Lemma 52.19.3. In Situation 52.16.1 let $(\mathcal{F}_ n)$ be an object of $\textit{Coh}(U, I\mathcal{O}_ U)$. If $\text{cd}(A, I) = 1$, then $\mathcal{F}$ satisfies the $(2, 3)$-inequalities if and only if
for all $y \in U \cap Y$ and $\mathfrak p \subset \mathcal{O}_{X, y}^\wedge $ with $\mathfrak p \not\in V(I\mathcal{O}_{X, y}^\wedge )$.
Proof. Observe that for a prime $\mathfrak p \subset \mathcal{O}_{X, y}^\wedge $, $\mathfrak p \not\in V(I\mathcal{O}_{X, y}^\wedge )$ we have $V(\mathfrak p) \cap V(I\mathcal{O}_{X, y}^\wedge ) = \{ \mathfrak m_ y^\wedge \} \Leftrightarrow \dim (\mathcal{O}_{X, y}^\wedge /\mathfrak p) = 1$ as $\text{cd}(A, I) = 1$. See Local Cohomology, Lemmas 51.4.5 and 51.4.10. OK, consider the three numbers $\alpha = \text{depth}((\mathcal{F}^\wedge _ y)_\mathfrak p) \geq 0$, $\beta = \dim (\mathcal{O}_{X, y}^\wedge /\mathfrak p) \geq 1$, and $\gamma = \delta ^ Y_ Z(y) \geq 1$. Then we see Definition 52.19.1 requires
if $\beta > 1$, then $\alpha + \gamma \geq 2$ or $\alpha + \beta + \gamma > 3$, and
if $\beta = 1$, then $\alpha + \gamma > 2$.
It is trivial to see that this is equivalent to $\alpha + \beta + \gamma > 3$. $\square$
Your email address will not be published.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 (0)