Definition
Suppose given a sheaf on Y and that we want to transport to X using a continuous map f : X → Y. We will call the result the inverse image or pullback sheaf . If we try to imitate the direct image by setting for each open set U of X, we immediately run into a problem: f(U) is not necessarily open. The best we can do is to approximate it by open sets, and even then we will get a presheaf, not a sheaf. Consequently we define to be the sheaf associated to the presheaf:
(U is an open subset of X and the colimit runs over all open subsets V of Y containing f(U)).
For example, if f is just the inclusion of a point y of Y, then is just the stalk of at this point.
The restriction maps, as well as the functoriality of the inverse image follows from the universal property of direct limits.
When dealing with morphisms f : X → Y of locally ringed spaces, for example schemes in algebraic geometry, one often works with sheaves of -modules, where is the structure sheaf of Y. Then the functor f−1 is inappropriate, because (in general) it does not even give sheaves of -modules. In order to remedy this, one defines in this situation for a sheaf of -modules its inverse image by
- .
Read more about this topic: Inverse Image Functor
Famous quotes containing the word definition:
“The physicians say, they are not materialists; but they are:MSpirit is matter reduced to an extreme thinness: O so thin!—But the definition of spiritual should be, that which is its own evidence. What notions do they attach to love! what to religion! One would not willingly pronounce these words in their hearing, and give them the occasion to profane them.”
—Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882)
“It’s a rare parent who can see his or her child clearly and objectively. At a school board meeting I attended . . . the only definition of a gifted child on which everyone in the audience could agree was “mine.””
—Jane Adams (20th century)
“The man who knows governments most completely is he who troubles himself least about a definition which shall give their essence. Enjoying an intimate acquaintance with all their particularities in turn, he would naturally regard an abstract conception in which these were unified as a thing more misleading than enlightening.”
—William James (1842–1910)