Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-09-30
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.

Cohomology and base change for proper flat coherent families

Statement

Assume the Axiom of Choice and the Axiom of Dependent Choice (The Axiom of Choice, The axiom of dependent choice: a relation in which every element is related to something admits an N-indexed chain), inherited from the Noetherian approximation and the finite-free criterion cited below. Let f:X→S be a proper morphism of finite presentation (Proper morphisms, Locally finite presentation morphisms) with S an arbitrary scheme, and let F be a coherent OX-module (Coherent module sheaves) that is flat over S (Flat and faithfully flat modules and ring homomorphisms); by [F1] F is then finitely presented.

Fix s∈S and an integer q≥0, write κ(s) for the residue field (The residue field at a point of an affine scheme), put Xs:=X×SSpec⁡κ(s) with projection gs:Xs→X and Fs:=gs∗F (Pullback of a module along a morphism of ringed spaces), and let φsq:(Rqf∗F)(s)⟶Hq(Xs,Fs) be the cohomology and base-change map at s (Cohomology and base-change map, Higher direct image of a sheaf).

(a) If φsq is surjective, then there is an affine open neighbourhood U⊆S of s such that for every morphism h:T→U, with XT:=X×ST and projection gT:XT→X (Base change of objects, morphisms and properties), the base-change map h∗(Rqf∗F∣U)⟶RqfT∗(gT∗F) of Cohomology and base-change map is an isomorphism of OT-modules.

(b) Assume moreover that φsq is surjective. Then Rqf∗F is locally free of finite rank in a neighbourhood of s (Locally free sheaves of finite rank) if and only if φsq−1 is surjective; for q=0 the condition on φs−1 is automatic, so f∗F is then finite locally free near s.

(c) Under the hypothesis of (a), φsq itself is an isomorphism.

The empty source X=∅, the zero sheaf F=0, the degrees q=0 and q>0 with Xs=∅, and an arbitrary (not necessarily Noetherian) base S are included. No flatness or finite-presentation hypothesis is imposed on f beyond the stated ones, and no projectivity, Noetherianness or Krull-dimension hypothesis is imposed on S.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The Axiom of Choice and the Axiom of Dependent Choice, a proper morphism of finite presentation f:X→S, a coherent OX-module F flat over S, a point s∈S and an integer q≥0.

[F1]

Coherence unpacked and finite presentation: a coherent OX-module is quasi-coherent of finite type, and for every open U⊆X and every morphism OUn→F∣U with finite n≥0 its kernel is of finite type; consequently, on an affine open U=Spec⁡A with F∣U≅M~ and M finitely generated, a surjection An→M has finitely generated kernel, so M is finitely presented and F is finitely presented; restrictions of coherent modules to open subschemes are coherent. (Coherent module sheaves, Finite type and finitely presented module sheaves, Quasi-coherent module on a scheme, Kernel sheaves are objectwise, while cokernels and images are sheafified, Affine quasi-coherent sheaves are modules, Finitely presented modules and finitely presented algebras)

[F2]

Flatness and localisation: F is flat over S meaning that each stalk Fx is flat over the local ring OS,f(x); flatness is preserved by restriction to open subschemes and by base change, a localisation A→S−1A is a flat ring map, and flatness of a module is local on the base ring. (Flat and faithfully flat modules and ring homomorphisms, Every localization is flat, and localizing a flat module preserves flatness, Flatness is transitive under a flat change of rings, A module is flat if and only if all prime localizations are flat, equivalently all maximal localizations are flat, Extension of scalars carries flat modules to flat modules)

[F3]

Properness, affine bases and fibres: a proper morphism is separated, of finite type and universally closed, and a morphism of finite type is quasi-compact; affine opens form a basis of every scheme, so there is an affine open U=Spec⁡A⊆S containing s, with corresponding prime m⊆A; the restriction XU:=f−1U→U=Spec⁡A is proper and of finite presentation, and XU is quasi-compact and separated; the canonical morphism Spec⁡κ(s)→S factors through U, so the fibre Xs=X×SSpec⁡κ(s) is canonically identified with XU×Spec⁡ASpec⁡κ(s), and κ(s) is the residue field of the local ring Am. (Proper morphisms, Locally finite presentation morphisms, Locally finite type and finite type morphisms, Quasi-compact and quasi-separated morphisms, Schemes, Affine open subschemes, The underlying space of an affine spectrum, The residue field at a point of an affine scheme, Base change of objects, morphisms and properties, Iterated base change, Properness survives arbitrary base change, Localisation at a prime ideal: Rp=(R∖p)−1R)

