exact category and any class of objects , the class is closed under transfinitely iterated extensions in . In other words, .
Proof.
The argument from [36, Lemma 4.5] is applicable. The generalization from abelian categories (considered in [36]) to exact categories is straightforward.
Alternatively, the (somewhat more complicated) argument from [47, Proposition 2.10] (based on [47, Lemma A.3]) is applicable as well. Let us point out that the definition of a filtration in [47, Definition 2.9] is more restrictive than our definition above, in that (in the notation above) all the morphisms , are assumed to be admissible monomorphisms in [47]. For counterexamples showing that the two definitions are indeed different, see [36, Examples 4.4]. Still, the argument from [47] works under our more relaxed assumptions as well. ∎
7. Exact Categories with Exact Directed Colimits
The aim of this section is work out a common generalization of [38, Proposition 7.16] and the arguments in [2, Lemma 4.6 and Theorem 4.7]. Essentially, we replace an abelian category in the setting of [38, Section 7.5] by an exact one. In our intended application in the next Sections 8–9, will be a self-resolving subcategory (typically, the left class of a hereditary cotorsion pair) closed under directed colimits in an abelian/exact category . Thereby, we obtain a version of the arguments in [2, Section 4] not using any purity considerations (but only flatness).
Let be an exact category in which all (set-indexed) directed colimits exist. We will say that has exact directed colimits if any directed colimit of admissible short exact sequences is an admissible short exact sequence in . In this case, all set-indexed coproducts also exist in , and admissible short exact sequences are preserved by coproducts. Notice also that any additive category with countable directed colimits is idempotent-complete.
The following proposition is formulated and proved in a form making the similarity with both [38, Proposition 7.16] and [2, proofs of Lemma 4.6 and Theorem 4.7] apparent.
Proposition 7.1.
Let be an exact category with exact directed colimits, and let be a class of objects closed under the cokernels of admissible monomorphisms and extensions in . Then the following conditions are equivalent:
-
(1)
is closed under transfinitely iterated extensions in ;
-
(2)
is closed under the directed colimits of smooth well-ordered chains of admissible monomorphisms in ;
-
(3)
is closed under the directed colimits of well-ordered chains of admissible monomorphisms in ;
-
(4)
is closed under the directed colimits of well-ordered chains in ;
-
(5)
is closed under directed colimits in .
Proof.
The implications (5) (4) (3) (2) are obvious. The equivalence (1) (2) is easy (see the proof in [38] for a discussion).
(2) (3) Let be a well-ordered chain of admissible monomorphisms in with the objects for all . We have to prove that . If is a successor ordinal, then there is nothing to prove. Otherwise, let us construct a smooth well-ordered chain in in the following way:
-
•
if , then ;
-
•
if , is a successor ordinal, then ;
-
•
if is a limit ordinal, then .
The transition morphisms for are constructed in the obvious way. It is clear that is a smooth chain in and (as usual, we denote this directed colimit by ).
The morphisms are admissible monomorphisms in for all , because directed colimits of admissible monomorphisms are admissible monomorphisms in by assumption. To show that for all , one proceeds by transfinite induction on . The cases of or a successor ordinal are obvious, while the case of a limit ordinal is covered by the condition (2) (as the objects form a smooth chain of admissible monomorphisms). Finally, the last application of (2) shows that , as desired.
(3) (4) Let be a limit ordinal and be a well-ordered chain of morphisms in with the objects for all . For every successor ordinal , we have . The canonical presentation of this directed colimit is a split short exact sequence
(2) |
Here the components of the split epimorphism are the transition morphisms , . One can easily see that the morphism is naturally isomorphic to the direct summand projection , so the kernel of is naturally identified with .
As the ordinal varies, the short exact sequences (2) form a directed diagram whose directed colimit is the canonical presentation
(3) |
of the directed colimit . The sequence (3) is exact in as the directed colimit of short exact sequences (2). So we have .
The class is closed under finite direct sums by assumption; hence it is clear from the condition (3) that it is closed under set-indexed coproducts. Therefore, we have for all . Furthermore, the transition morphisms in the directed diagram are split monomorphisms (because is a direct summand in and the transition morphism is the subcoproduct injection, i. e., the standard split monomorphism).
