ScalingStacks

3. Perfect Stacks

By an ∞\infty-category, we will always mean an (∞,1)(\infty,1)-category without further comment, and refer to Section 2 for an overview of the required aspects of the general theory. For the reader accustomed to working with model categories, it is important to note that in an ∞\infty-category, all tensors, homs, limits, colimits, and other usual operations are taken in a derived or homotopical sense. In other words, coherent homotopies are automatically built in to all definitions, though it may not explicitly appear in the notation. For example, a colimit in the ∞\infty-category obtained as the localization of a model category corresponds to a homotopy colimit in the original model category.

Throughout the rest of the paper, we fix a derived commutative ring kk (in any of the three senses discussed in Section 2.3) and work relative to kk. We use the phrase derived commutative kk-algebra to refer to a commutative algebra object in kk-modules.

For kk a commutative ℚ\mathbb{Q}-algebra, one can replace kk-modules with chain complexes over kk, derived commutative kk-algebras with commutative differential graded kk-algebras, and stable kk-linear ∞\infty-categories with pre-triangulated kk-linear differential graded categories.

In Section 3.1, we review various notions of when an ∞\infty-category is finitely generated, and introduce the class of perfect stacks to which our results apply. In Section 3.2, we establish base change and the projection formula for perfect morphisms. In Section 3.3, we show that many common classes of stacks are perfect.

3.1. Definition of perfect stacks

Our main objects of study are ∞\infty-categories of quasi-coherent sheaves on derived stacks. For the foundations of derived stacks and quasi-coherent sheaves on them, we refer the reader to [ToVe1, ToVe2, To2]. (Note that a theory of descent for sheaves on higher stacks was developed previously by Hirschowitz and Simpson [HS].)

Given a derived stack XX, we have the stable symmetric monoidal ∞\infty-category QC⁡(X)\qc(X) of quasi-coherent sheaves on XX. To recall its construction, consider first a derived commutative kk-algebra AA, and the representable affine derived scheme X=Spec⁡AX=\Spec A. In this case, one defines QC⁡(X)\qc(X) to be the ∞\infty-category of AA-modules ModA\Mod_{A} (i.e., module objects over AA in kk-modules). Its homotopy category is the unbounded derived category of AA.

In general, any derived stack XX can be written as a colimit of a diagram of affine derived schemes X≃colimU∈𝐴𝑓𝑓/X⁡UX\simeq\colim_{U\in\it{Aff}_{/X}}U. Then one defines QC⁡(X)\qc(X) to be the limit (in the ∞\infty-category of ∞\infty-categories) of the corresponding diagram of ∞\infty-categories

QC⁡(X):=limU∈𝐴𝑓𝑓/XQC⁡(U).\qc(X):=\lim_{U\in\it{Aff}{/X}}\qc(U).

One can think of an object F∈QC⁡(X)F\in\qc(X) as collections of quasi-coherent sheaves F|UF|_{U} on the terms UU together with compatible identifications between their pullbacks under the diagram maps.

When XX is quasi-compact and has affine diagonal, by choosing an affine cover U→XU\to X with induced C̆ech simplicial affine derived scheme U∗→XU_{*}\to X, we can realize QC⁡(X)\qc(X) by a smaller limit, the totalization of the cosimplicial diagram QC⁡(U∗)\qc(U_{*}).

An important feature of the ∞\infty-category QC⁡(X)\qc(X) is that it is cocomplete, that is, closed under all small colimits (or equivalently, since QC⁡(X)\qc(X) is stable, all small coproducts). Nevertheless, it can be difficult to control QC⁡(X)\qc(X) algebraically via reasonable generators. In general, it is convenient (and sometimes indispensable) to work with ∞\infty-categories that are “generated by finite objects” in a suitable sense. Let us summarize well known approaches to this idea. In a moment, we will provide a more detailed discussion.

There are two common notions of when a small ∞\infty-subcategory 𝒞∘\mathcal{C}^{\circ} generates an ∞\infty-category 𝒞\mathcal{C}. On the one hand, we could ask that 𝒞\mathcal{C} be the inductive limit Ind⁡𝒞∘\operatorname{Ind}\mathcal{C}^{\circ}. On the other hand, we could ask that in 𝒞\mathcal{C} the right orthogonal of 𝒞∘\mathcal{C}^{\circ} vanishes.

There are three common notions of when an object should be considered finite: perfect objects, dualizable objects, and compact objects, which refer respectively to the geometry, monoidal structure, and categorical structure of QC⁡(X)\qc(X).

We now introduce the class of perfect stacks. We will check below that for perfect stacks, the above notions of generators and finite objects all coincide.

0NWB

Definition 3.1. Let AA be a derived commutative ring. An AA-module MM is perfect if lies in the smallest ∞\infty-subcategory of ModA\Mod_{A} containing AA and closed under finite colimits and retracts. For a derived stack XX, ∞\infty-category Perf⁡(X)\operatorname{Perf}(X) is the full ∞\infty-subcategory of QC⁡(X)\qc(X) consisting of those sheaves MM whose restriction f∗​Mf^{*}M to any affine f:U→Xf:U\rightarrow X over XX is a perfect module.

