Cohomology of tensor product of pullback in $mathbb P^1timesmathbb P^1$.











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












Let $X=mathbb P^1timesmathbb P^1$, and let $pi_1$ and $pi_2$ be the projection maps. For each $a,binmathbb Z$, we have a sheaf of $mathcal O_X$-modules $mathscr F_{a,b} = pi_1^*mathcal O(a)otimes pi_2^*mathcal O(b)$, and I want to compute its cohomology using the open affine with four open sets obtained from the usual cover ${U_0,U_1}$ of $mathbb P^1$, or otherwise.



Unless I am missing something, on a product $U=U_itimes U_j$, $mathscr F_{a,b}(U)$ consists of bihomogeneous quotients $f(x)g(y)/x_i^ry_j^s$ such that
$deg f = r+a$ and $deg g = s+b$. On sets of the form $U_{ij}times U_k$ and the remaining others there is an analogous description.



Using the above, I was trying to compute $H^*(X,mathscr F_{a,b})$, but quickly run into cumbersome computations. I did get that $d^2$ is zero since all triple and cuadruple intersections are the same, so $d^2=0$ since there are four triple intersections and everything cancels, hence $H^3$ is just $O(a)(U_{01})otimes O(b)(U_{01})$ unless I am missing something.



I can also describe the kernels of $d^0$ and $d^1$, so probably after some
long computations arrive at an answer. Does anyone have a hint on how to move on? Perhaps a more clever approach? Perhaps the Segre embedding could help out here?



Note. This is the last exercise in Chapter 8 of these notes.










share|cite|improve this question






















  • Why don't you want to use Kunneth formula ?
    – Nicolas Hemelsoet
    2 days ago










  • @NicolasHemelsoet Mostly because I was not aware there was one. :)
    – Pedro Tamaroff
    yesterday










  • (N.B.: I was somewhat suspicious that the Cech complexes of the respective covers are quasi-isomorphic, but when computing $H^*(X,mathscr F)$ something led be to believe this guess was not quite right, at least not in full generality. I'll try to write down a proof and post it as an answer.)
    – Pedro Tamaroff
    yesterday












  • It's true in full generality : you only need $X,Y$ separated and $F,G$ quasi coherent sheaves on $X$, resp. $Y$.
    – Nicolas Hemelsoet
    yesterday















up vote
1
down vote

favorite












Let $X=mathbb P^1timesmathbb P^1$, and let $pi_1$ and $pi_2$ be the projection maps. For each $a,binmathbb Z$, we have a sheaf of $mathcal O_X$-modules $mathscr F_{a,b} = pi_1^*mathcal O(a)otimes pi_2^*mathcal O(b)$, and I want to compute its cohomology using the open affine with four open sets obtained from the usual cover ${U_0,U_1}$ of $mathbb P^1$, or otherwise.



Unless I am missing something, on a product $U=U_itimes U_j$, $mathscr F_{a,b}(U)$ consists of bihomogeneous quotients $f(x)g(y)/x_i^ry_j^s$ such that
$deg f = r+a$ and $deg g = s+b$. On sets of the form $U_{ij}times U_k$ and the remaining others there is an analogous description.



Using the above, I was trying to compute $H^*(X,mathscr F_{a,b})$, but quickly run into cumbersome computations. I did get that $d^2$ is zero since all triple and cuadruple intersections are the same, so $d^2=0$ since there are four triple intersections and everything cancels, hence $H^3$ is just $O(a)(U_{01})otimes O(b)(U_{01})$ unless I am missing something.



I can also describe the kernels of $d^0$ and $d^1$, so probably after some
long computations arrive at an answer. Does anyone have a hint on how to move on? Perhaps a more clever approach? Perhaps the Segre embedding could help out here?