Thus the property (3) can be applied to the effect that . Finally, we conclude that , since the class is closed under the cokernels of admissible monomorphisms in by assumption.
(4) (5) is a general property of directed colimits; see [1, Sections 1.5–1.7]. ∎
8. Cotorsion Periodicity in Category-Theoretic Context
Let be an exact category. Following [31, Section 7.1], a full subcategory is said to be self-resolving if it is self-generating (as defined in Section 6), closed under extensions, and closed under the kernels of admissible epimorphisms.
In particular, is said to be resolving [46, Section 2] if it is generating and closed under extensions and the kernels of admissible epimorphisms. Clearly, any resolving full subcategory is self-resolving.
The following generalization of [2, Theorem 4.7] is our main category-theoretic cotorsion periodicity theorem.
Theorem 8.1.
Let be an exact category and be a self-resolving subcategory. Assume that (with its inherited exact category structure) is an exact category with exact directed colimits, and the inclusion functor preserves directed colimits. Put (as per Lemma 6.1), and let be a -periodic object. Then the class of objects is closed in under
-
•
extensions,
-
•
the cokernels of admissible monomorphisms,
-
•
the kernels of admissible epimorphisms and
-
•
directed colimits.
Proof.
Put . Then, by Lemma 6.3, the class of objects is closed under extensions, the cokernels of admissible monomorphisms, and the kernels of admissible epimorphisms in . By Lemma 6.5, the class is also closed under transfinitely iterated extensions in (notice that all directed colimits, and consequently all transfinitely iterated extensions in remain such in by assumption). Applying Proposition 7.1, we conclude that the class is closed under directed colimits in . ∎
The following corollary shows how Theorem 8.1 can be applied.
Corollary 8.2.
Let be an exact category and be a self-resolving subcategory. Assume that (with its inherited exact category structure) is an exact category with exact directed colimits, and the inclusion functor preserves directed colimits. Assume further that the smallest subcategory such that
-
•
contains all the objects of that have finite projective dimension in ,
-
•
is closed under directed colimits in ,
-
•
is closed under extensions in ,
-
•
is closed under the cokernels of admissible monomorphisms in and
-
•
is closed under the kernels of admissible epimorphisms in
coincides with itself. Put . Then any -periodic object in belongs to .
Proof.
Let be a -periodic object in and put . Let denote the intersection of with the full subcategory of all objects of finite projective dimension in . By Lemma 6.4, we have . By Theorem 8.1, the class is closed under extensions, directed colimits, the cokernels of admissible monomorphisms, and the kernels of admissible epimorphisms in . By assumption , and so . ∎
In the rest of this section, we discuss a category-theoretic version of a standard technique [8, proof of Proposition 7.6], [14, Propositions 1 and 2] allowing to apply periodicity theorems to the study of the objects of cocycles in acyclic complexes. The point is that we consider classes closed under infinite products without assuming the infinite products to be exact in our exact category. This makes the argument more complicated with additional assumptions required.
Lemma 8.3.
Let be a family of admissible short exact sequences in an exact category . Assume that the products , , exist in . Assume further that there exists an admissible epimorphism , where is an object such that for all indices . Then
is an admissible short exact sequence in .
Proof.
It is clear that , as products commute with kernels in any category. Therefore, it suffices to prove that is an admissible epimorphism in . For this purpose, we show that the admissible epimorphism factorizes through ; then the “obscure axiom” (the dual version of [5, Proposition 2.16]) applies.
Indeed, in order to show that the morphism factorizes through the morphism , it suffices to check that the composition factorizes through the admissible epimorphism for every index . The latter follows from the assumption that . ∎
The following proposition is our category-theoretic version of [14, Proposition 2] not assuming exactness of countable products.
Proposition 8.4.
Let be an idempotent-complete exact category with (possibly nonexact) countable products, and let be a full subcategory closed under direct summands and countable products. Assume that every object of is an admissible quotient of an object of finite projective dimension in belonging to . Then the following conditions are equivalent:
-
(1)
all -periodic objects of belong to ;
-
(2)
in any (unbounded) acyclic complex in with the terms in , the objects of cocycles belong to .