0NWC

Definition 3.2. A derived stack XX is said to be perfect if it has affine diagonal and the ∞\infty-category QC⁡(X)\qc(X) is the inductive limit

QC⁡(X)≃Ind⁡Perf⁡(X)\qc(X)\simeq\operatorname{Ind}\operatorname{Perf}(X)

of the full ∞\infty-subcategory Perf⁡(X)\operatorname{Perf}(X) of perfect complexes.

A morphism X→YX\to Y is said to be perfect if its fibers X×YUX\times_{Y}U over affines U→YU\to Y are perfect.

See [L2, 5.3.5] for the construction of Ind-categories of ∞\infty-categories, and [L3, 8] where it is shown that Ind-categories of stable ∞\infty-categories are stable. Let us mention that in the Ind-category Ind⁡𝒞\operatorname{Ind}\mathcal{C} of an ∞\infty-category 𝒞\mathcal{C}, morphisms between Ind-objects can be calculated via the expected formula

HomInd⁡𝒞⁡(lim→⁡[Xi],(lim→⁡[Yj])≃limcolim⁡Hom𝒞⁡(Xi,Yj)CLOSE.\Hom_{\operatorname{Ind}\mathcal{C}}(\varinjlim[X_{i}],(\varinjlim[Y_{j}])\simeq\lim\colim\Hom_{\mathcal{C}}(X_{i},Y_{j}).

For the reader unaccustomed to Ind-categories, we will momentarily give an alternative formulation of perfect stack in the more familiar language of compactly generated categories.

We next proceed with a review of the various notions of generators and finite objects. In Section 3.2, we show that perfect morphisms satisfy base change and the projection formula. In Section 3.3, we show that the class of perfect stacks includes many common examples of interest, and check that any morphism between perfect stacks is itself perfect.

3.1.1. Finite objects

We review here the three common notions of finite objects and their interrelations (See [L3, 17] and [L4, 4.7] for more details, as well as [BV, HPS, Ke, LMS] among many other sources). We remind the reader that we are working in the context of ∞\infty-categories, so constructions such as colimits correspond to homotopy colimits in the context of model categories.

0NWD
  1. (1)

    Definition 3.3. An object MM of a stable ∞\infty-category 𝒞\mathcal{C} is said to be compact if Hom𝒞⁡(M,−)\Hom_{\mathcal{C}}(M,-) commutes with all coproducts (equivalently, with all colimits).

  2. (2)

    An object MM of a stable symmetric monoidal ∞\infty-category 𝒞\mathcal{C} is said to be (strongly) dualizable if there is an object M∨M^{\vee} and unit and trace maps

    1\textstyle{1\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}u\scriptstyle{u}M⊗M∨\textstyle{M\otimes M^{\vee}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}τ\scriptstyle{\tau}1\textstyle{1}

    such that the composite map

    M\textstyle{M\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}u⊗id\scriptstyle{u\otimes\operatorname{id}}M⊗M∨⊗M\textstyle{M\otimes M^{\vee}\otimes M\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}id⊗τ\scriptstyle{\operatorname{id}\otimes\tau}M\textstyle{M}

    is the identity.

Suppose 𝒞\mathcal{C} is a stable presentable ∞\infty-category (such as QC⁡(X)\qc(X)). Then an object M∈𝒞M\in\mathcal{C} is compact if and only if maps from MM to any small coproduct factor through a finite coproduct. Furthermore, a functor F:𝒞→𝒟F:\mathcal{C}\to\mathcal{D} between stable presentable ∞\infty-categories that preserves finite colimits preserves small colimits if and only if it preserves small coproducts. (See [L3, Proposition 17.1].)

In a closed symmetric monoidal ∞\infty-category 𝒞\mathcal{C} (such as QC⁡(X)\qc(X)), an object M∈𝒞M\in\mathcal{C} is dualizable if and only if there exists a coevaluation map

1→M⊗ℋ​o​m​(M,1)1\to M\otimes{\mathcal{H}om}(M,1)

satisfying the appropriate conditions (since one already has an evaluation map). If an object M∈𝒞M\in\mathcal{C} is dualizable, then we can turn internal Hom from MM into tensor product with M∨M^{\vee} in the sense that there is a canonical equivalence

ℋ​o​m​(M,−)≃M∨⊗(−).{\mathcal{H}om}(M,-)\simeq M^{\vee}\otimes(-).

