Trace of a morphism of sheaves












1












$begingroup$


$underline {Background}$:Suppose $X$ be a scheme and $mathcal F$ and $mathcal G$ are two sheaves of $mathcal O_X$ modules.



Also assume that $exists ${U}$ $ a cover of $X$ by open sets such that each $mathcal F(U),mathcal G(U)$ are finitely free $mathcal O(U)$ modules.



Let $ exists phi:mathcal Ftomathcal G$ a sheaf of $mathcal O_X$ modules.



$underline {Question}$:what is the meaning of the statement "trace$phi=0$"



$underline {Guess}$:Does it mean for all open set $V$ of $X$



$phi(V):mathcal F(V)to mathcal G(V)$ has trace of the matrix of $phi(V)=0$



But this makes sense only for $V=U$ because,we only have $phi(U)$ is a morphism between 2 finitely free $mathcal O(U)$ modules,and hence its matrix w.r.to canonical bases exists.



So,I would like to know the appropriate definition of trace being $0$ and any text which mentions it clearly.



Any help from anyone is welcome.






algebraic-geometry sheaf-theory







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Where did you see this?
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Dec 31 '18 at 5:35










  • $begingroup$
    @Eric Wolfsey ,Actually ,I have seen it in a handwritten note where $mathcal F$ is a vector bundle and $mathcal G$ is some line bundle tensor $mathcal F$ .But,I have generalized those properties in question to get a meaning of trace map being $0$ in a general situation
    $endgroup$
    – HARRY
    Dec 31 '18 at 5:42








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    You have generalized way too far! It was very very crucial that $mathcal{G}$ was a line bundle tensor $mathcal{F}$, in order for the trace being $0$ to be meaningful.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Dec 31 '18 at 5:48










  • $begingroup$
    I'm not an expert, but a priori I wouldn't expect the notion of trace to make sense except when $mathcal{G}=mathcal{F}$, $mathcal{F}$ locally finite free, in which case I believe one globalizes the trace for finitely generated projective modules.
    $endgroup$
    – K B Dave
    Dec 31 '18 at 5:48










  • $begingroup$
    @Eric wolfsey,even when in that special situation the problem that I mentioned in the question arises.So even in that special case how one makes sense of tr$phi=0$
    $endgroup$
    – HARRY
    Dec 31 '18 at 5:55
















1












$begingroup$


$underline {Background}$:Suppose $X$ be a scheme and $mathcal F$ and $mathcal G$ are two sheaves of $mathcal O_X$ modules.



Also assume that $exists ${U}$ $ a cover of $X$ by open sets such that each $mathcal F(U),mathcal G(U)$ are finitely free $mathcal O(U)$ modules.



Let $ exists phi:mathcal Ftomathcal G$ a sheaf of $mathcal O_X$ modules.



$underline {Question}$:what is the meaning of the statement "trace$phi=0$"



$underline {Guess}$:Does it mean for all open set $V$ of $X$



$phi(V):mathcal F(V)to mathcal G(V)$ has trace of the matrix of $phi(V)=0$



But this makes sense only for $V=U$ because,we only have $phi(U)$ is a morphism between 2 finitely free $mathcal O(U)$ modules,and hence its matrix w.r.to canonical bases exists.



So,I would like to know the appropriate definition of trace being $0$ and any text which mentions it clearly.



Any help from anyone is welcome.






algebraic-geometry sheaf-theory







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Where did you see this?
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Dec 31 '18 at 5:35










  • $begingroup$
    @Eric Wolfsey ,Actually ,I have seen it in a handwritten note where $mathcal F$ is a vector bundle and $mathcal G$ is some line bundle tensor $mathcal F$ .But,I have generalized those properties in question to get a meaning of trace map being $0$ in a general situation
    $endgroup$
    – HARRY
    Dec 31 '18 at 5:42








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    You have generalized way too far! It was very very crucial that $mathcal{G}$ was a line bundle tensor $mathcal{F}$, in order for the trace being $0$ to be meaningful.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Dec 31 '18 at 5:48










  • $begingroup$
    I'm not an expert, but a priori I wouldn't expect the notion of trace to make sense except when $mathcal{G}=mathcal{F}$, $mathcal{F}$ locally finite free, in which case I believe one globalizes the trace for finitely generated projective modules.
    $endgroup$
    – K B Dave
    Dec 31 '18 at 5:48










  • $begingroup$
    @Eric wolfsey,even when in that special situation the problem that I mentioned in the question arises.So even in that special case how one makes sense of tr$phi=0$
    $endgroup$
    – HARRY
    Dec 31 '18 at 5:55














1












1








1





$begingroup$


$underline {Background}$:Suppose $X$ be a scheme and $mathcal F$ and $mathcal G$ are two sheaves of $mathcal O_X$ modules.