Proof.
(2) (1) Given a -periodic object , produce an unbounded acyclic complex in with the terms in by splicing copies of the short exact sequence , infinitely in both directions. Then by condition (2).
(1) (2) This is the nontrivial implication requiring our additional assumption. Basically, the argument consists in chopping up a given acyclic complex into admissible short exact sequences and taking the product of the resulting pieces.
Indeed, by definition, any acyclic complex in is produced by splicing admissible short exact sequences , . In the situation at hand, we have and , and need to show that . Taking the product of these short exact sequences over , we obtain a sequence
(4) |
In order to show that (4) is admissible exact, we apply Lemma 8.3. By assumption, there exists an object of finite projective dimension, belonging to , and an admissible epimorphism in . It remains to check that for all . This is a version of Lemma 6.4, provable by a similar dimension shifting: one constructs isomorphisms and uses the finiteness of projective dimension of .
Now we have , since is closed under countable products in . By (1), we can conclude that . Since is closed under direct summands in , it follows that for every . ∎
9. Cotorsion Periodicity for Quasi-Coherent Sheaves
Having Corollaries 5.6 and 8.2 at our disposal, the proof of cotorsion periodicity for quasi-coherent sheaves on quasi-compact semi-separated schemes is now straightforward. Let us spell it out.
Let be a quasi-compact semi-separated scheme. A quasi-coherent sheaf on is called cotorsion if for all flat quasi-coherent sheaves on . We denote the class of all flat quasi-coherent sheaves by and the class of all cotorsion quasi-coherent sheaves by .
Lemma 9.1.
Let be a quasi-compact semi-separated scheme. Then the class of all flat quasi-coherent sheaves is resolving and closed under directed colimits in . Consequently, one has for all flat quasi-coherent sheaves , all cotorsion quasi-coherent sheaves , and all integers .
Proof.
In fact, the pair of classes , is a hereditary complete cotorsion pair in ; but we do not even need the definitions of these terms. The class is generating in by [26, Section 2.4] or [12, Lemma A.1]. The fact that this class is closed under extensions, kernels of epimorphisms, and directed colimits follows from the local nature of the definition of a flat quasi-coherent sheaf and the similar properties of the class of flat modules over a ring. This proves the first assertion of the lemma; the second one is then provided by Lemma 6.1. ∎
The following cotorsion periodicity theorem is the quasi-coherent sheaf version of the cotorsion periodicity theorem for modules over associative rings [2, Theorem 1.2(2), Proposition 4.8(2), or Theorem 5.1(2)].
Theorem 9.2.
Let be a quasi-compact semi-separated scheme. Then any cotorsion-periodic quasi-coherent sheaf on is cotorsion.
Proof.
Remark 9.3.
Notice that the proof of Theorem 9.2 above does not use the extension, kernel, and cokernel clauses of Corollary 8.2, but only the directed colimit clause. An alternative approach to proving the quasi-coherent cotorsion periodicity, using the kernel closure and the Čech coresolution, was previously suggested in the paper [7, Theorem 3.3]. Let us point out that [7, first paragraph of the proof of Lemma 3.2] is erroneous, but the assertion of [7, Lemma 3.2] is valid despite of the mistake, which was subsequently corrected in [15, Theorem 6.3(2)]; see also [15, Remark 6.7].
The argument in [7] works directly with acyclic complexes with cotorsion components, but one can adapt the idea to our setting as follows. The Čech coresolution (1) from Lemma 5.2 shows that any flat quasi-coherent sheaf on can be obtained from the direct images of flat quasi-coherent sheaves with respect to open immersions of affine open subschemes using the operations of finite direct sum and kernel of admissible epimorphism in . One observes that, for any flat quasi-coherent sheaf on , the direct image is easily constructed as a directed colimit of flat quasi-coherent sheaves of finite projective dimension on (using the Govorov–Lazard theorem for -modules and Theorem 5.3). So our Corollary 8.2, with its directed colimit and kernel clauses, is applicable.