In particular, this implies that ℋ​o​m​(M,−){\mathcal{H}om}(M,-) preserves colimits and M⊗−M\otimes- preserves limits:

M⊗limNα≃Hom𝒞⁡(1𝒞,M⊗limNα)≃Hom𝒞⁡(M∨,limNα)≃limHom𝒞⁡(M∨,Nα)≃limM⊗Nα.M\otimes\lim N_{\alpha}\simeq\Hom_{\mathcal{C}}(1_{\mathcal{C}},M\otimes\lim N_{\alpha})\simeq\Hom_{\mathcal{C}}(M^{\vee},\lim N_{\alpha})\simeq\lim\Hom_{\mathcal{C}}(M^{\vee},N_{\alpha})\simeq\lim M\otimes N_{\alpha}.

It is enlightening to note the following characterization of dualizable objects, which parallels the definition of compact objects (but will not be used in this paper).

0NWE

Lemma 3.4. Let 𝒞\mathcal{C} be a symmetric monoidal presentable stable ∞\infty-category, whose monoidal structure distributes over colimits. An object MM of 𝒞\mathcal{C} is then dualizable if and only if tensoring with MM preserves all limits.

0NWF

Proof. The necessity of M⊗−M\otimes- preserving limits is noted above (𝒞\mathcal{C} is closed by virtue of being presentable with monoidal structure distributing over colimits, see [L4, Proposition 2.1.12]). To demonstrate sufficiency, assume that M⊗−M\otimes- preserves limits, and then consider the endofunctor of 𝒞\mathcal{C} defined by tensoring with MM. By assumption on MM and 𝒞\mathcal{C}, this functor preserves all limits and colimits. We may now apply the adjoint functor theorem of [L2] to deduce the existence of a left adjoint FF to M⊗−M\otimes-. Denote by M∨M^{\vee} the value F⁡(1𝒞)F(1_{\mathcal{C}}) of FF applied to the unit of 𝒞\mathcal{C}. The existence of unit and trace maps 1𝒞→M⊗M∨→1𝒞1_{\mathcal{C}}\rightarrow M\otimes M^{\vee}\rightarrow 1_{\mathcal{C}} is now a particular instance of the unit and counit maps for this adjunction, which implies that MM and M∨M^{\vee} are in duality. Hence MM is dualizable.

∎

In a general stable presentable symmetric monoidal ∞\infty-category 𝒞\mathcal{C}, the classes of compact and dualizable objects do not coincide. In particular, the monoidal unit 1∈𝒞1\in\mathcal{C} is always dualizable but not necessarily compact.

In the case of a derived stack XX, the unit 𝒪X∈QC⁡(X)\mathcal{O}_{X}\in\qc(X) is compact if and only if the global sections functor Γ⁡(X,−)\Gamma(X,-) preserves colimits. (This fails if the global sections Γ⁡(X,𝒪X)\Gamma(X,\mathcal{O}_{X}) are too big such as in the following examples: ind-schemes such as the formal disk Spf⁡k⁡[[t]]\operatorname{Spf}k[[t]]; the classifying space of a topological group such as B​S1BS^{1}; the classifying space of finite groups in modular characteristics.) However, if the unit 𝒪X∈QC⁡(X)\mathcal{O}_{X}\in\qc(X) is itself compact then all dualizable objects are compact, since Hom from a dualizable object MM is the composition of the colimit preserving functors internal Hom ℋ​o​m​(M,−){\mathcal{H}om}(M,-) and global sections Γ⁡(X,−)\Gamma(X,-).

0NWG

Lemma 3.5 ([BoN], 6.4, [EKMM] III.7.9, [L4] 4.7.2). For the ∞\infty-category Modk=QC⁡(Spec⁡k)\Mod_{k}=\qc(\Spec k) of modules over a commutative derived ring (that is, quasi-coherent sheaves on an affine derived scheme), all three notions of finiteness coincide: MM compact ⇔\iff MM dualizable ⇔\iff MM perfect.

0NWH

Proof. First, note that the free module kk, which is the monoidal unit, is clearly compact. Hence all dualizable objects are compact. Moreover, we can write any object as a colimit of free modules. For MM compact, the identity map idM∈Hom⁡(M,M){\rm id}_{M}\in\Hom(M,M) has to factor through a finite colimit, showing that MM is perfect. Finally, perfect modules are dualizable since we can explicitly exhibit their dual as a finite limit of free modules. ∎

It is useful to note that the notion of dualizable is local. On the one hand, pullback for any map of stacks (for example, restriction to an affine) preserves dualizable objects. On the other hand, a dual object with its unit and trace maps is functorially characterized, thus if it exists locally, it will glue together to a global object. This observation leads to the identification of perfect and dualizable objects in QC⁡(X)\qc(X) for any XX:

0NWI

Proposition 3.6. For a derived stack XX, an object of QC⁡(X)\qc(X) is dualizable if and only if it is perfect.

0NWJ

Proof. Let M∈QC⁡(X)M\in\qc(X) be dualizable with dual M∨M^{\vee}. Then for any map η:Spec⁡A→X\eta:\Spec A\rightarrow X, the pullback η∗​M\eta^{*}M is dualizable with dual η∗​M∨\eta^{*}M^{\vee}. Dualizable objects of ModA\Mod_{A} are perfect, hence η∗​M\eta^{*}M is perfect and so by definition, MM is perfect.