Also assume that $exists ${U}$ $ a cover of $X$ by open sets such that each $mathcal F(U),mathcal G(U)$ are finitely free $mathcal O(U)$ modules.



Let $ exists phi:mathcal Ftomathcal G$ a sheaf of $mathcal O_X$ modules.



$underline {Question}$:what is the meaning of the statement "trace$phi=0$"



$underline {Guess}$:Does it mean for all open set $V$ of $X$



$phi(V):mathcal F(V)to mathcal G(V)$ has trace of the matrix of $phi(V)=0$



But this makes sense only for $V=U$ because,we only have $phi(U)$ is a morphism between 2 finitely free $mathcal O(U)$ modules,and hence its matrix w.r.to canonical bases exists.



So,I would like to know the appropriate definition of trace being $0$ and any text which mentions it clearly.



Any help from anyone is welcome.






algebraic-geometry sheaf-theory







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




$underline {Background}$:Suppose $X$ be a scheme and $mathcal F$ and $mathcal G$ are two sheaves of $mathcal O_X$ modules.



Also assume that $exists ${U}$ $ a cover of $X$ by open sets such that each $mathcal F(U),mathcal G(U)$ are finitely free $mathcal O(U)$ modules.



Let $ exists phi:mathcal Ftomathcal G$ a sheaf of $mathcal O_X$ modules.



$underline {Question}$:what is the meaning of the statement "trace$phi=0$"



$underline {Guess}$:Does it mean for all open set $V$ of $X$



$phi(V):mathcal F(V)to mathcal G(V)$ has trace of the matrix of $phi(V)=0$



But this makes sense only for $V=U$ because,we only have $phi(U)$ is a morphism between 2 finitely free $mathcal O(U)$ modules,and hence its matrix w.r.to canonical bases exists.



So,I would like to know the appropriate definition of trace being $0$ and any text which mentions it clearly.



Any help from anyone is welcome.






algebraic-geometry sheaf-theory




algebraic-geometry sheaf-theory






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Dec 31 '18 at 5:29









HARRYHARRY

889




889












  • $begingroup$
    Where did you see this?
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Dec 31 '18 at 5:35










  • $begingroup$
    @Eric Wolfsey ,Actually ,I have seen it in a handwritten note where $mathcal F$ is a vector bundle and $mathcal G$ is some line bundle tensor $mathcal F$ .But,I have generalized those properties in question to get a meaning of trace map being $0$ in a general situation
    $endgroup$
    – HARRY
    Dec 31 '18 at 5:42








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    You have generalized way too far! It was very very crucial that $mathcal{G}$ was a line bundle tensor $mathcal{F}$, in order for the trace being $0$ to be meaningful.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Dec 31 '18 at 5:48










  • $begingroup$
    I'm not an expert, but a priori I wouldn't expect the notion of trace to make sense except when $mathcal{G}=mathcal{F}$, $mathcal{F}$ locally finite free, in which case I believe one globalizes the trace for finitely generated projective modules.
    $endgroup$
    – K B Dave
    Dec 31 '18 at 5:48










  • $begingroup$
    @Eric wolfsey,even when in that special situation the problem that I mentioned in the question arises.So even in that special case how one makes sense of tr$phi=0$
    $endgroup$
    – HARRY
    Dec 31 '18 at 5:55


















  • $begingroup$
    Where did you see this?
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Dec 31 '18 at 5:35










  • $begingroup$
    @Eric Wolfsey ,Actually ,I have seen it in a handwritten note where $mathcal F$ is a vector bundle and $mathcal G$ is some line bundle tensor $mathcal F$ .But,I have generalized those properties in question to get a meaning of trace map being $0$ in a general situation
    $endgroup$
    – HARRY
    Dec 31 '18 at 5:42








