We recall the definition.
Definition 59.27.1. An étale covering of a scheme $U$ is a family of morphisms of schemes $\{ \varphi _ i : U_ i \to U\} _{i \in I}$ such that
each $\varphi _ i$ is an étale morphism,
the $U_ i$ cover $U$, i.e., $U = \bigcup _{i\in I}\varphi _ i(U_ i)$.
Lemma 59.27.2. Any étale covering is an fpqc covering.
Proof. (See also Topologies, Lemma 34.9.7.) Let $\{ \varphi _ i : U_ i \to U\} _{i \in I}$ be an étale covering. Since an étale morphism is flat, and the elements of the covering should cover its target, the property fp (faithfully flat) is satisfied. To check the property qc (quasi-compact), let $V \subset U$ be an affine open, and write $\varphi _ i^{-1}(V) = \bigcup _{j \in J_ i} V_{ij}$ for some affine opens $V_{ij} \subset U_ i$. Since $\varphi _ i$ is open (as étale morphisms are open), we see that $V = \bigcup _{i\in I} \bigcup _{j \in J_ i} \varphi _ i(V_{ij})$ is an open covering of $V$. Further, since $V$ is quasi-compact, this covering has a finite refinement. $\square$
So any statement which is true for fpqc coverings remains true a fortiori for étale coverings. For instance, the étale site is subcanonical.
Definition 59.27.3. (For more details see Section 59.20, or Topologies, Section 34.4.) Let $S$ be a scheme. The big étale site over $S$ is the site $(\mathit{Sch}/S)_{\acute{e}tale}$, see Definition 59.20.2. The small étale site over $S$ is the site $S_{\acute{e}tale}$, see Definition 59.20.2. We define similarly the big and small Zariski sites on $S$, denoted $(\mathit{Sch}/S)_{Zar}$ and $S_{Zar}$.
Loosely speaking the big étale site of $S$ is made up out of schemes over $S$ and coverings the étale coverings. The small étale site of $S$ is made up out of schemes étale over $S$ with coverings the étale coverings. Actually any morphism between objects of $S_{\acute{e}tale}$ is étale, in virtue of Proposition 59.26.2, hence to check that $\{ U_ i \to U\} _{i \in I}$ in $S_{\acute{e}tale}$ is a covering it suffices to check that $\coprod U_ i \to U$ is surjective.
The small étale site has fewer objects than the big étale site, it contains only the “opens” of the étale topology on $S$. It is a full subcategory of the big étale site, and its topology is induced from the topology on the big site. Hence it is true that the restriction functor from the big étale site to the small one is exact and maps injectives to injectives. This has the following consequence.
Proposition 59.27.4. Let $S$ be a scheme and $\mathcal{F}$ an abelian sheaf on $(\mathit{Sch}/S)_{\acute{e}tale}$. Then $\mathcal{F}|_{S_{\acute{e}tale}}$ is a sheaf on $S_{\acute{e}tale}$ and for all $p \geq 0$.
\[ H^ p_{\acute{e}tale}(S, \mathcal{F}|_{S_{\acute{e}tale}}) = H^ p_{\acute{e}tale}(S, \mathcal{F}) \]
Proof. This is a special case of Lemma 59.20.3. $\square$
In accordance with the general notation introduced in Section 59.20 we write $H_{\acute{e}tale}^ p(S, \mathcal{F})$ for the above cohomology group.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked.
In your comment you can use Markdown and LaTeX style mathematics (enclose it like $\pi$). A preview option is available if you wish to see how it works out (just click on the eye in the toolbar).
All contributions are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.
Comments (2)
Comment #1340 by yogesh more on
Comment #1359 by Johan on