1/x
0
1 | |
A | |
K |
K
1 | |
H | |
(x) |
(K[x])
K[x]
1 | |
A | |
K |
[1/x]
1/xy
x
y
x
y
[1/xy]
2 | |
H | |
(x,y) |
(K[x,y])
Outside of algebraic geometry, local cohomology has found applications in commutative algebra, combinatorics,[1] and certain kinds of partial differential equations.
In the most general geometric form of the theory, sections
\GammaY
F
X
Y
\GammaY
i(X,F) | |
H | |
Y |
In the theory's algebraic form, the space X is the spectrum Spec(R) of a commutative ring R (assumed to be Noetherian throughout this article) and the sheaf F is the quasicoherent sheaf associated to an R-module M, denoted by
\tildeM
\GammaI(M):=cupn(0:MIn),
\bullet)) | |
H | |
I(E |
\bullet) | |
\Gamma | |
I(E |
\GammaI(-)
E\bullet
M
E\bullet
The I-torsion part
\GammaI(M)
\GammaI(M):=\varinjlimn\operatorname
n, | |
{Hom} | |
R(R/I |
M),
and for this reason, the local cohomology of an R-module M agrees with a direct limit of Ext modules,
i(M) | |
H | |
I |
:=\varinjlimn\operatorname
i(R/I | |
{Ext} | |
R |
n,M).
It follows from either of these definitions that
i | |
H | |
I(M) |
I
The derived functor definition of local cohomology requires an injective resolution of the module
M
The Čech complex can be defined as a colimit of Koszul complexes
\bullet(f | |
K | |
1,\ldots,f |
m)
f1,\ldots,fn
I
i(M) | |
H | |
I |
\cong\varinjlimmHi\left(\operatorname{Hom}R\left(K\bullet\left
m, | |
(f | |
1 |
...,
m | |
f | |
n |
\right),M\right)\right)
Koszul complexes have the property that multiplication by
fi
⋅ fi:
\bullet(f | |
K | |
1,\ldots, |
fn)\to
\bullet(f | |
K | |
1,\ldots, |
fn)
Hi(K
\bullet(f | |
1,\ldots, |
fn))
fi
\operatorname{Hom}
This colimit of Koszul complexes is isomorphic to[3] the Čech complex, denoted
\bullet(f | |
\check{C} | |
1,\ldots,f |
n;M)
where the ith local cohomology module of0\toM\to
oplus i0
M fi \to
oplus i0<i1
M
f
f i1 i0 \to … \to
M f1 … fn \to0
M
I=(f1,\ldots,fn)
i | |
H | |
I(M)\cong |
Hi(\check{C}
\bullet(f | |
1,\ldots,f |
n;M)).
The broader issue of computing local cohomology modules (in characteristic zero) is discussed in and .
Since local cohomology is defined as derived functor, for any short exact sequence of R-modules
0\toM1\toM2\toM3\to0
… \to
i | |
H | |
I(M |
1)\to
i | |
H | |
I(M |
2)\to
i | |
H | |
I(M |
3)\to
i+1 | |
H | |
I(M |
1)\to …
There is also a long exact sequence of sheaf cohomology linking the ordinary sheaf cohomology of X and of the open set U = X \Y, with the local cohomology modules. For a quasicoherent sheaf F defined on X, this has the form
… \to
i | |
H | |
Y(X,F)\to |
Hi(X,F)\toHi(U,F)\to
i+1 | |
H | |
Y(X,F)\to … |
Spec(R)
Hi(X,F)
i>0
F=\tilde{M}
0\to
0(M) | |
H | |
I |
\toM\stackrel{res
where the middle map is the restriction of sections. The target of this restriction map is also referred to as the ideal transform. For n ≥ 1, there are isomorphisms
Hn(U,\tildeM)\stackrel\cong\to
n+1 | |
H | |
I(M). |
Because of the above isomorphism with sheaf cohomology, local cohomology can be used to express a number of meaningful topological constructions on the scheme
X=\operatorname{Spec}(R)
…
i | |
H | |
I+J |
(M)\to
i | |
H | |
I(M) ⊕ |
i | |
H | |
J(M)\to |
i | |
H | |
I\capJ |
(M)\to
i+1 | |
H | |
I+J |
(M)\to …
for any
R
M
The vanishing of local cohomology can be used to bound the least number of equations (referred to as the arithmetic rank) needed to (set theoretically) define the algebraic set
V(I)
\operatorname{Spec}(R)
J
I
n
J
i>n
J
\sqrt{J}=\sqrt{I}
I
\operatorname{ara}(I)
I
i | |
H | |
I(M)=0 |
i>\operatorname{ara}(I)
When
R
N
I
M
i | |
H | |
I(M) |
M
R
M
I=ak{m}
R
i | |
H | |
ak{m |
R
n
The case where
I=akm
i+1 | |
H | |
akm |
(M)\congopluskHi(Proj(R),\tildeM(k))
where
Proj(R)
R
(k)
i+1 | |
H | |
akm |
(M)n\congHi(Proj(R),\tildeM(n))
in all degrees
n
This isomorphism relates local cohomology with the global cohomology of projective schemes. For example, the Castelnuovo–Mumford regularity can be formulated using local cohomology as
reg(M)=
i | |
sup\{end(H | |
ak{m |
where
end(N)
t
Nt ≠ 0
Using the Čech complex, if
I=(f1,\ldots,fn)R
n | |
H | |
I(M) |
R
\left[ | m | ||||||||||||||
|
\right]
m\inM
t1,\ldots,tn\geq1
n | |
H | |
I(M) |
k\geq0
(f1 …
k | |
f | |
t) |
m\in
t1+k | |
(f | |
1 |
tn+k | |
,\ldots,f | |
t |
)M
ti=1
fi ⋅ \left[
m | |||||||||||||||
|
\right]=0.