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    You have generalized way too far! It was very very crucial that $mathcal{G}$ was a line bundle tensor $mathcal{F}$, in order for the trace being $0$ to be meaningful.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Dec 31 '18 at 5:48










  • $begingroup$
    I'm not an expert, but a priori I wouldn't expect the notion of trace to make sense except when $mathcal{G}=mathcal{F}$, $mathcal{F}$ locally finite free, in which case I believe one globalizes the trace for finitely generated projective modules.
    $endgroup$
    – K B Dave
    Dec 31 '18 at 5:48










  • $begingroup$
    @Eric wolfsey,even when in that special situation the problem that I mentioned in the question arises.So even in that special case how one makes sense of tr$phi=0$
    $endgroup$
    – HARRY
    Dec 31 '18 at 5:55
















$begingroup$
Where did you see this?
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
Dec 31 '18 at 5:35




$begingroup$
Where did you see this?
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
Dec 31 '18 at 5:35












$begingroup$
@Eric Wolfsey ,Actually ,I have seen it in a handwritten note where $mathcal F$ is a vector bundle and $mathcal G$ is some line bundle tensor $mathcal F$ .But,I have generalized those properties in question to get a meaning of trace map being $0$ in a general situation
$endgroup$
– HARRY
Dec 31 '18 at 5:42






$begingroup$
@Eric Wolfsey ,Actually ,I have seen it in a handwritten note where $mathcal F$ is a vector bundle and $mathcal G$ is some line bundle tensor $mathcal F$ .But,I have generalized those properties in question to get a meaning of trace map being $0$ in a general situation
$endgroup$
– HARRY
Dec 31 '18 at 5:42






2




2




$begingroup$
You have generalized way too far! It was very very crucial that $mathcal{G}$ was a line bundle tensor $mathcal{F}$, in order for the trace being $0$ to be meaningful.
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
Dec 31 '18 at 5:48




$begingroup$
You have generalized way too far! It was very very crucial that $mathcal{G}$ was a line bundle tensor $mathcal{F}$, in order for the trace being $0$ to be meaningful.
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
Dec 31 '18 at 5:48












$begingroup$
I'm not an expert, but a priori I wouldn't expect the notion of trace to make sense except when $mathcal{G}=mathcal{F}$, $mathcal{F}$ locally finite free, in which case I believe one globalizes the trace for finitely generated projective modules.
$endgroup$
– K B Dave
Dec 31 '18 at 5:48




$begingroup$
I'm not an expert, but a priori I wouldn't expect the notion of trace to make sense except when $mathcal{G}=mathcal{F}$, $mathcal{F}$ locally finite free, in which case I believe one globalizes the trace for finitely generated projective modules.
$endgroup$
– K B Dave
Dec 31 '18 at 5:48












$begingroup$
@Eric wolfsey,even when in that special situation the problem that I mentioned in the question arises.So even in that special case how one makes sense of tr$phi=0$
$endgroup$
– HARRY
Dec 31 '18 at 5:55




$begingroup$
@Eric wolfsey,even when in that special situation the problem that I mentioned in the question arises.So even in that special case how one makes sense of tr$phi=0$
$endgroup$
– HARRY
Dec 31 '18 at 5:55










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















3












$begingroup$

As you say, the trace of $phi$ is only meaningful when $mathcal{G}=mathcal{F}$. Slightly more generally, though it still makes sense to talk about the trace of $phi$ being $0$ if you have a chosen isomorphism $mathcal{G}congmathcal{F}otimesmathcal{L}$ for some line bundle $mathcal{L}$. Indeed, picking a local trivialization of $mathcal{L}$, we get local isomorphisms $mathcal{G}congmathcal{F}$ which we can use to compute the trace. Now of course the trace will depend on the trivialization of $mathcal{L}$ chosen, but changing the trivialization just multiplies the isomorphism by some invertible section of $mathcal{O}_X$, and so will not change whether the trace is $0$.