[F4]

The perfect complex over an affine base: for the ring A, the proper morphism of finite presentation XU→Spec⁡A and the coherent, hence finitely presented [F1], module FU:=F∣XU flat over Spec⁡A by [F2], the cited lemma provides an integer r≥0 and a bounded complex K∙ of finite projective A-modules, concentrated in degrees 0,…,r and finite free in all positive degrees, with canonical isomorphisms θA′:Hq(K∙⊗AA′)≅Hq(XA′,FA′) for every A-algebra A′, natural in A′ and compatible with composition of A-algebra maps, where XA′:=XU×Spec⁡ASpec⁡A′ and FA′ is the pullback of FU; moreover K∙ becomes a bounded complex of finite free modules after restricting to the members of an open cover of Spec⁡A by affine opens. (Universal finite projective cohomology complex over any base, The Axiom of Choice, The axiom of dependent choice: a relation in which every element is related to something admits an N-indexed chain)

[F5]

Naturality of the comparison with base-change maps: the naturality clause of [F4] says that for A-algebras A′→A′′ the square with the maps θA′⊗id⁡ and θA′′ commutes, where the algebraic horizontal arrow Hq(K∙⊗AA′)⊗A′A′′→Hq(K∙⊗AA′′) is induced by tensoring representatives of cohomology classes, and the geometric horizontal arrow A′′⊗A′Hq(XA′,FA′)→Hq(XA′′,FA′′) is the extension of scalars of the pullback of cohomology classes along XA′′→XA′ composed with the canonical map g−1FA′→FA′′, that is, the map on global sections induced by the base-change map of the cohomology-and-base-change definition for the Cartesian square over Spec⁡A′→Spec⁡A′′; the pullback of classes is the map supplied by the contravariance of sheaf cohomology in the space. (Universal finite projective cohomology complex over any base, Cohomology and base-change map, Variance of sheaf cohomology, Associativity of tensor products for compatible bimodules, The regular module is a tensor unit: R⊗RN≅N and M⊗RR≅M)

[F6]

The finite-free criterion: for a ring B with maximal ideal n⊆B and residue field λ=B/n and a bounded complex L∙ of finite free B-modules with differentials dq, the map φLq:Hq(L)⊗Bλ→Hq(L⊗Bλ) induced by tensoring representatives satisfies: (1) it is surjective if and only if there is t∈B∖n such that over Bt there are bases of Ltq and Ltq+1 in which dq is (Ir000); (2) if so, then Hq(L)t is a finitely generated Bt-module and the natural map Hq(L)t⊗BtB′′→Hq(L⊗BB′′) is an isomorphism for every Bt-algebra B′′; (3) given (1), Hq(L)t is a finite projective Bt-module for some t∈B∖n if and only if, after shrinking further, the analogous map φLq−1 is also surjective, and if Lq−1=0 this surjectivity is automatic. The Axiom of Choice enters only through the Nakayama lemma and its corollary. (Finite-free local criterion for cohomology and base change, Assuming the Axiom of Choice, Nakayama's lemma, Assuming the Axiom of Choice, generators modulo an ideal in the Jacobson radical lift to generators, Cohomology object of a cochain complex, The Axiom of Choice)

[F7]