K
R=K[x1,\ldots,xn]
K
n
n | |
H | |
(x1,\ldots,xn) |
(K[x1,\ldots,xn])
K
-t1 | |
\left[x | |
1 |
…
-tn | |
x | |
n |
\right]
t1,\ldots,tn\geq1
R
xi
ti
xi ⋅
-t1 | |
\left[x | |
1 |
…
-1 | |
x | |
i |
…
-tn | |
x | |
n |
\right]=0.
ti
R
n | |
H | |
(x1,\ldots,xn) |
(K[x1,\ldots,xn])
If
H0(U,\tildeR)
U=\operatorname{Spec}(R)-V(I)
1 | |
H | |
I(R) |
0\to
0(R) | |
H | |
I |
\toR\toH0(U,\tildeR)\to
1 | |
H | |
I(R) |
\to0.
In the following examples,
K
R=K[X,Y2,XY,Y3]
I=(X,Y2)R
H0(U,\tildeR)=K[X,Y]
K
1 | |
H | |
I(R) |
K[X,Y]/K[X,Y2,XY,Y3]
K
Y
R=K[X,Y]/(X2,XY)
ak{m}=(X,Y)R
\Gammaak{m
H0(U,\tildeR)=K[Y,Y-1]
1 | |
H | |
ak{m |
K
Y-1,Y-2,Y-3,\ldots
The dimension dimR(M) of a module (defined as the Krull dimension of its support) provides an upper bound for local cohomology modules:
n(M) | |
H | |
I |
=0foralln>\dimR(M).
If R is local and M finitely generated, then this bound is sharp, i.e.,
n | |
H | |
ak{m}(M)\ne |
0
The depth (defined as the maximal length of a regular M-sequence; also referred to as the grade of M) provides a sharp lower bound, i.e., it is the smallest integer n such that[4]
n | |
H | |
I(M) |
\ne0.
These two bounds together yield a characterisation of Cohen–Macaulay modules over local rings: they are precisely those modules where
n | |
H | |
ak{m}(M) |
R
d
R
n | |
H | |
akm(M) |
x
d-n | |
\operatorname{Ext} | |
R |
(M,\omegaR)\to
d | |
H | |
akm(\omega |
R)
is a perfect pairing, where
\omegaR
R
D(-)
n | |
H | |
akm(M) |
\cong
d-n | |
D(\operatorname{Ext} | |
R |
(M,\omegaR))
The statement is simpler when
\omegaR\congR
R
R
The initial applications were to analogues of the Lefschetz hyperplane theorems. In general such theorems state that homology or cohomology is supported on a hyperplane section of an algebraic variety, except for some 'loss' that can be controlled. These results applied to the algebraic fundamental group and to the Picard group.
Another type of application are connectedness theorems such as Grothendieck's connectedness theorem (a local analogue of the Bertini theorem) or the Fulton–Hansen connectedness theorem due to and . The latter asserts that for two projective varieties V and W in Pr over an algebraically closed field, the connectedness dimension of Z = V ∩ W (i.e., the minimal dimension of a closed subset T of Z that has to be removed from Z so that the complement Z \ T is disconnected) is bound by
c(Z) ≥ dim V + dim W - r - 1.For example, Z is connected if dim V + dim W > r.
In polyhedral geometry, a key ingredient of Stanley’s 1975 proof of the simplicial form of McMullen’s Upper bound theorem involves showing that the Stanley-Reisner ring of the corresponding simplicial complex is Cohen-Macaulay, and local cohomology is an important tool in this computation, via Hochster’s formula.[5] [1]