Another way to see it is that a morphism $mathcal{F}tomathcal{F}otimesmathcal{L}$ is equivalent to a morphism $mathcal{L}^veetomathcal{F}otimesmathcal{F}^vee$. There is a canonical "trace" map $mathcal{F}otimesmathcal{F}^veetomathcal{O}_X$ (just the evaluation pairing) and so we can compose to get a morphism $mathcal{L}^veetomathcal{O}_X$ (or equivalently, a section of $mathcal{L}$) which we can call the "trace" of $phi$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    @ Eric Wolfsey,If I understand you correctly then are you trying to say the following? $phi|_U:mathcal{F}|_Utomathcal {F}|_U$ with $U$ local trivialization of $mathcal L$ $Rightarrow phi|_Uinmathcal End(mathcal F)(U))$ $Rightarrow tr(U)(phi|_U)in mathcal O(U)$ and we mean by tr$phi=0$ that all $ tr(U)(phi|_U)=0$ for all member of that trivialization.So it does not depend upon the trivialization of $mathcal F$
    $endgroup$
    – HARRY
    Dec 31 '18 at 8:06












  • $begingroup$
    Wolfsey,can you explain why it does not depend upon trivilizations of $mathcal L$
    $endgroup$
    – HARRY
    Dec 31 '18 at 8:24








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Changing the trivialization of $mathcal{L}|_U$ just amounts to multiplying the chosen isomorphism $mathcal{G}|_Utomathcal{F}|_U$ by some invertible element $ainmathcal{O}(U)$. So, when we turn $phi|_U$ into a matrix, we just multiply that matrix by the scalar $a$, which multiplies its trace by $a$. Since $a$ is invertible, this does not change whether the trace is $0$.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Dec 31 '18 at 8:30











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',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
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%2f3057455%2ftrace-of-a-morphism-of-sheaves%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









3












$begingroup$

As you say, the trace of $phi$ is only meaningful when $mathcal{G}=mathcal{F}$. Slightly more generally, though it still makes sense to talk about the trace of $phi$ being $0$ if you have a chosen isomorphism $mathcal{G}congmathcal{F}otimesmathcal{L}$ for some line bundle $mathcal{L}$. Indeed, picking a local trivialization of $mathcal{L}$, we get local isomorphisms $mathcal{G}congmathcal{F}$ which we can use to compute the trace. Now of course the trace will depend on the trivialization of $mathcal{L}$ chosen, but changing the trivialization just multiplies the isomorphism by some invertible section of $mathcal{O}_X$, and so will not change whether the trace is $0$.



Another way to see it is that a morphism $mathcal{F}tomathcal{F}otimesmathcal{L}$ is equivalent to a morphism $mathcal{L}^veetomathcal{F}otimesmathcal{F}^vee$. There is a canonical "trace" map $mathcal{F}otimesmathcal{F}^veetomathcal{O}_X$ (just the evaluation pairing) and so we can compose to get a morphism $mathcal{L}^veetomathcal{O}_X$ (or equivalently, a section of $mathcal{L}$) which we can call the "trace" of $phi$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    @ Eric Wolfsey,If I understand you correctly then are you trying to say the following? $phi|_U:mathcal{F}|_Utomathcal {F}|_U$ with $U$ local trivialization of $mathcal L$ $Rightarrow phi|_Uinmathcal End(mathcal F)(U))$ $Rightarrow tr(U)(phi|_U)in mathcal O(U)$ and we mean by tr$phi=0$ that all $ tr(U)(phi|_U)=0$ for all member of that trivialization.So it does not depend upon the trivialization of $mathcal F$
    $endgroup$
    – HARRY
    Dec 31 '18 at 8:06












  • $begingroup$
    Wolfsey,can you explain why it does not depend upon trivilizations of $mathcal L$
    $endgroup$
    – HARRY
    Dec 31 '18 at 8:24








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Changing the trivialization of $mathcal{L}|_U$ just amounts to multiplying the chosen isomorphism $mathcal{G}|_Utomathcal{F}|_U$ by some invertible element $ainmathcal{O}(U)$. So, when we turn $phi|_U$ into a matrix, we just multiply that matrix by the scalar $a$, which multiplies its trace by $a$. Since $a$ is invertible, this does not change whether the trace is $0$.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Dec 31 '18 at 8:30
