Higher direct images and the fibre map: for f quasi-compact and separated and F quasi-coherent, each Rqf∗F is quasi-coherent, Rqf∗F=0 for q<0, and for an affine open V=Spec⁡B⊆S there is a canonical isomorphism (Rqf∗F)∣V≅Hq(f−1V,F)~ with the associated sheaf of the B-module Hq(f−1V,F); hence (Rqf∗F)(V)=Hq(f−1V,F), the fibre at s is (Rqf∗F)(s)=Hq(f−1V,F)⊗Bκ(s) for every affine open V∋s, and the fibre map φsq of the cohomology-and-base-change definition is the extension of scalars of the pullback-of-classes map Hq(f−1V,F)→Hq(Xs,Fs), its colimit description being independent of the chosen affine neighbourhood of s. (Higher direct image of a sheaf, Higher direct images localize over an affine base, Cohomology and base-change map, Fibre of a module sheaf at a point, Module sheaf on an affine scheme, The stalk of an associated sheaf is the localisation, Pullback of a module along a morphism of ringed spaces)

[F8]

Finite locally free modules on affine schemes: for a ring B and a finitely presented B-module P, the associated sheaf P~ is locally free of finite rank near p∈Spec⁡B if and only if Pp is free over Bp; the locus of primes at which a finitely presented module is free of a fixed rank is open, and the module is free of that rank on an open neighbourhood of any such prime. (Locally free sheaves of finite rank, Openness of the finite free locus, Affine quasi-coherent sheaves are modules, Module sheaf on an affine scheme, The stalk of an associated sheaf is the localisation)

[F9]

Finitely generated projective modules: a finitely generated module is a quotient of a finite free module; a surjection onto a projective module splits, exhibiting the projective module as a direct summand of a free module under the Axiom of Choice; over a local ring (R,n) a finitely generated module N generated by elements whose classes generate N/nN is generated by them; passing to the residue field is right exact; and a direct summand of a finitely generated free module is finitely generated, while a finitely presented module has finitely generated syzygies. (Generated submodule, cyclic and finitely generated modules, module basis and free module, The splitting lemma for short exact sequences of modules, Equivalent characterizations of projective modules, Projective modules and the lifting property, Assuming the Axiom of Choice, Nakayama's lemma, Assuming the Axiom of Choice, generators modulo an ideal in the Jacobson radical lift to generators, The Jacobson radical of a ring, A local ring is a nonzero commutative ring with a unique maximal ideal, Tensoring is right exact, Universal property of a direct sum of modules, Finitely presented modules and finitely presented algebras, The Axiom of Choice)

[F10]

The Axiom of Choice and the Axiom of Dependent Choice are the choice principles named in the statement. (The Axiom of Choice, The axiom of dependent choice: a relation in which every element is related to something admits an N-indexed chain)

Proof

technique · direct: choose an affine neighbourhood and a finite free model complex for the cohomology over it, apply the finite-free matrix criterion over the local ring of the point, and transport the algebraic conclusions to the geometry through the naturality of the comparison isomorphisms with the base-change maps
1.1F2F3F4

Affine setup. By [F3] fix an affine open U=Spec⁡A⊆S containing s, with prime m⊆A and residue field κ(s)=Am/mAm. By [F4], K∙ is finite free on an affine neighbourhood of s; shrink to a principal open Spec⁡C=D(f) with C=Af and f∉m. The ideal n=mC is prime, and B=Cn=Am is the local ring at s with maximal ideal nB and residue field κ(s). The ring C is the coordinate ring of an actual affine open of S; the local ring B is used only for the finite-free criterion.

1.2F1F2F3F4F6algebra

Put L∙=K∙⊗AC, a bounded finite-free complex by 1.1, and M∙=L∙⊗CB. By [F1] the coherent module FU is finitely presented and by [F2] it is flat over A, so [F4] applies to K∙ and every A-algebra. Apply [F6] to M∙ over the local ring (B,nB), whose residue field is κ(s): its maps φMq:Hq(M)⊗Bκ(s)→Hq(M⊗Bκ(s)) and φMq−1 are defined. Flat localisation gives Hi(M)=Hi(L)⊗CB, so these fibre maps agree with the corresponding tensoring-representatives maps for L at s.