Now suppose M∈QC⁡(X)M\in\qc(X) is perfect. Recall that by definition, we have

QC⁡(X)≃limSpec⁡A∈𝐴𝑓𝑓/XModA.\qc(X)\simeq\lim_{\Spec A\in{\it Aff}/X}\Mod_{A}.

Since MM is perfect, for any map η:Spec⁡A→X\eta:\Spec A\to X, the pullback η∗​M\eta^{*}M is perfect, hence dualizable. We take the value of the dual M∨M^{\vee} along a map η:Spec⁡A→X\eta:\Spec A\to X to be the dual of the pullback (η∗​M)∨(\eta^{*}M)^{\vee}. Note that M∨M^{\vee} is well-defined, since for any composite η∘ν:Spec⁡B→X\eta\circ\nu:\Spec B\rightarrow X, there is a natural equivalence (ν∗​η∗​M)∨≃ν∗​((η∗​M)∨)(\nu^{*}\eta^{*}M)^{\vee}\simeq\nu^{*}((\eta^{*}M)^{\vee}).

To exhibit MM and M∨M^{\vee} as dual to one another, we must construct the requisite unit and counit maps u:𝒪X→M⊗M∨u:\mathcal{O}_{X}\rightarrow M\otimes M^{\vee} and c:M∨⊗M→𝒪Xc:M^{\vee}\otimes M\rightarrow\mathcal{O}_{X}. Again using the definition of QC⁡(X)\qc(X) as a limit, to produce one of these maps, it suffices to define analogous maps for the pullbacks under each η:Spec⁡A→X\eta:\Spec A\rightarrow X which themselves are compatible under pullbacks. But the existence of such maps are an immediate consequence of the definition η∗​M∨=(η∗​M)∨\eta^{*}M^{\vee}=(\eta^{*}M)^{\vee}. Finally, to verify that the usual composititions M→M⊗M∨⊗M→MM\rightarrow M\otimes M^{\vee}\otimes M\rightarrow M and M∨→M∨⊗M⊗M∨→M∨M^{\vee}\rightarrow M^{\vee}\otimes M\otimes M^{\vee}\rightarrow M^{\vee} are equivalences, it suffices to check under pullbacks to affines. But this is a direct consequence of our definition of M∨M^{\vee} and the fact that pullbacks preserve tensor products. ∎

3.1.2. Generators

Now we review notions of what it means for compact objects to generate a stable ∞\infty-category. (See [L3, 17] for more details, and [L2, 5.5.7] for the general setting of presentable ∞\infty-categories.)

0NWK

Definition 3.7. A stable category 𝒞\mathcal{C} is said to be compactly generated if there is a small ∞\infty-category 𝒞∘\mathcal{C}^{\circ} of compact objects Ci∈𝒞C_{i}\in\mathcal{C} whose right orthogonal vanishes: if M∈𝒞M\in\mathcal{C} satisfies Hom𝒞⁡(Ci,M)≃0\operatorname{\Hom}_{\mathcal{C}}(C_{i},M)\simeq 0, for all ii, then M≃0M\simeq 0.

As explained in [L3, Remark 17.3], whether a stable ∞\infty-category is compactly generated can be studied completely in the underlying homotopy category. In particular, the notion for stable ∞\infty-categories is compatible with that for triangulated categories.

0NWL

Example 3.8. For a commutative derived ring kk, the stable ∞\infty-category Modk\Mod_{k} of kk-modules is compactly generated. In fact, it is generated by the free module kk itself.

On the one hand, for a stable small ∞\infty-category 𝒞∘\mathcal{C}^{\circ}, the inductive limit 𝒞=Ind⁡(𝒞∘)\mathcal{C}=\operatorname{Ind}(\mathcal{C}^{\circ}) is a compactly generated stable presentable ∞\infty-category. Furthermore (see [L2, 5.3.4]), if 𝒞∘\mathcal{C}^{\circ} is closed under finite colimits and idempotent complete, then it can be recovered as the compact objects of 𝒞\mathcal{C}. In particular, we have that 𝒞\mathcal{C} is the Ind-category of its compact objects 𝒞∘\mathcal{C}^{\circ}.

On the other hand, given a stable ∞\infty-category 𝒞\mathcal{C} with a small full ∞\infty-subcategory 𝒞∘\mathcal{C}^{\circ} of compact generators, one can recover all compact objects of 𝒞\mathcal{C} by a result of Neeman [N1] (see also [L2, Proposition 5.3.4.17]): the compact objects are precisely direct summands of the objects of the smallest stable ∞\infty-subcategory 𝒞s\mathcal{C}_{s} containing 𝒞∘\mathcal{C}^{\circ} (that is, they are direct summands of finite iterated extensions of objects of 𝒞∘\mathcal{C}^{\circ}). In particular, if 𝒞∘\mathcal{C}^{\circ} is stable and idempotent complete, then it consists precisely of the compact objects of 𝒞\mathcal{C}.