3












$begingroup$

As you say, the trace of $phi$ is only meaningful when $mathcal{G}=mathcal{F}$. Slightly more generally, though it still makes sense to talk about the trace of $phi$ being $0$ if you have a chosen isomorphism $mathcal{G}congmathcal{F}otimesmathcal{L}$ for some line bundle $mathcal{L}$. Indeed, picking a local trivialization of $mathcal{L}$, we get local isomorphisms $mathcal{G}congmathcal{F}$ which we can use to compute the trace. Now of course the trace will depend on the trivialization of $mathcal{L}$ chosen, but changing the trivialization just multiplies the isomorphism by some invertible section of $mathcal{O}_X$, and so will not change whether the trace is $0$.



Another way to see it is that a morphism $mathcal{F}tomathcal{F}otimesmathcal{L}$ is equivalent to a morphism $mathcal{L}^veetomathcal{F}otimesmathcal{F}^vee$. There is a canonical "trace" map $mathcal{F}otimesmathcal{F}^veetomathcal{O}_X$ (just the evaluation pairing) and so we can compose to get a morphism $mathcal{L}^veetomathcal{O}_X$ (or equivalently, a section of $mathcal{L}$) which we can call the "trace" of $phi$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    @ Eric Wolfsey,If I understand you correctly then are you trying to say the following? $phi|_U:mathcal{F}|_Utomathcal {F}|_U$ with $U$ local trivialization of $mathcal L$ $Rightarrow phi|_Uinmathcal End(mathcal F)(U))$ $Rightarrow tr(U)(phi|_U)in mathcal O(U)$ and we mean by tr$phi=0$ that all $ tr(U)(phi|_U)=0$ for all member of that trivialization.So it does not depend upon the trivialization of $mathcal F$
    $endgroup$
    – HARRY
    Dec 31 '18 at 8:06












  • $begingroup$
    Wolfsey,can you explain why it does not depend upon trivilizations of $mathcal L$
    $endgroup$
    – HARRY
    Dec 31 '18 at 8:24








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Changing the trivialization of $mathcal{L}|_U$ just amounts to multiplying the chosen isomorphism $mathcal{G}|_Utomathcal{F}|_U$ by some invertible element $ainmathcal{O}(U)$. So, when we turn $phi|_U$ into a matrix, we just multiply that matrix by the scalar $a$, which multiplies its trace by $a$. Since $a$ is invertible, this does not change whether the trace is $0$.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Dec 31 '18 at 8:30














3












3








3





$begingroup$

As you say, the trace of $phi$ is only meaningful when $mathcal{G}=mathcal{F}$. Slightly more generally, though it still makes sense to talk about the trace of $phi$ being $0$ if you have a chosen isomorphism $mathcal{G}congmathcal{F}otimesmathcal{L}$ for some line bundle $mathcal{L}$. Indeed, picking a local trivialization of $mathcal{L}$, we get local isomorphisms $mathcal{G}congmathcal{F}$ which we can use to compute the trace. Now of course the trace will depend on the trivialization of $mathcal{L}$ chosen, but changing the trivialization just multiplies the isomorphism by some invertible section of $mathcal{O}_X$, and so will not change whether the trace is $0$.



Another way to see it is that a morphism $mathcal{F}tomathcal{F}otimesmathcal{L}$ is equivalent to a morphism $mathcal{L}^veetomathcal{F}otimesmathcal{F}^vee$. There is a canonical "trace" map $mathcal{F}otimesmathcal{F}^veetomathcal{O}_X$ (just the evaluation pairing) and so we can compose to get a morphism $mathcal{L}^veetomathcal{O}_X$ (or equivalently, a section of $mathcal{L}$) which we can call the "trace" of $phi$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



As you say, the trace of $phi$ is only meaningful when $mathcal{G}=mathcal{F}$. Slightly more generally, though it still makes sense to talk about the trace of $phi$ being $0$ if you have a chosen isomorphism $mathcal{G}congmathcal{F}otimesmathcal{L}$ for some line bundle $mathcal{L}$. Indeed, picking a local trivialization of $mathcal{L}$, we get local isomorphisms $mathcal{G}congmathcal{F}$ which we can use to compute the trace. Now of course the trace will depend on the trivialization of $mathcal{L}$ chosen, but changing the trivialization just multiplies the isomorphism by some invertible section of $mathcal{O}_X$, and so will not change whether the trace is $0$.