2.1F3F4F5F6F7step 1.2

The comparison θC of [F4] identifies Hq(L) with Hq(XC,FC), and θκ(s) identifies Hq(L⊗Cκ(s)) with Hq(Xs,Fs). By [F5], the natural tensoring-representatives map Hq(L)⊗Cκ(s)→Hq(L⊗Cκ(s)) becomes the geometric fibre map φsq on the affine neighbourhood Spec⁡C of s [F7]. The localisation identities in step 1.2 identify that algebraic map with φMq over B, and likewise in degree q−1. Thus φsq is surjective exactly when φMq is, and the same holds in degree q−1.

3.1F4F5F6F7step 2.1algebra

Part (a). If φsq is surjective, then so is φMq by step 2.1. By F6, dq has a split matrix diag⁡(Ir,0) in bases of Mq and Mq+1 over B. The finitely many entries of the bases, their inverses, and the matrix identities descend from B=Cn to some Ct with t∉n; hence dq has that split form in bases of Ltq,Ltq+1. Writing Ltq=F′⊕F′′ in this form, Hq(Lt)=F′′/im⁡(dq−1) is finitely presented, and right exactness of tensor gives Hq(Lt)⊗CtA′′≅Hq(L⊗CA′′) for every Ct-algebra A′′, exactly the split-matrix calculation in F6. Put U′=Spec⁡Ct⊆S, an affine open containing s. For any T→U′ and any affine chart Spec⁡A′′⊆T, the comparison and naturality in [F4,F5] identify the section map of g∗Rqf∗F→RqfT∗FT with this algebraic isomorphism. Such charts cover T, so the sheaf morphism is an isomorphism by A morphism of sheaves is an isomorphism exactly when it is an isomorphism on every stalk.

4.1F7step 3.1

Part (c). Apply (a) with T=Spec⁡κ(s)→U′. On global sections the isomorphism is Hq(XCt,FCt)⊗Ctκ(s)→Hq(Xs,Fs), which is the fibre map φsq computed on the affine neighbourhood Spec⁡Ct by [F7]. Thus φsq is an isomorphism.

4.2F4F6F7F8F9step 2.1step 3.1

Part (b), first direction. Assume φsq and φsq−1 are surjective. By step 2.1 both maps for M are surjective, so F6 makes Hq(M) finite projective over the local ring B, hence finite free by [F9]. By step 3.1, after a principal shrinking Ct the module Hq(Lt) is finitely presented, and its localisation at n is Hq(M). The openness of the finite-free locus [F8] therefore supplies a further principal neighbourhood Spec⁡Ctt′ of s on which Hq(Lt)~ is finite locally free. Comparison [F4] and the affine direct-image formula [F7] identify this sheaf with Rqf∗F there.

5.1F4F6F7F8step 2.1step 3.1step 4.2

Part (b), second direction. Assume φsq is surjective and Rqf∗F is finite locally free near s. By step 3.1 shrink to Ct where the split differential makes Hq(Lt) finitely presented, and then shrink so [F7] identifies this module with the sections of a free sheaf. Its localisation Hq(M) at n is finite free over B. By F6, φMq−1 is surjective; step 2.1 transports this to surjectivity of φsq−1. For q=0, M−1=0 because [F4] concentrates the model in nonnegative degrees, so φM−1 is automatically surjective by F6; the first direction then gives finite local freeness of f∗F near s.

6.1F4F6F9F10step 4.1step 4.2step 5.1∎

Boundaries and choice. If X=∅ or F=0, all cohomology modules are zero, all fibre and base-change maps are isomorphisms, and Rqf∗F=0 is finite locally free. If q=0, the fibre map evaluates local sections on the fibre as in Cohomology and base-change map, and the automatic φs−1 condition is covered in step 5.1. If Xs=∅ or Fs=0, then Hq(Xs,Fs)=0, so φsq is surjective and parts (a)–(c) apply without any separate neighbourhood-vanishing claim. If S=∅ there is no point s and the statement is vacuous. The two directions of (b) are steps 4.2–5.1 and (c) is step 4.1. AC and DC enter through the cited perfect-complex and finite-free suppliers [F4,F6,F9,F10]; only finitely many bases, matrix entries and affine neighbourhoods are selected locally.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

198 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