If we further assume that 𝒞\mathcal{C} is a presentable stable ∞\infty-category 𝒞\mathcal{C} with a small full ∞\infty-subcategory 𝒞∘\mathcal{C}^{\circ} of compact generators, then a theorem of Schwede and Shipley [SSh] guarantees that we can recover 𝒞\mathcal{C} as the cocompletion of 𝒞s\mathcal{C}_{s} (see [L4, 4.4] for the ∞\infty-categorical version, and [Ke] for the differential graded version). In other words, we recover 𝒞\mathcal{C} by passing to the category of colimit preserving kk-linear functors to kk-modules

𝒞≃Fun⁡(𝒞sop,Modk).\mathcal{C}\simeq\Fun(\mathcal{C}_{s}^{\rm op},\Mod_{k}).

In particular, we now can check that our notion of perfect stack is equivalent to more familiar assumptions on a symmetric monoidal ∞\infty-category.

0NWM

Proposition 3.9. For a derived stack XX with affine diagonal, the following are equivalent:

  1. (1)

    XX is perfect.

  2. (2)

    QC⁡(X)\qc(X) is compactly generated, and its compact and dualizable objects coincide.

0NWN

Proof. If XX is perfect, so that QC⁡(X)=Ind⁡Perf⁡(X)\qc(X)=\operatorname{Ind}\operatorname{Perf}(X), we claim that compact and dualizable objects agree, and hence compact objects generate, so that (1) implies (2).

To see the claim, it suffices to show that the full ∞\infty-subcategory of dualizable objects of QC⁡(X)\qc(X) is idempotent complete (since it is also stable). Since QC⁡(X)\qc(X) is idempotent complete, this is equivalent to showing that dualizable objects are closed under retracts. However, for a retract NN of a dualizable object MM one can explicitly write down the unit and trace maps for N⊗ℋ​o​m​(N,𝒪X)N\otimes{\mathcal{H}om}(N,\mathcal{O}_{X}) and confirm the necessary conditions. We leave this to the reader.

Conversely, if QC⁡(X)\qc(X) is compactly generated, then QC⁡(X)\qc(X) is the Ind-category of its compact objects, and hence by assumption also the Ind-category of its dualizable objects, so that (2) implies (1). ∎

3.2. Base change and the projection formula

In this section, we collect properties of the pushforward along a perfect stack, as summarized in the following proposition:

0NWP

Proposition 3.10. Let f:X→Yf:X\rightarrow Y be a perfect morphism. Then f∗:QC⁡(X)→QC⁡(Y)f_{*}:\qc(X)\to\qc(Y) commutes with all small colimits and satisfies the projection formula. Furthermore, if g:Y′→Yg:Y^{\prime}\rightarrow Y is any map of derived stacks, the resulting base change map g∗​f∗→f∗′​g′⁣∗g^{*}f_{*}\rightarrow f^{\prime}_{*}g^{\prime*} is an equivalence.

0NWQ

Remark 3.11. The conclusions of the proposition in fact do not require the full strength of the assumption that ff be perfect. The only hypothesis needed is that f∗f_{*} preserve colimits, or equivalently that the unit is relatively compact.

0NWR

Remark 3.12. In the setting of simplicial commutative rings, and for f:X→Yf:X\to Y a bounded, separated, quasi-compact relative derived algebraic space, the following results can essentially be found in Proposition 5.5.5 of Lurie’s thesis. The arguments in this section are an expanded version of parts of the arguments there, which extend largely unchanged to any reasonable setting for derived algebraic geometry such as ℰ∞\mathcal{E}_{\infty}-ring spectra.

Let us first consider the case when Y=Spec⁡AY=\Spec A is affine, so that f:X→Spec⁡Af:X\to\Spec A is perfect over AA. Then the pushforward f∗f_{*} coincides with the global sections functor Γ:QC⁡(X)→ModA\Gamma:\qc(X)\rightarrow\Mod_{A}. Over an affine base, f∗f_{*} is colimit preserving if and only if the structure sheaf 𝒪X\mathcal{O}_{X} (which is always dualizable) is a compact object of QC⁡(X)\qc(X), which follows from ff being perfect.

0NWS

Lemma 3.13. Let M∈QC⁡(X)M\in\qc(X), and let N∈QC⁡(Y)≃ModAN\in\qc(Y)\simeq\Mod_{A}. Then the natural projection map f∗​M⊗N→f∗​(M⊗f∗​N)f_{*}M\otimes N\rightarrow f_{*}(M\otimes f^{*}N) is an equivalence.