Another way to see it is that a morphism $mathcal{F}tomathcal{F}otimesmathcal{L}$ is equivalent to a morphism $mathcal{L}^veetomathcal{F}otimesmathcal{F}^vee$. There is a canonical "trace" map $mathcal{F}otimesmathcal{F}^veetomathcal{O}_X$ (just the evaluation pairing) and so we can compose to get a morphism $mathcal{L}^veetomathcal{O}_X$ (or equivalently, a section of $mathcal{L}$) which we can call the "trace" of $phi$.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Dec 31 '18 at 6:01









Eric WofseyEric Wofsey

182k12209337




182k12209337












  • $begingroup$
    @ Eric Wolfsey,If I understand you correctly then are you trying to say the following? $phi|_U:mathcal{F}|_Utomathcal {F}|_U$ with $U$ local trivialization of $mathcal L$ $Rightarrow phi|_Uinmathcal End(mathcal F)(U))$ $Rightarrow tr(U)(phi|_U)in mathcal O(U)$ and we mean by tr$phi=0$ that all $ tr(U)(phi|_U)=0$ for all member of that trivialization.So it does not depend upon the trivialization of $mathcal F$
    $endgroup$
    – HARRY
    Dec 31 '18 at 8:06












  • $begingroup$
    Wolfsey,can you explain why it does not depend upon trivilizations of $mathcal L$
    $endgroup$
    – HARRY
    Dec 31 '18 at 8:24








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Changing the trivialization of $mathcal{L}|_U$ just amounts to multiplying the chosen isomorphism $mathcal{G}|_Utomathcal{F}|_U$ by some invertible element $ainmathcal{O}(U)$. So, when we turn $phi|_U$ into a matrix, we just multiply that matrix by the scalar $a$, which multiplies its trace by $a$. Since $a$ is invertible, this does not change whether the trace is $0$.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Dec 31 '18 at 8:30


















  • $begingroup$
    @ Eric Wolfsey,If I understand you correctly then are you trying to say the following? $phi|_U:mathcal{F}|_Utomathcal {F}|_U$ with $U$ local trivialization of $mathcal L$ $Rightarrow phi|_Uinmathcal End(mathcal F)(U))$ $Rightarrow tr(U)(phi|_U)in mathcal O(U)$ and we mean by tr$phi=0$ that all $ tr(U)(phi|_U)=0$ for all member of that trivialization.So it does not depend upon the trivialization of $mathcal F$
    $endgroup$
    – HARRY
    Dec 31 '18 at 8:06












  • $begingroup$
    Wolfsey,can you explain why it does not depend upon trivilizations of $mathcal L$
    $endgroup$
    – HARRY
    Dec 31 '18 at 8:24








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Changing the trivialization of $mathcal{L}|_U$ just amounts to multiplying the chosen isomorphism $mathcal{G}|_Utomathcal{F}|_U$ by some invertible element $ainmathcal{O}(U)$. So, when we turn $phi|_U$ into a matrix, we just multiply that matrix by the scalar $a$, which multiplies its trace by $a$. Since $a$ is invertible, this does not change whether the trace is $0$.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Dec 31 '18 at 8:30
















$begingroup$
@ Eric Wolfsey,If I understand you correctly then are you trying to say the following? $phi|_U:mathcal{F}|_Utomathcal {F}|_U$ with $U$ local trivialization of $mathcal L$ $Rightarrow phi|_Uinmathcal End(mathcal F)(U))$ $Rightarrow tr(U)(phi|_U)in mathcal O(U)$ and we mean by tr$phi=0$ that all $ tr(U)(phi|_U)=0$ for all member of that trivialization.So it does not depend upon the trivialization of $mathcal F$
$endgroup$
– HARRY
Dec 31 '18 at 8:06






