7
$\begingroup$

Consider sheaves of sets on a topological space $X$. A standard fact (and exercise) is the following equivalence for a morphism $\phi\colon \mathscr{F}\rightarrow \mathscr{G}$ of such sheaves:

(a) $\phi$ is an epimorphism in this category of sheaves

(b) The induced morphisms $\phi_x$ on stalks are surjective for all $x\in X$

I found it surprisingly hard to come up with an idea for a proof of (a)=>(b), though I think I managed to do it using an appropriate skyscraper sheaf and thus showing that the $\phi_x$ are epimorphisms too.

Since I found shorter proofs for the analogous statements for monomorphisms and injectivity, I was wondering if there was some elegant and at the same time 'elementary' way to do it. That is, I'd like to see where the surjectivity comes from.

I know there are short proofs using the fact that colimits commute with left adjoints, but I don't want to use that. Examples for what I would like are usage of the product of all stalks, the fact that morphisms are equal if they agree on all stalks or something alike. I didn't have any idea up to now, though.

Thanks for any insight.

TL;DR: Is there an elegant proof for the equivalence not using adjoints?

  • 2
    Using adjoints _is_ the elegant proof, in my view! The fact that the family of all stalk functors is jointly conservative plus the fact that taking stalks preserves colimits gives this result very easily. I doubt there is an elementary proof, because being an epimorphism is a colimit condition, and as you know, colimits in the category of sheaves are a bit difficult to understand.2012-10-02
  • 0
    @ZhenLin: Thanks for your comment. I guess the general nonsense will have to do it for an elegant solution. It is not so difficult as I thought at first. If I want to have it more explicit, the longer solutions will still make visible where the surjectivity comes from.2012-10-19
  • 0
    @ZhenLin: why do you need that the family of all stalk functors is conservative? Just apply the stalk functor to the exact sequence $\mathcal F \rightarrow \mathcal G \rightarrow 0$ to get $\mathcal F_p \rightarrow \mathcal G_p \rightarrow 0_p = 0$2013-10-26
  • 0
    @Rodrigo Conservativity is needed for (b) => (a).2013-10-26
  • 0
    @ZhenLin: being conservative means that an *induced* iso on the stalks is induced by an iso $\mathcal F \xrightarrow{\sim} \mathcal G$. Is there a reason why showing this result is easier than showing surjectivity, as in (b) => (a)?2013-10-26
  • 0
    There are general nonsense reasons for this. Go think about cokernels.2013-10-26
  • 0
    @ZhenLin: As in http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/540629/exactness-of-functors-as-iff ?2013-10-26
  • 0
    @GregorBruns could you provide the details of your argument using the skyscraper sheaf? My simple proof using the right-exactness of stalks was given in the comments above. I'm interested in your proof using the skyscraper.2013-10-27
  • 0
    @ZhenLin are you saying that it is in general easier to show a functor is conservative than to show it right-exact? I actually tried to write down the proof the "family of stalks"-functor being conservative in another post (http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/540574/proving-that-morphism-of-sheaves-is-iso-iff-induced-morphism-on-stalks-is-iso), and it didn't seem all that easy to me (well, I mean that it was not a purely categorical argument). Now that you agreed that there is some general nonsense reasons for this, could you be so kind as to spell them out?2013-10-27
  • 0
    That is not at all what I am saying. I am saying, knowing that the stalks are jointly conservative _and_ that they are exact implies that they jointly reflect exactness.2013-10-27

2 Answers 2