Yes, I’m still here. I just haven’t been in a blogging mood. I’ve been distracted a bit with the CRing project. I’ve also been writing a bunch of half-finished notes on Zariski’s Main Theorem and some of its applications, which I’ll eventually post.
I would now like to begin talking about the semicontinuity theorem in algebraic geometry, following Mumford’s Abelian Varieties. This result is used constantly throughout the book, mainly in showing that certain line bundles are trivial. Eventually, I’ll try to say something about this.
Let be a proper morphism of noetherian schemes,
a coherent sheaf on
. Suppose furthermore that
is flat over
; intuitively this means that the fibers
form a “nice” family of sheaves. In this case, we are interested in how the cohomology
behaves as a function of
. We shall see that it is upper semi-continuous and, under nice circumstances, its constancy can be used to conclude that the higher direct-images are locally free.
1. The Grothendieck complex
Let us keep the hypotheses as above, but assume in addition that is affine, for some noetherian ring
. Consider an open affine cover
of
; we know, as
is separated, that the cohomology of
on
can be computed using Cech cohomology. That is, there is a cochain complex
of
-modules, associated functorially to the sheaf
, such that
that is, sheaf cohomology is the cohomology of this cochain complex. Furthermore, since the Cech complex is defined by taking sections over the , we see that each term in
is a flat
-module as
is flat. Thus, we have represented the cohomology of
in a manageable form. We now want to generalize this to affine base-changes:
Proposition 1 Hypotheses as above, there exists a cochain complex
of flat
-modules, associated functorially to
, such that for any
-algebra
with associated morphism
, we have
Here, of course, we have abbreviated for the base-change
, and
for the pull-back sheaf.
Proof: We have already given most of the argument. Now if is an affine cover of
, then
is an affine cover of the scheme
. Furthermore, we have that
by definition of how the pull-backs are defined. Since taking intersections of the commutes with the base-change
, we see more generally that for any finite set
,