Does every sheaf embed into a quasicoherent sheaf?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












Question. Let $X$ be a scheme. Let $mathcalE$ be a sheaf of $mathcalO_X$-modules. Is there always a quasicoherent sheaf $mathcalE'$ together with a monomorphism $mathcalE to mathcalE'$?



Remark. The coherator yields a way to find a quasicoherent sheaf together with a morphism to $mathcalE$. But I'm interested in finding a quasicoherent sheaf together with a monomorphism from $mathcalE$.



Motivation. There is a way to set up the theory of sheaf cohomology for quasicoherent sheaves without injective or flabby resolutions. If any sheaf of modules would embed into a quasicoherent one, we might be able to extend this development to arbitrary (not necessarily quasicoherent) sheaves of modules.










share|cite|improve this question

























    up vote
    1
    down vote

    favorite












    Question. Let $X$ be a scheme. Let $mathcalE$ be a sheaf of $mathcalO_X$-modules. Is there always a quasicoherent sheaf $mathcalE'$ together with a monomorphism $mathcalE to mathcalE'$?



    Remark. The coherator yields a way to find a quasicoherent sheaf together with a morphism to $mathcalE$. But I'm interested in finding a quasicoherent sheaf together with a monomorphism from $mathcalE$.



    Motivation. There is a way to set up the theory of sheaf cohomology for quasicoherent sheaves without injective or flabby resolutions. If any sheaf of modules would embed into a quasicoherent one, we might be able to extend this development to arbitrary (not necessarily quasicoherent) sheaves of modules.










    share|cite|improve this question























      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite











      Question. Let $X$ be a scheme. Let $mathcalE$ be a sheaf of $mathcalO_X$-modules. Is there always a quasicoherent sheaf $mathcalE'$ together with a monomorphism $mathcalE to mathcalE'$?



      Remark. The coherator yields a way to find a quasicoherent sheaf together with a morphism to $mathcalE$. But I'm interested in finding a quasicoherent sheaf together with a monomorphism from $mathcalE$.



      Motivation. There is a way to set up the theory of sheaf cohomology for quasicoherent sheaves without injective or flabby resolutions. If any sheaf of modules would embed into a quasicoherent one, we might be able to extend this development to arbitrary (not necessarily quasicoherent) sheaves of modules.










      share|cite|improve this question













      Question. Let $X$ be a scheme. Let $mathcalE$ be a sheaf of $mathcalO_X$-modules. Is there always a quasicoherent sheaf $mathcalE'$ together with a monomorphism $mathcalE to mathcalE'$?



      Remark. The coherator yields a way to find a quasicoherent sheaf together with a morphism to $mathcalE$. But I'm interested in finding a quasicoherent sheaf together with a monomorphism from $mathcalE$.



      Motivation. There is a way to set up the theory of sheaf cohomology for quasicoherent sheaves without injective or flabby resolutions. If any sheaf of modules would embed into a quasicoherent one, we might be able to extend this development to arbitrary (not necessarily quasicoherent) sheaves of modules.







      ag.algebraic-geometry sheaf-cohomology quasi-coherent-modules






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked 3 hours ago









      Ingo Blechschmidt

      1,5911218




      1,5911218




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          4
          down vote













          That already fails for $X$ equal to $textSpec R$, where $R$ is a DVR with generic point $eta = textSpec K$. Since there are only two nonempty open subsets of $X$, namely all of $X$ and $eta$, there is a straightforward equivalence between the category of $mathcalO_X$-modules and the category of triples $(M,V,phi)$ of an $R$-module $M$, a $K$-module $V$, and an $R$-module homomorphism $$phi:Mto V.$$ This is quasi-coherent if and only if $phi$ induces an isomorphism $$Motimes_R K xrightarrowcong V,$$ i.e., the $mathcalO_X$-module is equivalent to $$(M,Motimes_R K,iota_M).$$ In particular, consider the $mathcalO_X$-module $$(R,0,0).$$
          For every $mathcalO_X$-module homomorphism of this $mathcalO_X$-module to a quasi-coherent $mathcalO_X$-module, $$(psi_R,psi_eta):(R,0,0) to (M,Motimes_R K,iota_M),$$ the composite $iota_Mcirc psi_R$ equals $0$. Thus, the image $psi_R(R)$ is contained in the torsion submodule of $M$. Every torsion quotient of $R$ has nonzero kernel. Thus, $(psi_R,psi_eta)$ is not a monomorphism.






          share|cite|improve this answer






















            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            );
            );
            , "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function()
            var channelOptions =
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "504"
            ;
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
            createEditor();
            );

            else
            createEditor();

            );

            function createEditor()
            StackExchange.prepareEditor(
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader:
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            ,
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            );



            );













             

            draft saved


            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f314386%2fdoes-every-sheaf-embed-into-a-quasicoherent-sheaf%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest






























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            4
            down vote