Note. This is the last exercise in Chapter 8 of these notes.










share|cite|improve this question






















  • Why don't you want to use Kunneth formula ?
    – Nicolas Hemelsoet
    2 days ago










  • @NicolasHemelsoet Mostly because I was not aware there was one. :)
    – Pedro Tamaroff
    yesterday










  • (N.B.: I was somewhat suspicious that the Cech complexes of the respective covers are quasi-isomorphic, but when computing $H^*(X,mathscr F)$ something led be to believe this guess was not quite right, at least not in full generality. I'll try to write down a proof and post it as an answer.)
    – Pedro Tamaroff
    yesterday












  • It's true in full generality : you only need $X,Y$ separated and $F,G$ quasi coherent sheaves on $X$, resp. $Y$.
    – Nicolas Hemelsoet
    yesterday













up vote
1
down vote

favorite









up vote
1
down vote

favorite











Let $X=mathbb P^1timesmathbb P^1$, and let $pi_1$ and $pi_2$ be the projection maps. For each $a,binmathbb Z$, we have a sheaf of $mathcal O_X$-modules $mathscr F_{a,b} = pi_1^*mathcal O(a)otimes pi_2^*mathcal O(b)$, and I want to compute its cohomology using the open affine with four open sets obtained from the usual cover ${U_0,U_1}$ of $mathbb P^1$, or otherwise.



Unless I am missing something, on a product $U=U_itimes U_j$, $mathscr F_{a,b}(U)$ consists of bihomogeneous quotients $f(x)g(y)/x_i^ry_j^s$ such that
$deg f = r+a$ and $deg g = s+b$. On sets of the form $U_{ij}times U_k$ and the remaining others there is an analogous description.



Using the above, I was trying to compute $H^*(X,mathscr F_{a,b})$, but quickly run into cumbersome computations. I did get that $d^2$ is zero since all triple and cuadruple intersections are the same, so $d^2=0$ since there are four triple intersections and everything cancels, hence $H^3$ is just $O(a)(U_{01})otimes O(b)(U_{01})$ unless I am missing something.



I can also describe the kernels of $d^0$ and $d^1$, so probably after some
long computations arrive at an answer. Does anyone have a hint on how to move on? Perhaps a more clever approach? Perhaps the Segre embedding could help out here?



Note. This is the last exercise in Chapter 8 of these notes.










share|cite|improve this question













Let $X=mathbb P^1timesmathbb P^1$, and let $pi_1$ and $pi_2$ be the projection maps. For each $a,binmathbb Z$, we have a sheaf of $mathcal O_X$-modules $mathscr F_{a,b} = pi_1^*mathcal O(a)otimes pi_2^*mathcal O(b)$, and I want to compute its cohomology using the open affine with four open sets obtained from the usual cover ${U_0,U_1}$ of $mathbb P^1$, or otherwise.



Unless I am missing something, on a product $U=U_itimes U_j$, $mathscr F_{a,b}(U)$ consists of bihomogeneous quotients $f(x)g(y)/x_i^ry_j^s$ such that
$deg f = r+a$ and $deg g = s+b$. On sets of the form $U_{ij}times U_k$ and the remaining others there is an analogous description.



Using the above, I was trying to compute $H^*(X,mathscr F_{a,b})$, but quickly run into cumbersome computations. I did get that $d^2$ is zero since all triple and cuadruple intersections are the same, so $d^2=0$ since there are four triple intersections and everything cancels, hence $H^3$ is just $O(a)(U_{01})otimes O(b)(U_{01})$ unless I am missing something.



I can also describe the kernels of $d^0$ and $d^1$, so probably after some
long computations arrive at an answer. Does anyone have a hint on how to move on? Perhaps a more clever approach? Perhaps the Segre embedding could help out here?



Note. This is the last exercise in Chapter 8 of these notes.







projective-space sheaf-cohomology






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked 2 days ago









Pedro Tamaroff

95.5k10149295




95.5k10149295












  • Why don't you want to use Kunneth formula ?
    – Nicolas Hemelsoet
    2 days ago










  • @NicolasHemelsoet Mostly because I was not aware there was one. :)
    – Pedro Tamaroff
    yesterday










  • (N.B.: I was somewhat suspicious that the Cech complexes of the respective covers are quasi-isomorphic, but when computing $H^*(X,mathscr F)$ something led be to believe this guess was not quite right, at least not in full generality. I'll try to write down a proof and post it as an answer.)
    – Pedro Tamaroff
    yesterday