$begingroup$
@ Eric Wolfsey,If I understand you correctly then are you trying to say the following? $phi|_U:mathcal{F}|_Utomathcal {F}|_U$ with $U$ local trivialization of $mathcal L$ $Rightarrow phi|_Uinmathcal End(mathcal F)(U))$ $Rightarrow tr(U)(phi|_U)in mathcal O(U)$ and we mean by tr$phi=0$ that all $ tr(U)(phi|_U)=0$ for all member of that trivialization.So it does not depend upon the trivialization of $mathcal F$
$endgroup$
– HARRY
Dec 31 '18 at 8:06














$begingroup$
Wolfsey,can you explain why it does not depend upon trivilizations of $mathcal L$
$endgroup$
– HARRY
Dec 31 '18 at 8:24






$begingroup$
Wolfsey,can you explain why it does not depend upon trivilizations of $mathcal L$
$endgroup$
– HARRY
Dec 31 '18 at 8:24






1




1




$begingroup$
Changing the trivialization of $mathcal{L}|_U$ just amounts to multiplying the chosen isomorphism $mathcal{G}|_Utomathcal{F}|_U$ by some invertible element $ainmathcal{O}(U)$. So, when we turn $phi|_U$ into a matrix, we just multiply that matrix by the scalar $a$, which multiplies its trace by $a$. Since $a$ is invertible, this does not change whether the trace is $0$.
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
Dec 31 '18 at 8:30




$begingroup$
Changing the trivialization of $mathcal{L}|_U$ just amounts to multiplying the chosen isomorphism $mathcal{G}|_Utomathcal{F}|_U$ by some invertible element $ainmathcal{O}(U)$. So, when we turn $phi|_U$ into a matrix, we just multiply that matrix by the scalar $a$, which multiplies its trace by $a$. Since $a$ is invertible, this does not change whether the trace is $0$.
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
Dec 31 '18 at 8:30


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3057455%2ftrace-of-a-morphism-of-sheaves%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

Human spaceflight

Image
Human spaceflight From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search "Space traveler" redirects here. For other uses, see Space traveler (disambiguation). @media all and (max-width:720px){.mw-parser-output .tmulti>.thumbinner{width:100%!important;max-width:none!important}.mw-parser-output .tmulti .tsingle{float:none!important;max-width:none!important;width:100%!important;text-align:center}} Apollo 11 crewmember Buzz Aldrin on the Moon, 1969 International Space Station crewmember Tracy Caldwell Dyson views the Earth, 2010 Space Shuttle Discovery heads into space with a crew aboard, STS-121 in 2006 Inside a space suit on the Canadarm, 1993 Human spaceflight (also referred to as crewed spaceflight or manned spaceflight ) is space travel with a crew or passengers aboard the spacecraft. Spacecraft carrying people may be operated directly, by human crew, or it may be e
Read more

Can not write log (Is /dev/pts mounted?) - openpty in Ubuntu-on-Windows?

Image
0 1 What exactly does the error message beginning with E: mean? I assume it has to do with the file structure on Ubuntu-on-Windows, but what exactly? The following package was automatically installed and is no longer required: os-prober Use 'apt-get autoremove' to remove it. The following extra packages will be installed: libxslt1.1 The following NEW packages will be installed: libxslt1.1 xmlstarlet 0 upgraded, 2 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. Need to get 435 kB of archives. After this operation, 1023 kB of additional disk space will be used. Get:1 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty/main libxslt1.1 amd64 1.1.28-2build1 [145 kB] Get:2 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty/universe xmlstarlet amd64 1.5.0-1 [290 kB]
Read more

File:DeusFollowingSea.jpg

Image
File:DeusFollowingSea.jpg From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search File File history File usage No higher resolution available. DeusFollowingSea.jpg ‎ (238 × 211 pixels, file size: 12 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg ) Summary [ edit ] Media data and Non-free use rationale Description Cover art of the Deus CD Following Sea Author or copyright owner Deus Source (WP:NFCC#4) rocksucker.co.uk Date of publication 2012 Use in article (WP:NFCC#7) Following Sea Purpose of use in article (WP:NFCC#8) to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question. Not replaceable with free media because (WP:NFCC#1) n.a. Minimal use (WP:NFCC#3) Low res image used in infobox of the article on the album Respect for commercial opportunities (WP:NFCC#2) n.a. Fair use Fair use of co
Read more