Corollary 9.4.
Let be a quasi-compact semi-separated scheme and be an acyclic complex in whose terms are cotorsion quasi-coherent sheaves. Then the sheaves of cocycles of the complex are also cotorsion.
Proof.
We apply Proposition 8.4 for and . By Theorem 9.2, condition (1) of the proposition is satisfied; we want to deduce condition (2). It remains to check the assumptions of the proposition.
For any scheme , the category is Grothendieck, so it has infinite products. The full subcategory of cotorsion sheaves is closed under infinite products in by [10, Corollary A.2] or the dual version of [9, Corollary 8.3]; it is also obviously closed under direct summands. Finally, any quasi-coherent sheaf on is a quotient sheaf of a flat quasi-coherent sheaf locally of projective dimension by Remark 5.7. Such quasi-coherent sheaves have finite projective dimension in by Theorem 5.3. One has by Lemma 9.1. ∎
To end, let us formulate our intended application of Theorem 9.2, viz., a description of the derived category of quasi-coherent sheaves in terms of cotorsion quasi-coherent sheaves.
Given an additive category , we denote by the homotopy category of (unbounded) complexes in . Given an exact category , we denote by the (unbounded) derived category of . So is the triangulated Verdier quotient category , where is the triangulated subcategory of acyclic complexes.
Lemma 9.5.
Let be an idempotent-complete exact category and be a full additive subcategory. Assume that for any complex in there exists a complex in together with a morphism of complexes which is a quasi-isomorphism of complexes in . Then the inclusion of additive categories induces a triangulated equivalence of Verdier quotient categories
Proof.
Proposition 9.6.
Let be a Grothendieck abelian category and be a full additive subcategory containing all the injective objects of . Then the inclusion of additive categories induces a triangulated equivalence of Verdier quotient categories
Proof.
The point is that the assumption of Lemma 9.5 can be satisfied by choosing to be a suitable complex of injective objects in . There are even several ways to do it: e. g., one can choose to be a homotopy injective complex of injective objects, as there are enough such complexes in any Grothendieck category [42, Theorem 3.13 and Lemma 3.7(ii)], [18, Corollary 7.1], [37, Corollary 8.5]. Alternatively, choosing as an arbitrary complex of injectives, one can make the cone of the morphism not just an acyclic, but a coacyclic complex in the sense of Becker, which is a stronger property [37, Corollary 9.5]. ∎
For specific examples of categories and , there are likely many further alternative options of choosing a quasi-isomorphism appearing in the proof of Proposition 9.6. For example, in the case and considered in the corollary below, one can choose as an arbitrary complex of cotorsion sheaves and make a termwise monomorphism whose cokernel is an acyclic complex of flat sheaves with flat sheaves of cocycles. This is a quasi-coherent version of [2, Theorem 5.3] based on Corollary 9.4 above.
Corollary 9.7.
Let be a quasi-compact semi-separated scheme. Then the inclusion of exact/abelian categories induces an equivalence of their unbounded derived categories,
References
- [1] J. Adámek, J. Rosický. Locally presentable and accessible categories. London Math. Society Lecture Note Series 189, Cambridge University Press, 1994.
- [2] S. Bazzoni, M. Cortés-Izurdiaga, S. Estrada. Periodic modules and acyclic complexes. Algebras and Represent. Theory 23, #5, p. 1861–1883, 2020. arXiv:1704.06672 [math.RA]
- [3] S. Bazzoni, M. Hrbek, L. Positselski. Fp-projective periodicity. Journ. of Pure and Appl. Algebra 228, #3, article ID 107497, 24 pp., 2024. arXiv:2212.02300 [math.CT]
- [4] D. J. Benson, K. R. Goodearl. Periodic flat modules, and flat modules for finite groups. Pacific Journ. of Math. 196, #1, p. 45–67, 2000.
