Question is entirely captured by the title. This has just been stated in a proof, and despite writing things out on paper I have not been able to see exactly why it should always be true. Potentially I am missing something simple, but I am stumped. It feels like it should somehow follow from the Yoneda lemma.
2026-03-25 09:43:07.1774431787
If $Y$ is an affine scheme, and $G$ is an $O_Y$-module, then why is $\operatorname{Hom}_{\operatorname{Mod}(Y)}(O_Y, G)\cong G(Y)$?
19 Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in SCHEMES
- Is $ X \to \mathrm{CH}^i (X) $ covariant or contravariant?
- Do torsion-free $\mathcal{O}_X$-modules on curves have dimension one?
- $\mathbb{C}[x,y]$ is the sections of Spec $\mathbb{C}[x,y]$ minus the origin?
- Finitely generated $k-$algebras of regular functions on an algebraic variety
- Is every open affine subscheme of an algebraic $k-$variety an affine $k-$variety?
- Scheme Theoretic Image (Hartshorne Ex.II.3.11.d)
- Is this a closed embedding of schemes?
- Adjunction isomorphism in algebraic geometry
- Closed connected subset of $\mathbb{P}_k^1$
- Why can't closed subschemes be defined in an easier way?
Related Questions in AFFINE-SCHEMES
- Can find common principal open subsets in the intersection of two open affine subschemes
- Give an example of a scheme $X$ so that the asbolute Frobenius morphism induces an isomorphism on global sections.
- $K(Y)$ is isomorphic to the quotient field of $A(Y).$
- References for sufficiency of tangential criteria for formally smooth/unramified/étale morphisms
- Geometric viewpoint on $\Bbbk[t]\to \Bbbk(t)$ not being of finite type
- Affine Schemes and Basic Open Sets
- compute $ \operatorname{Spec}\mathbb{Z}[x,y]/(x^2+y^2-n) $
- Meaning of $f$ being a function on $\text{Spec}(A)$
- (Connected) non-contractible schemes
- Dimension of the tangent cone of $V(\mathfrak{a})$
Related Questions in QUASICOHERENT-SHEAVES
- Why is every sheaf of $\mathcal{O}_{X}$-modules not generated by global sections?
- Free module after tensoring with a flat local ring
- On the support of sheaf of modules or quasi-coherent sheaves over ringed spaces
- QCQS lemma for modules?
- Gaga and quasicoherent sheaf
- Counter-examples for quasi-coherent, coherent, locally free and invertible sheaves
- $f_* f^* \mathcal{G}= \mathcal{G}$ and $f^* f_* \mathcal{F}= \mathcal{F}$ for Quasicoherent Sheaves
- Why are the noetherian objects in a category of quasicoherent sheaves just the coherent ones?
- Is this exact: $0\to\mathcal{O}^{hol}\to\mathcal{O}(p)\to \Bbb{C}_p,$
- Quasicoherent sheaves on the groupoid of vector bundles on a surface
Trending Questions
- Induction on the number of equations
- How to convince a math teacher of this simple and obvious fact?
- Find $E[XY|Y+Z=1 ]$
- Refuting the Anti-Cantor Cranks
- What are imaginary numbers?
- Determine the adjoint of $\tilde Q(x)$ for $\tilde Q(x)u:=(Qu)(x)$ where $Q:U→L^2(Ω,ℝ^d$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and $U$ is a Hilbert space
- Why does this innovative method of subtraction from a third grader always work?
- How do we know that the number $1$ is not equal to the number $-1$?
- What are the Implications of having VΩ as a model for a theory?
- Defining a Galois Field based on primitive element versus polynomial?
- Can't find the relationship between two columns of numbers. Please Help
- Is computer science a branch of mathematics?
- Is there a bijection of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with itself such that the forward map is connected but the inverse is not?
- Identification of a quadrilateral as a trapezoid, rectangle, or square
- Generator of inertia group in function field extension
Popular # Hahtags
second-order-logic
numerical-methods
puzzle
logic
probability
number-theory
winding-number
real-analysis
integration
calculus
complex-analysis
sequences-and-series
proof-writing
set-theory
functions
homotopy-theory
elementary-number-theory
ordinary-differential-equations
circles
derivatives
game-theory
definite-integrals
elementary-set-theory
limits
multivariable-calculus
geometry
algebraic-number-theory
proof-verification
partial-derivative
algebra-precalculus
Popular Questions
- What is the integral of 1/x?
- How many squares actually ARE in this picture? Is this a trick question with no right answer?
- Is a matrix multiplied with its transpose something special?
- What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive events?
- Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain
- taylor series of $\ln(1+x)$?
- How to tell if a set of vectors spans a space?
- Calculus question taking derivative to find horizontal tangent line
- How to determine if a function is one-to-one?
- Determine if vectors are linearly independent
- What does it mean to have a determinant equal to zero?
- Is this Batman equation for real?
- How to find perpendicular vector to another vector?
- How to find mean and median from histogram
- How many sides does a circle have?
$\DeclareMathOperator{\spec}{Spec}$Possibly it follows from Yoneda. The lemma has a lot of corollaries and I don't have a good intuition for all of them yet. This specific result is easy enough to explain, however.
You have a map from $\mathcal{O}_Y \to \mathcal G$, that gives you, in particular, a map $\mathcal{O}_Y(Y) \to \mathcal G(Y)$ on global sections. Now you just look at where the global section $1_Y$ goes and you get your element of $\mathcal{G}$.
Conversely, given an element $x$ of $\mathcal G(Y)$, you can define a map $\mathcal{O}_Y(Y) \to \mathcal G(Y)$ by sending $1_Y \mapsto x$ and extending by linearity. (I.e. $f(a) = af(1) = ax$.) Once you have a map on global sections, you have a map $\mathcal{O}_Y \to \mathcal{G}$. Possibly you need $\mathcal{G}$ to be quasi-coherent for this (I'm not 100% sure).
To see this, let $Y = \spec(A)$ and $\mathcal{G} = \widetilde{M}$. Then our map $\mathcal{O}_Y(Y) \to \mathcal G(Y)$ is exactly a map $A \to M$. On the distinguished opens, $U_f = \spec(A_f)$, this map obviously induces a map $A_f \to M_f$. Once we know what the map $\mathcal{O}_Y \to \mathcal G$ looks like on distinguished opens, we know the entire map.
Update: without assuming $\mathcal{G} = \widetilde{M}$.
Given the map $\mathcal{O}_Y(Y) \to \mathcal G(Y)$ defined by sending $1_Y \mapsto x$, we get a map $\mathcal{O}_Y(Y) \to \mathcal{G}(U)$ by composing with the restriction $\mathcal{G}(Y) \to \mathcal{G}(U)$.
Now to define a map $\mathcal{O}_Y(U) \to \mathcal{G}(U)$, we send $1_U = (1_Y)|_U$ to $x|_U$. Now, because $\mathcal{G}(U)$ is a $\mathcal{O}_Y(U)$-module, this defines the entire map $\mathcal{O}_Y(U) \to \mathcal{G}(U)$. I.e. $f(a) = af(1_U) = a(x|_U)$.