  • It's true in full generality : you only need $X,Y$ separated and $F,G$ quasi coherent sheaves on $X$, resp. $Y$.
    – Nicolas Hemelsoet
    yesterday


















  • Why don't you want to use Kunneth formula ?
    – Nicolas Hemelsoet
    2 days ago










  • @NicolasHemelsoet Mostly because I was not aware there was one. :)
    – Pedro Tamaroff
    yesterday










  • (N.B.: I was somewhat suspicious that the Cech complexes of the respective covers are quasi-isomorphic, but when computing $H^*(X,mathscr F)$ something led be to believe this guess was not quite right, at least not in full generality. I'll try to write down a proof and post it as an answer.)
    – Pedro Tamaroff
    yesterday












  • It's true in full generality : you only need $X,Y$ separated and $F,G$ quasi coherent sheaves on $X$, resp. $Y$.
    – Nicolas Hemelsoet
    yesterday
















Why don't you want to use Kunneth formula ?
– Nicolas Hemelsoet
2 days ago




Why don't you want to use Kunneth formula ?
– Nicolas Hemelsoet
2 days ago












@NicolasHemelsoet Mostly because I was not aware there was one. :)
– Pedro Tamaroff
yesterday




@NicolasHemelsoet Mostly because I was not aware there was one. :)
– Pedro Tamaroff
yesterday












(N.B.: I was somewhat suspicious that the Cech complexes of the respective covers are quasi-isomorphic, but when computing $H^*(X,mathscr F)$ something led be to believe this guess was not quite right, at least not in full generality. I'll try to write down a proof and post it as an answer.)
– Pedro Tamaroff
yesterday






(N.B.: I was somewhat suspicious that the Cech complexes of the respective covers are quasi-isomorphic, but when computing $H^*(X,mathscr F)$ something led be to believe this guess was not quite right, at least not in full generality. I'll try to write down a proof and post it as an answer.)
– Pedro Tamaroff
yesterday














It's true in full generality : you only need $X,Y$ separated and $F,G$ quasi coherent sheaves on $X$, resp. $Y$.
– Nicolas Hemelsoet
yesterday




It's true in full generality : you only need $X,Y$ separated and $F,G$ quasi coherent sheaves on $X$, resp. $Y$.
– Nicolas Hemelsoet
yesterday










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
0
down vote













The following two references deal with this: Some elementary proofs of basic theorems in the cohomology of quasi-coherent sheaves, $S4$, by Kempf, and A Kunneth formula for coherent algebraic sheaves, by Sampson and Washnitzer.






share|cite|improve this answer





















    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3005386%2fcohomology-of-tensor-product-of-pullback-in-mathbb-p1-times-mathbb-p1%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    0
    down vote













    The following two references deal with this: Some elementary proofs of basic theorems in the cohomology of quasi-coherent sheaves, $S4$, by Kempf, and A Kunneth formula for coherent algebraic sheaves, by Sampson and Washnitzer.






    share|cite|improve this answer

























      up vote
      0
      down vote













      The following two references deal with this: Some elementary proofs of basic theorems in the cohomology of quasi-coherent sheaves, $S4$, by Kempf, and A Kunneth formula for coherent algebraic sheaves, by Sampson and Washnitzer.






      share|cite|improve this answer























        up vote
        0
        down vote










        up vote
        0
        down vote









        The following two references deal with this: Some elementary proofs of basic theorems in the cohomology of quasi-coherent sheaves, $S4$, by Kempf, and A Kunneth formula for coherent algebraic sheaves, by Sampson and Washnitzer.






        share|cite|improve this answer












        The following two references deal with this: Some elementary proofs of basic theorems in the cohomology of quasi-coherent sheaves, $S4$, by Kempf, and A Kunneth formula for coherent algebraic sheaves, by Sampson and Washnitzer.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered yesterday









        Pedro Tamaroff

        95.5k10149295




        95.5k10149295






























             

            draft saved


            draft discarded



















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3005386%2fcohomology-of-tensor-product-of-pullback-in-mathbb-p1-times-mathbb-p1%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Wiesbaden

            Marschland

            Dieringhausen