- [5] T. Bühler. Exact categories. Expositiones Math. 28, #1, p. 1–69, 2010. arXiv:0811.1480 [math.HO]
- [6] B. Chorny, J. Rosický. Class-locally presentable and class-accessible categories. Journ. of Pure and Appl. Algebra 216, #10, p. 2113–2125, 2012. arXiv:1110.0605 [math.CT]
- [7] L. W. Christensen, S. Estrada, P. Thompson. The stable category of Gorenstein flat sheaves on a noetherian scheme. Proc. of the Amer. Math. Soc. 149, #2, p. 525–538, 2021. arXiv:1904.07661 [math.AC]
- [8] L. W. Christensen, H. Holm. The direct limit closure of perfect complexes. Journ. of Pure and Appl. Algebra 219, #3, p. 449–463, 2015. arXiv:1301.0731 [math.RA]
- [9] R. Colpi, K. R. Fuller. Tilting objects in abelian categories and quasitilted rings. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 359, #2, p. 741–765, 2007.
- [10] P. Čoupek, J. Šťovíček. Cotilting sheaves on Noetherian schemes. Math. Zeitschrift 296, #1–2, p. 275–312, 2020. arXiv:1707.01677 [math.AG]
- [11] W. Crawley-Boevey. Locally finitely presented additive categories. Communicat. in Algebra 22, #5, p. 1641–1674, 1994.
- [12] A. I. Efimov, L. Positselski. Coherent analogues of matrix factorizations and relative singularity categories. Algebra and Number Theory 9, #5, p. 1159–1292, 2015. arXiv:1102.0261 [math.CT]
- [13] E. Enochs, S. Estrada. Relative homological algebra in the category of quasi-coherent sheaves. Advances in Math. 194, #2, p. 284–295, 2005.
- [14] S. Estrada, X. Fu, A. Iacob. Totally acyclic complexes. Journ. of Algebra 470, p. 300–319, 2017. arXiv:1603.03850 [math.AC]
- [15] S. Estrada, J. Gillespie, S. Odabaşi. K-flatness in Grothendieck categories: application to quasi-coherent sheaves. Collectanea Math. (2024), DOI:10.1007/s13348-024-00439-7. arXiv:2306.04816 [math.AG]
- [16] S. Estrada, P. A. Guil Asensio, S. Odabaşi. A Lazard-like theorem for quasi-coherent sheaves. Algebras and Represent. Theory 16, #4, p. 1193–1205, 2013. arXiv:1109.0439 [math.AG]
- [17] J. R. García Rozas. Covers and envelopes in the category of complexes of modules. Chapman & Hall/CRC Research Notes in Math., 407, Boca Raton, FL, 1999.
- [18] J. Gillespie. Kaplansky classes and derived categories. Math. Zeitschrift 257, #4, p. 811–843, 2007.
- [19] R. Göbel, J. Trlifaj. Approximations and endomorphism algebras of modules. Second Revised and Extended Edition. De Gruyter Expositions in Mathematics 41, De Gruyter, Berlin–Boston, 2012.
- [20] V. E. Govorov. On flat modules (Russian). Sibir. Mat. Zh. 6, p. 300–304, 1965.
- [21] A. Grothendieck, J. A. Dieudonné. Éléments de géométrie algébrique. I. Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, 166. Springer-Verlag, Berlin–Heidelberg–New York, 1971.
- [22] R. Hartshorne. Algebraic geometry. Grad. Texts in Math., 52, Springer-Verlag, New York–Heidelberg, 1977.
- [23] A. J. de Jong et al. The Stacks Project. Available from https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/
- [24] M. Kashiwara, P. Schapira. Categories and sheaves. Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, 332, Springer, 2006.
- [25] D. Lazard. Autour de la platitude. Bull. Soc. Math. France 97, p. 81–128, 1969.
- [26] D. Murfet. Derived categories of quasi-coherent sheaves. Notes, October 2006. Available from http://www.therisingsea.org/notes
- [27] A. Neeman. The homotopy category of flat modules, and Grothendieck duality. Inventiones Math. 174, #2, p. 255–308, 2008.
- [28] A. Perry. Faithfully flat descent for projectivity of modules. Electronic preprint arXiv:1011.0038 [math.AC].