            That already fails for $X$ equal to $textSpec R$, where $R$ is a DVR with generic point $eta = textSpec K$. Since there are only two nonempty open subsets of $X$, namely all of $X$ and $eta$, there is a straightforward equivalence between the category of $mathcalO_X$-modules and the category of triples $(M,V,phi)$ of an $R$-module $M$, a $K$-module $V$, and an $R$-module homomorphism $$phi:Mto V.$$ This is quasi-coherent if and only if $phi$ induces an isomorphism $$Motimes_R K xrightarrowcong V,$$ i.e., the $mathcalO_X$-module is equivalent to $$(M,Motimes_R K,iota_M).$$ In particular, consider the $mathcalO_X$-module $$(R,0,0).$$
            For every $mathcalO_X$-module homomorphism of this $mathcalO_X$-module to a quasi-coherent $mathcalO_X$-module, $$(psi_R,psi_eta):(R,0,0) to (M,Motimes_R K,iota_M),$$ the composite $iota_Mcirc psi_R$ equals $0$. Thus, the image $psi_R(R)$ is contained in the torsion submodule of $M$. Every torsion quotient of $R$ has nonzero kernel. Thus, $(psi_R,psi_eta)$ is not a monomorphism.






            share|cite|improve this answer


























              up vote
              4
              down vote













              That already fails for $X$ equal to $textSpec R$, where $R$ is a DVR with generic point $eta = textSpec K$. Since there are only two nonempty open subsets of $X$, namely all of $X$ and $eta$, there is a straightforward equivalence between the category of $mathcalO_X$-modules and the category of triples $(M,V,phi)$ of an $R$-module $M$, a $K$-module $V$, and an $R$-module homomorphism $$phi:Mto V.$$ This is quasi-coherent if and only if $phi$ induces an isomorphism $$Motimes_R K xrightarrowcong V,$$ i.e., the $mathcalO_X$-module is equivalent to $$(M,Motimes_R K,iota_M).$$ In particular, consider the $mathcalO_X$-module $$(R,0,0).$$
              For every $mathcalO_X$-module homomorphism of this $mathcalO_X$-module to a quasi-coherent $mathcalO_X$-module, $$(psi_R,psi_eta):(R,0,0) to (M,Motimes_R K,iota_M),$$ the composite $iota_Mcirc psi_R$ equals $0$. Thus, the image $psi_R(R)$ is contained in the torsion submodule of $M$. Every torsion quotient of $R$ has nonzero kernel. Thus, $(psi_R,psi_eta)$ is not a monomorphism.






              share|cite|improve this answer
























                up vote
                4
                down vote










                up vote
                4
                down vote









                That already fails for $X$ equal to $textSpec R$, where $R$ is a DVR with generic point $eta = textSpec K$. Since there are only two nonempty open subsets of $X$, namely all of $X$ and $eta$, there is a straightforward equivalence between the category of $mathcalO_X$-modules and the category of triples $(M,V,phi)$ of an $R$-module $M$, a $K$-module $V$, and an $R$-module homomorphism $$phi:Mto V.$$ This is quasi-coherent if and only if $phi$ induces an isomorphism $$Motimes_R K xrightarrowcong V,$$ i.e., the $mathcalO_X$-module is equivalent to $$(M,Motimes_R K,iota_M).$$ In particular, consider the $mathcalO_X$-module $$(R,0,0).$$
                For every $mathcalO_X$-module homomorphism of this $mathcalO_X$-module to a quasi-coherent $mathcalO_X$-module, $$(psi_R,psi_eta):(R,0,0) to (M,Motimes_R K,iota_M),$$ the composite $iota_Mcirc psi_R$ equals $0$. Thus, the image $psi_R(R)$ is contained in the torsion submodule of $M$. Every torsion quotient of $R$ has nonzero kernel. Thus, $(psi_R,psi_eta)$ is not a monomorphism.






                share|cite|improve this answer














                That already fails for $X$ equal to $textSpec R$, where $R$ is a DVR with generic point $eta = textSpec K$. Since there are only two nonempty open subsets of $X$, namely all of $X$ and $eta$, there is a straightforward equivalence between the category of $mathcalO_X$-modules and the category of triples $(M,V,phi)$ of an $R$-module $M$, a $K$-module $V$, and an $R$-module homomorphism $$phi:Mto V.$$ This is quasi-coherent if and only if $phi$ induces an isomorphism $$Motimes_R K xrightarrowcong V,$$ i.e., the $mathcalO_X$-module is equivalent to $$(M,Motimes_R K,iota_M).$$ In particular, consider the $mathcalO_X$-module $$(R,0,0).$$
                For every $mathcalO_X$-module homomorphism of this $mathcalO_X$-module to a quasi-coherent $mathcalO_X$-module, $$(psi_R,psi_eta):(R,0,0) to (M,Motimes_R K,iota_M),$$ the composite $iota_Mcirc psi_R$ equals $0$. Thus, the image $psi_R(R)$ is contained in the torsion submodule of $M$. Every torsion quotient of $R$ has nonzero kernel. Thus, $(psi_R,psi_eta)$ is not a monomorphism.







                share|cite|improve this answer














                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited 2 hours ago


























                community wiki





                2 revs
                Jason Starr




























                     

                    draft saved


                    draft discarded















































                     


                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function ()
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f314386%2fdoes-every-sheaf-embed-into-a-quasicoherent-sheaf%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                    );

                    Post as a guest













































































                    Popular posts from this blog

                    How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

                    Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

                    How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?