How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
Quasi-coherent module on a scheme
Definition
Let be a scheme (Schemes) and let be a sheaf of -modules (Modules on a ringed space). Recall that for a commutative ring and an -module the associated module sheaf on is the sheaf of -modules whose sections on a distinguished open are (Module sheaf on an affine scheme).
The module is quasi-coherent if every point has an affine open neighbourhood and an -module such that
as sheaves of -modules. A quasi-coherent sheaf of -modules is also called a quasi-coherent module on , and the full subcategory of -modules consisting of the quasi-coherent ones is written ; morphisms in are all -module morphisms between its objects.
Immediate consequences of the definition, used without further comment:
- The condition is invariant under isomorphism: if as -modules and is quasi-coherent, then so is , because the isomorphism restricts over an affine open.
- The condition is local on : is quasi-coherent if and only if there is an open cover such that each restriction is quasi-coherent. Indeed a point of an arbitrary open subscheme has an affine open neighbourhood inside , and an affine open subscheme of contained in is also an affine open subscheme of ; conversely, every point of lies in an affine open of inside .
- If is quasi-coherent and is open, then is quasi-coherent, since is again an -module and an affine open is an affine open of .
- On an affine scheme the definition asks at each point for an affine open neighbourhood on which is associated to a module; it does not ask that itself be associated to a single -module. The affine comparison theorem on this page shows that on an affine scheme the two conditions coincide.
The terminology follows the standard one: quasi-coherence is the local affine-module condition, and no finiteness, Noetherian or separatedness hypothesis is part of it.
Depends on
Used by
- Affine quasi-coherent sheaf determined by sections Corollary
- Euler characteristic in a proper flat family is locally constant Corollary
- Global functions on geometrically connected and geometrically reduced proper schemes Corollary
- Upper semicontinuity of fibre cohomology dimensions Corollary
- A non-quasi-coherent module with H1 on an affine scheme Counterexample
- A nonseparated affine cover can have nonaffine intersection Counterexample
- Finite type need not be locally free Counterexample
- Global sections do not determine a sheaf on P1 Counterexample
- Proper cohomology need not be finite for noncoherent sheaves Counterexample
- Quasi-separatedness in pushforward cannot be omitted Counterexample
- Coherent module sheaves Definition
- Cohomology and base-change map Definition
- Finite type and finitely presented module sheaves Definition
- Geometric vector bundle with the sections convention Definition
- Global generation by the evaluation map Definition
- Internal Hom of module sheaves Definition
- Locally free sheaves of finite rank Definition
- Projective bundle in the quotient convention Definition
- Relative Proj of a graded quasi-coherent algebra Definition
- Symmetric algebra of a quasi-coherent module Definition
- A coherent closed-point skyscraper Example
- Fitting ideals of a diagonal two-by-two presentation Example
- Projective zero-space over an affine base Example
- A projective morphism has a relative Proj presentation Lemma
- Acyclicity on intersections of a standard affine cover Lemma
- Affine pushforward is compatible with sheaf cohomology Lemma
- Closed immersion preserves cohomology and coherent pushforward Lemma
- Extend a quasi-coherent section after multiplying by a power Lemma
- Finite projective complex for proper flat coherent cohomology Lemma
- Finite twisted locally free resolutions on projective space Lemma
- Flat field extension commutes with coherent cohomology Lemma
- High-degree section module is finite graded Lemma
- Higher direct images localize over an affine base Lemma
- Hypersurface cohomology sequence Lemma
- Internal Hom from a finitely presented sheaf is quasi-coherent Lemma
- Noetherian devissage for coherent proper pushforward Lemma
- Regular hyperplane step for coherent support induction Lemma
- Schematic closure and agreement on a dense open Lemma
- Scheme pullback preserves quasi-coherence Lemma
- Sections of a graded-module sheaf on a standard open Lemma
…and 23 more results.
Dependency tree · two levels
11 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- The Stacks Project, Schemes, §§26.5, 26.7, 26.24 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Ravi Vakil, The Rising Sea, 29 August 2022, Chapters 6, 14, 17 (standard reference, not scraped)
- The Stacks Project, Cohomology of Schemes §30.9 (standard reference, not scraped)
- The Stacks Project, Properties of Schemes, §§28.20, 28.26 (standard reference, not scraped)