In Hartshorne, Algebraic geometry it's written, that for every scheme morphism $f: Spec B \to Spec A$ and $A$-module $M$ $f^*(\tilde M) = \tilde {(M \otimes_A B)}$. And that it immediately follows from the definition. But I don't know how to prove it in simple way. Could you help me?
2026-03-26 14:43:13.1774536193
Inverse image of the sheaf associated to a module
3.9k Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in ALGEBRAIC-GEOMETRY
- How to see line bundle on $\mathbb P^1$ intuitively?
- Jacobson radical = nilradical iff every open set of $\text{Spec}A$ contains a closed point.
- Is $ X \to \mathrm{CH}^i (X) $ covariant or contravariant?
- An irreducible $k$-scheme of finite type is "geometrically equidimensional".
- Global section of line bundle of degree 0
- Is there a variant of the implicit function theorem covering a branch of a curve around a singular point?
- Singular points of a curve
- Find Canonical equation of a Hyperbola
- Picard group of a fibration
- Finding a quartic with some prescribed multiplicities
Related Questions in COMMUTATIVE-ALGEBRA
- Jacobson radical = nilradical iff every open set of $\text{Spec}A$ contains a closed point.
- Extending a linear action to monomials of higher degree
- Tensor product commutes with infinite products
- Example of simple modules
- Describe explicitly a minimal free resolution
- Ideals of $k[[x,y]]$
- $k[[x,y]]/I$ is a Gorenstein ring implies that $I$ is generated by 2 elements
- There is no ring map $\mathbb C[x] \to \mathbb C[x]$ swapping the prime ideals $(x-1)$ and $(x)$
- Inclusions in tensor products
- Principal Ideal Ring which is not Integral
Related Questions in TENSOR-PRODUCTS
- Tensor product commutes with infinite products
- Inclusions in tensor products
- How to prove that $f\otimes g: V\otimes W\to X\otimes Y$ is a monomorphism
- What does a direct sum of tensor products look like?
- Tensors transformations under $so(4)$
- Tensor modules of tensor algebras
- projective and Haagerup tensor norms
- Algebraic Tensor product of Hilbert spaces
- Why $\displaystyle\lim_{n\to+\infty}x_n\otimes y_n=x\otimes y\;?$
- Proposition 3.7 in Atiyah-Macdonald (Tensor product of fractions is fraction of tensor product)
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?
Don't use the book by Hartshorne when you want to learn the foundations of algebraic geometry. There are many, many books which explain them far better (Liu, Görtz-Wedhorn, Bosch, ...). And in fact, in this case, this isomorphism does not immediately follow from the usual definition of $f^*$ via $f^{-1}$. Therefore, the claim by Hartshorne is misleading. One rather has to use the adjunction between scalar restriction and scalar extension:
The inverse image functor $f^*$ should be seen as (defined to be) the left adjoint of the direct image functor $f_*$. Therefore, it is enough to show that $f_* : \mathsf{Qcoh}(\mathrm{Spec}(B)) \to \mathsf{Qcoh}(\mathrm{Spec}(A))$ corresponds, under the equivalence of categories $ \mathsf{Qcoh}(\mathrm{Spec}(A)) \cong \mathsf{Mod}(A), F \mapsto \Gamma(F)$, to the scalar restriction functor $\mathsf{Mod}(B) \to \mathsf{Mod}(A)$. But this is clear, since we have more generally $\Gamma(f_*(F))=\Gamma(F)$ by definition of $f_*$.
One can, instead of adjointness, start with $f^* \tilde{M} = f^{-1} \tilde{M} \otimes_{f^{-1} \mathcal{O}_{\mathrm{Spec}(A)}} \mathcal{O}_{\mathrm{Spec}(B)}$, and use the complicated ad hoc definitions of the tensor product of sheaves and of $f^{-1}$ (remember that they are associated sheaves of certain presheaves). But this involves, in detail, many computations. In my opinion this approach is unnecessarily complicated.