0NWT

Proof. Tensor products and pullbacks always preserve colimits, and in our setting f∗f_{*} is colimit preserving as well. Therefore for any MM the functors f∗​M⊗(−)f_{*}M\otimes(-) and f∗​(M⊗f∗−)f_{*}(M\otimes f^{*}-) define colimit preserving endofunctors of ModA\Mod_{A}. Hence both functors are determined by their value on AA, and canonically take the value f∗​Mf_{*}M. We find that the natural map is an equivalence. ∎

Let us continue with f:X→Spec⁡Af:X\rightarrow\Spec A as above, and consider g:Spec⁡B→Spec⁡Ag:\Spec B\rightarrow\Spec A an arbitrary map of affine derived schemes. Consider the Cartesian square.

X×ASpec⁡B\textstyle{X\times_{A}\Spec B\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}g′\scriptstyle{g^{\prime}}f′\scriptstyle{f^{\prime}}Spec⁡B\textstyle{\Spec B\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}g\scriptstyle{g}X\textstyle{X\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}f\scriptstyle{f}Spec⁡A\textstyle{\Spec A}
0NWU

Lemma 3.14. The natural base change morphism g∗​f∗→f∗′​g′⁣∗g^{*}f_{*}\rightarrow f^{\prime}_{*}g^{\prime*} is an equivalence.

0NWV

Proof. Since gg is affine and hence g′g^{\prime} is as well, the fiber product X×ASpec⁡BX\times_{A}\Spec B can be identified with the relative spectrum SpecX⁡C\Spec_{X}C of a commutative algebra object C∈Alg⁡(QC⁡(X))C\in{\rm Alg}(\qc(X)), and g∗′g^{\prime}_{*} induces an equivalence QC⁡(X×ASpec⁡B)≃ModC⁡(QC⁡(X))\qc({X\times_{A}\Spec B})\simeq\Mod_{C}(\qc(X)). Furthermore, the pullback g′⁣∗g^{\prime*} can be described as tensoring with CC, and thus in particular f∗′​g′⁣∗​M≃f∗​(C⊗M)f^{\prime}_{*}g^{\prime*}M\simeq f_{*}(C\otimes M). However, the global sections functor takes fiber products to tensor products, so we can identify C≃f∗​g∗​BC\simeq f^{*}g_{*}B. Applying the previously established projection formula twice, we can now compute f∗​(f∗​g∗​B⊗M)≃f∗​M⊗Ag∗​B≃g∗​f∗​M⊗BB≃g∗​f∗​Mf_{*}(f^{*}g_{*}B\otimes M)\simeq f_{*}M\otimes_{A}g_{*}B\simeq g^{*}f_{*}M\otimes_{B}B\simeq g^{*}f_{*}M, completing the proof. ∎

Now consider the general case where f:X→Yf:X\rightarrow Y is any perfect morphism. Let us define a pushforward functor f+:QC⁡(X)→QC⁡(Y)f_{+}:\qc(X)\rightarrow\qc(Y) by requiring it to satisfy base change for affine derived schemes over YY. That is, for any M∈QC⁡(X)M\in\qc(X), let us define f+​Mf_{+}M to take the value (f+​M)​(g)=g∗′​f′⁣∗​M(f_{+}M)(g)=g^{\prime}_{*}f^{\prime*}M, for any g:Spec⁡B→Yg:\Spec B\to Y. As a corollary of the previous lemma, we can verify that this definition is sensible.

0NWW

Corollary 3.15. f+​Mf_{+}M is a well-defined quasi-coherent sheaf on YY.

0NWX

Proof. Since QC⁡(Y)≃lim𝐴𝑓𝑓/YModB\qc(Y)\simeq\lim_{\it{Aff}/Y}\Mod_{B}, the claim that f+​Mf_{+}M forms a quasi-coherent sheaf on YY is equivalent to the claim that for any diagram of the form

X×YSpec⁡C\textstyle{X\times_{Y}\Spec C\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}f′′\scriptstyle{f^{\prime\prime}}h′\scriptstyle{h^{\prime}}X×YSpec⁡B\textstyle{X\times_{Y}\Spec B\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}f′\scriptstyle{f^{\prime}}g′\scriptstyle{g^{\prime}}X\textstyle{X\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}f\scriptstyle{f}Spec⁡C\textstyle{\Spec C\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}h\scriptstyle{h}Spec⁡B\textstyle{\Spec B\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}g\scriptstyle{g}Y\textstyle{Y}

f+​M​(g∘h)f_{+}M(g\circ h) is canonically equivalent to h∗​f+​M​(g)h^{*}f_{+}M(g). Unraveling these formulas, by definition we have that f+​M​(g∘h)=f∗′′​h′⁣∗​g′⁣∗​Mf_{+}M(g\circ h)=f^{\prime\prime}_{*}h^{\prime*}g^{\prime*}M and that h∗​f+​M​(g)≃h∗​f∗′​g′⁣∗​Mh^{*}f_{+}M(g)\simeq h^{*}f^{\prime}_{*}g^{\prime*}M. By the previous lemma, these are equivalent by base change in the left hand square: f′:X×YSpec⁡B→Spec⁡Bf^{\prime}:X\times_{Y}\Spec B\rightarrow\Spec B is perfect, and so h∗​f∗′≃f∗′′​h′⁣∗h^{*}f^{\prime}_{*}\simeq f^{\prime\prime}_{*}h^{\prime*}. ∎

0NWY

Lemma 3.16. The natural transformation f∗→f+f_{*}\rightarrow f_{+} is an equivalence of functors.