- [29] L. Positselski. Two kinds of derived categories, Koszul duality, and comodule-contramodule correspondence. Memoirs of the American Math. Society 212, #996, 2011. vi+133 pp. arXiv:0905.2621 [math.CT]
- [30] L. Positselski. Contraherent cosheaves on schemes. Electronic preprint arXiv:1209.2995 [math.CT].
- [31] L. Positselski. Exact DG-categories and fully faithful triangulated inclusion functors. Electronic preprint arXiv:2110.08237 [math.CT].
- [32] L. Positselski. Flat comodules and contramodules as directed colimits, and cotorsion periodicity. Electronic preprint arXiv:2306.02734 [math.RA], to appear in Journ. of Homotopy and Related Struct.
- [33] L. Positselski. Notes on limits of accessible categories. Electronic preprint arXiv:2310.16773 [math.CT], to appear in Cahiers de topologie et géométrie différentielle catégoriques.
- [34] L. Positselski. Locally coherent exact categories. Appl. Categorical Struct. 32, #4, article no. 20, 30 pp., 2024. arXiv:2311.02418 [math.CT]
- [35] L. Positselski. Philosophy of contraherent cosheaves. Electronic preprint arXiv:2311.14179 [math.AG].
- [36] L. Positselski, J. Rosický. Covers, envelopes, and cotorsion theories in locally presentable abelian categories and contramodule categories. Journ. of Algebra 483, p. 83–128, 2017. arXiv:1512.08119 [math.CT]
- [37] L. Positselski, J. Šťovíček. Derived, coderived, and contraderived categories of locally presentable abelian categories. Journ. of Pure and Appl. Algebra 226, #4, article ID 106883, 2022, 39 pp. arXiv:2101.10797 [math.CT]
- [38] L. Positselski, J. Šťovíček. Coderived and contraderived categories of locally presentable abelian DG-categories. Math. Zeitschrift 308, #1, article no. 14, 70 pp., 2024. arXiv:2210.08237 [math.CT]
- [39] G. Raptis, J. Rosický. The accessibility rank of weak equivalences. Theory and Appl. of Categories 30, no. 19, p. 687–703, 2015. arXiv:1403.3042 [math.AT]
- [40] M. Raynaud, L. Gruson. Critères de platitude et de projectivité: Techniques de “platification” d’un module. Inventiones Math. 13, #1–2, p. 1–89, 1971.
- [41] M. Saorín, J. Šťovíček. On exact categories and applications to triangulated adjoints and model structures. Advances in Math. 228, #2, p. 968–1007, 2011. arXiv:1005.3248 [math.CT]
- [42] C. Serpé. Resolution of unbounded complexes in Grothendieck categories. Journ. of Pure and Appl. Algebra 177, #1, p. 103–112, 2003.
- [43] A. Slávik, J. Šťovíček. On flat generators and Matlis duality for quasicoherent sheaves. Bulletin of the London Math. Soc. 53, #1, p. 63–74, 2021. arXiv:1902.05740 [math.AG]
- [44] N. Spaltenstein. Resolutions of unbounded complexes. Compositio Math. 65, #2, p.121–154, 1988.
- [45] J. Šťovíček. Exact model categories, approximation theory, and cohomology of quasi-coherent sheaves. Advances in representation theory of algebras, p. 297–367, EMS Ser. Congr. Rep., Eur. Math. Soc., Zürich, 2013. arXiv:1301.5206 [math.CT]
- [46] J. Šťovíček. Derived equivalences induced by big cotilting modules. Advances in Math. 263, p. 45–87, 2014. arXiv:1308.1804 [math.CT]
- [47] J. Šťovíček. On purity and applications to coderived and singularity categories. Electronic preprint arXiv:1412.1615 [math.CT].
- [48] B. Totaro. The resolution property for schemes and stacks. Journ. für die reine und angew. Mathematik 577, p. 1–22, 2004. arXiv:math.AG/0207210
- [49] F. Ulmer. Bialgebras in locally presentable categories. Preprint, University of Wuppertal, Summer 1977. Available from https://math.cas.cz/~positselski or https://ncatlab. org/nlab/files/Bialgebras_in_locally_presentable_categories.pdf