Pro-étale cohomology

4. Pro-categories🔗

Let \mathcal{C} be a category. The category \pro{\mathcal{C}} is the full subcategory of \mathrm{Fun}(\mathcal{C}, \mathrm{Set})^{\mathrm{op}} on the functors that are cofiltered limits of representable functors. This category satisfies the following universal property:

(Universal property of \pro{\mathcal{C}}.) Let \mathcal{D} be a category with cofiltered limits. The restriction functor \mathrm{Fun}(\pro{\mathcal{C}}, \mathcal{D}) \to \mathrm{Fun}(\mathcal{C}, \mathcal{D}) admits a left-adjoint that induces an equivalence on the full subcategory of \mathrm{Fun}(\pro{\mathcal{C}}, \mathcal{D}) on functors preserving cofiltered limits.

Proof for Proposition 4.1
uses 0

The left-adjoint is the left Kan extension along the inclusion \mathcal{C} \to \pro{\mathcal{C}}.

Let now \mathcal{K} be a small category. The canonical functor \mathcal{C} \to \pro{\mathcal{C}} induces a functor \mathrm{Fun}(\mathcal{K}, \mathcal{C}) \to \mathrm{Fun}(\mathcal{K}, \pro{\mathcal{C}}). Since the right hand side admits small cofiltered limits, the universal property of \pro{\mathcal{C}} induces a canonical functor \Phi_{\mathcal{K}}\colon \pro{\mathrm{Fun}(\mathcal{K}, \mathcal{C})} \longrightarrow \mathrm{Fun}(\mathcal{K}, \pro{\mathcal{C}}).

Suppose \mathcal{K} is a finite category and every object of \mathcal{K} admits no non-trivial automorphisms. Then the natural functor \Phi_{\mathcal{K}} induces an equivalence of categories.

Proof for Proposition 4.2
uses 0

See Kashiwara–Schapira, Theorem 6.4.3.

Note that Proposition 4.2 in particular implies that if there is a finite family of morphisms f_i \colon X_i \to X in \pro{\mathcal{C}}, there exists a diagram \mathcal{J} such that X = \lim_{j \in \mathcal{J}} Y_j and X_i = \lim_{j \in \mathcal{J}} Y_{ij} and f_i = \lim_{j \in \mathcal{J}} f_{ij} for morphisms f_{ij}\colon Y_{ij} \to Y_j.

Let \mathcal{A} be a category with cofiltered limits and suppose there exists a fully faithful functor i\colon \mathcal{C} \to \mathcal{A} such that i(X) is cocompact for all X \in \mathcal{C}. Then \lim_{\mathcal{A}} \circ \; \pro{i}\colon \pro{\mathcal{C}} \to \mathcal{A} is fully faithful.

Proof for Proposition 4.4
uses 0

See nlab.

Let P be a property of objects of a category \mathcal{A} that implies finitely presented. Denote by \mathcal{A}_P (resp. \mathcal{A}_{\pro{P}}) the full subcategory defined by P (resp. \pro{P}). Suppose \mathcal{A} has cofiltered limits, then \lim_{\mathcal{A}} induces an equivalence \pro{\mathcal{A}_{P}} \cong \mathcal{A}_{\pro{P}}.

Proof for Corollary 4.5

Follows from Proposition 4.4, because by definition \mathcal{A}_{\pro{P}} is the essential image of \lim_{\mathcal{A}}(\pro{\mathcal{A}_{P}}).

Note that Corollary 4.5 does not apply to \mathcal{A} = \mathrm{Scheme} / X and P = \text{étale}, because \mathrm{Scheme} / X does not have all cofiltered limits. It does apply in the case of \mathcal{A} = \mathrm{AffScheme} / X though, or in the case \mathrm{CRing}^{\mathrm{op}} / R.

Recall the following definition:

A category \mathcal{C} is precoherent if given a finite effective epimorphism family f\colon X_i \to X and a morphism p\colon Y \to X, there exists a finite effective epimorphism family g\colon Y_j \to Y that factors through f.

Lean code for Lemma4.72 theorems
  • theoremdefined in Proetale/Topology/Coherent/Etale.lean
    complete
    theorem AlgebraicGeometry.Scheme.Etale.effectiveEpi_of_surjective.{u_1}
      {S : AlgebraicGeometry.Scheme} {X Y : S.Etale} (f : X  Y)
      [AlgebraicGeometry.Surjective f.left] : CategoryTheory.EffectiveEpi f
    theorem AlgebraicGeometry.Scheme.Etale.effectiveEpi_of_surjective.{u_1}
      {S : AlgebraicGeometry.Scheme}
      {X Y : S.Etale} (f : X  Y)
      [AlgebraicGeometry.Surjective f.left] :
      CategoryTheory.EffectiveEpi f
    A morphism in the small étale site is an epimorphism if and only if it is surjective. 
  • theoremdefined in Proetale/Topology/Coherent/Etale.lean
    complete
    theorem AlgebraicGeometry.Scheme.Etale.surjective_of_epi.{u_1}
      {S : AlgebraicGeometry.Scheme} {X Y : S.Etale} (f : X  Y)
      [CategoryTheory.Epi f] : AlgebraicGeometry.Surjective f.left
    theorem AlgebraicGeometry.Scheme.Etale.surjective_of_epi.{u_1}
      {S : AlgebraicGeometry.Scheme}
      {X Y : S.Etale} (f : X  Y)
      [CategoryTheory.Epi f] :
      AlgebraicGeometry.Surjective f.left
    A morphism in the small étale site is an epimorphism if and only if it is surjective. 
Proof for Lemma 4.7

One direction follows from the fact that the fpqc topology is subcanonical. The converse holds, because étale morphisms are open: If f\colon X \to Y is an étale morphism we may glue two copies of Y along the inclusion of the image of f. If f is not surjective, the two inclusions of Y into the amalgamated sum are different, but by construction they agree on the image of f. Hence f is not an epimorphism.

Proof for Lemma 4.8
uses 0

Since the Zariski topology is subcanonical, the category of schemes embeds into the big Zariski topos, which is finitary extensive. Since the Yoneda embedding preserves finite coproducts, the claim follows.

Lean code for Lemma4.91 theorem
  • theoremdefined in Proetale/Topology/Coherent/Etale.lean
    complete
    theorem AlgebraicGeometry.Scheme.Etale.precoherent.{u}
      (S : AlgebraicGeometry.Scheme) : CategoryTheory.Precoherent S.Etale
    theorem AlgebraicGeometry.Scheme.Etale.precoherent.{u}
      (S : AlgebraicGeometry.Scheme) :
      CategoryTheory.Precoherent S.Etale
    The small étale site of a scheme is precoherent. 
Proof for Lemma 4.9
Proof uses 2
Proof dependency previews
Preview
Lemma 4.7
Loading preview
Proof dependency preview content is loaded from the Blueprint HTML cache.

The category of schemes is finitary extensive, so the same holds for \et{X}. By Lemma 4.7 the effective epimorphisms in \et{X} are the surjective morphisms, hence being an effective epimorphism is stable under base change. Thus \et{X} is preregular and therefore precoherent.

  1. 4.1. Coherent topology
  2. 4.2. Generated topologies