0NWZ

Proof. Take any N∈QC⁡(Y)N\in\qc(Y) and M∈QC⁡(X)M\in\qc(X). First note that for any quasi-coherent sheaf K∈QC⁡(Z)K\in\qc(Z), there is an equivalence K≃limg∈𝐴𝑓𝑓/Zg∗​g∗​KK\simeq\lim_{g\in\it{Aff}/Z}g_{*}g^{*}K. Thus we calculate

f+​M≃lim𝐴𝑓𝑓/Yg∗​g∗​f+​M≃lim𝐴𝑓𝑓/Yg∗​f∗′​g′⁣∗​M≃lim𝐴𝑓𝑓/Yg∗​f∗′​g′⁣∗​M≃lim𝐴𝑓𝑓/Yf∗​g∗′​g′⁣∗​M≃f∗​(lim𝐴𝑓𝑓/Yg∗′​g′⁣∗​M).f_{+}M\simeq\lim_{\it{Aff}/Y}g_{*}g^{*}f_{+}M\simeq\lim_{\it{Aff}/Y}g_{*}f^{\prime}_{*}g^{\prime*}M\simeq\lim_{\it{Aff}/Y}g_{*}f^{\prime}_{*}g^{\prime*}M\simeq\lim_{\it{Aff}/Y}f_{*}g^{\prime}_{*}g^{\prime*}M\simeq f_{*}(\lim_{\it{Aff}/Y}g^{\prime}_{*}g^{\prime*}M).

To prove the lemma, it thus suffices to show that the natural map M→limg∗′​g′⁣∗​MM\rightarrow\lim g^{\prime}_{*}g^{\prime*}M is an equivalence.

This is a consequence of the stronger claim that the functor QC⁡(X)→lim𝐴𝑓𝑓/YQC⁡(X×YB)\qc(X)\rightarrow\lim_{\it{Aff}/Y}\qc({X\times_{Y}B}) is an equivalence. Since the functor QC⁡(−)\qc(-) takes all colimits of stacks to limits, it therefore suffices to show that the natural map X→lim𝐴𝑓𝑓/Y(X×YB)X\rightarrow\lim_{\it{Aff}/Y}(X\times_{Y}B) is an equivalence. This limit can be calculated by picking an affine cover U→YU\rightarrow Y, and realizing YY as the geometric realization of the usual simplicial object U∗→YU_{*}\to Y. Finally, since geometric realization commutes with fiber products we are done. ∎

Since f+f_{+} was defined to satisfy base change and preserve colimits, we now have the following.

0NX0

Proof of Proposition 3.10. The first assertions were proved above. Since base change is local in the target, one can prove the final statement for an arbitrary Y′→YY^{\prime}\rightarrow Y by choosing a cover of Y′Y^{\prime} by an affine Spec⁡A→Y′\Spec A\rightarrow Y^{\prime}, thus reducing to the case which was proved above. ∎

3.3. Constructions of perfect stacks

In this section, we construct many examples of perfect stacks.

Throughout what follows, by a derived scheme, we mean a derived stack which admits a Zariski open covering by affine derived schemes. Recall that a morphism is Zariski open if it induces a Zariski open morphism on the underlying truncated underived stacks, as well as isomorphisms of the higher homotopy groups of the structure sheaves over the Zariski open. Equivalently, one can think of a derived scheme in terms of the underlying truncated underived scheme equipped with a derived enhancement of the structure sheaf. Following usual conventions, we say that a derived scheme is quasi-compact if any Zariski open cover admits a finite refinement.

We begin with two lemmas needed to show quasi-compact derived schemes with affine diagonal are in fact perfect.

0NX1

Lemma 3.17. For XX a quasi-compact derived scheme with affine diagonal the global sections functor Γ:QC⁡(X)→ModA\Gamma:\qc(X)\rightarrow\Mod_{A} is colimit preserving.

0NX2

Proof. We briefly sketch the argument of [L1, Proposition 5.5.5]. The derived global sections functor Γ\Gamma preserves finite colimits. Thus it suffices to show Γ\Gamma preserves small coproducts: we must check that the natural map ∐αΓ⁡(Mα)→Γ⁡(∐αMα)\coprod_{\alpha}\Gamma(M_{\alpha})\rightarrow\Gamma(\coprod_{\alpha}M_{\alpha}) is an equivalence, i.e., that the induced map on homotopy groups ∐απ∗​Γ​(Mα)→π∗​Γ​(∐αMα)\coprod_{\alpha}\pi_{*}\Gamma(M_{\alpha})\rightarrow\pi_{*}\Gamma(\coprod_{\alpha}M_{\alpha}) is an equivalence. Since π∗\pi_{*} is colimit preserving, it suffices to check that the individual terms πi​Γ\pi_{i}\Gamma each preserve small coproducts.

