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.
Pullback of modules is left adjoint to pushforward
Statement
Let
be a morphism of ringed spaces, let be an -module, and let be an -module. Then there is a natural bijection
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A morphism of ringed spaces , an -module , and an -module .
The pullback is (Pullback of a module along a morphism of ringed spaces).
Extension of scalars is left adjoint to restriction of scalars for a ring map (Extension of scalars is left adjoint to restriction of scalars).
Inverse image is left adjoint to direct image on sheaves (Inverse image is left adjoint to direct image on sheaves).
A morphism from a presheaf to a sheaf factors uniquely through the sheafification (Sheafification is left adjoint to the inclusion of sheaves into presheaves).
Proof
Let be an -linear morphism. By [F1] and [L3], is equivalent to a morphism from the tensor-product presheaf into the sheaf .
Conversely, let be an -linear morphism. By [L2], it corresponds to an -linear morphism . Applying [L1] on each open set gives a morphism from the tensor-product presheaf of [F1] into , and then [L3] factors it uniquely through the sheafification . This yields an -linear morphism .
Applying [L1] on each open set converts the map of step 1.1 into an -linear map , compatible with restriction. Hence step 1.1 is equivalent to an -linear sheaf morphism
By [L2], the underlying sheaf morphism corresponds to a sheaf morphism . Because the maps in step 2.1 are -linear, the corresponding components are -linear. Thus is a morphism of -modules.
The constructions in steps 3.1 and 1.2 are inverse because each stage is built from an adjunction with the standard mutually inverse formulas. Therefore naturally in both variables.
Depends on
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
16 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, Section 6.26 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Ravi Vakil, The Rising Sea, Chapter 6 and Section 2.7 (standard reference, not scraped)