This is shown in two steps. First, one checks that for M∈QC⁡(X)M\in\qc(X) concentrated in a single degree, there exists mm such that πn​Γ​M\pi_{n}\Gamma M is zero for all n<mn<m. Thus to establish the assertion, it suffices to work in the subcategory M∈(QC⁡(X))≥n≤n+mM\in(\qc(X))^{\leq n+m}_{\geq n} for which π∗​Γ​M\pi_{*}\Gamma M is concentrated in bounded degrees.

Next, one chooses a finite affine cover U→XU\rightarrow X giving the usual simplicial object U∗→XU_{*}\rightarrow X, and thus an identification Γ​M≃lim(M|Uq)\Gamma M\simeq\lim(M|_{U_{q}}). The resulting Bousfield-Kan, or C̆ech, spectral sequence has E1E_{1}-term given by the πp​(M|Uq)\pi_{p}(M|_{U_{q}}), and converges to π∗​Γ​M\pi_{*}\Gamma M. (The construction of the E1E_{1}-term evidently commutes with coproducts in QC⁡(X)\qc(X), since pullback to an affine is colimit preserving.) Using the previous step, only finitely many terms in the spectral sequence may involve differentials affecting a particular group πi​Γ​M\pi_{i}\Gamma M. Therefore we have expressed πi​Γ​M\pi_{i}\Gamma M as a finite limit of terms which preserved colimits in MM and so the result follows. ∎

The following shows that we can glue derived schemes with finite colimits rather than geometric realizations. We state it in the simplest form applicable to the assertions which follow.

0NX3

Lemma 3.18. Suppose XX is a derived scheme, and U​∐V→XU\coprod V\to X is an open Zariski cover. Then the following is a colimit diagram

U∩V\textstyle{U\cap V\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}U​∐V\textstyle{U\coprod V\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}X.\textstyle{X.}
0NX4

Proof. It suffices to show that the following diagram of algebra objects is Cartesian

𝒪X\textstyle{\mathcal{O}_{X}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}𝒪V\textstyle{\mathcal{O}_{V}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}𝒪U\textstyle{\mathcal{O}_{U}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}𝒪U∩V\textstyle{\mathcal{O}_{U\cap V}}

Let u:U​∐V→Xu:U\coprod V\to X denote the cover. Since the restriction u∗​(−)≃(−)⊗𝒪X(𝒪U×𝒪V)u^{*}(-)\simeq(-)\otimes_{\mathcal{O}_{X}}(\mathcal{O}_{U}\times\mathcal{O}_{V}) is conservative and preserves finite limits, it suffices to show that the restriction of the above diagram is Cartesian. But this is nothing more than the clearly Cartesian diagram

𝒪U×𝒪V\textstyle{\mathcal{O}_{U}\times\mathcal{O}_{V}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}𝒪U∩V×𝒪V\textstyle{\mathcal{O}_{U\cap V}\times\mathcal{O}_{V}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}𝒪U×𝒪U∩V\textstyle{\mathcal{O}_{U}\times\mathcal{O}_{U\cap V}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}𝒪U∩V×𝒪U∩V\textstyle{\mathcal{O}_{U\cap V}\times\mathcal{O}_{U\cap V}}

∎

0NX5

Proposition 3.19. Quasi-compact derived schemes with affine diagonal are perfect.

0NX6

Proof. The result for ordinary (non-derived) schemes XX is a theorem of Neeman [N2], extending ideas of Thomason [TT]. (In fact, Neeman proves that for quasi-compact, quasi-separated schemes, QC⁡(X)\qc(X) is compactly generated, and dualizable and compact objects coincide. We assume XX has affine diagonal only because the definition of perfect stack requires it.)

A modified exposition of Neeman’s argument appears in the work of Bondal-Van den Bergh [BV], who in fact prove that QC⁡(X)\qc(X) is generated by a single perfect object. One can translate the latter proof, which occupies [BV, Section 3.3], directly into the derived setting, substituting Lemma 3.17 above for its underived version [BV, Corollary 3.3.4], and using the natural identification QC⁡(Spec⁡A)≃Modk\qc(\Spec A)\simeq\Mod_{k} instead of [BV, Corollary 3.3.5]. (In the derived setting, there is no general notion of the abelian category of quasi-coherent sheaves, so we do not need to worry about the potential distinction between its derived category and the quasi-coherent derived category). In what follows, we sketch the argument for the reader’s convenience, keeping the notation from [BV].

The proof that QC⁡(X)\qc(X) is generated by a single perfect (dualizable) object is an induction on the number of opens in an affine cover of XX. The base case of an affine derived scheme is Lemma 3.5. For the inductive step, we write X=Y∪UX=Y\cup U with YY open and UU affine (putting us in the context of Lemma 3.18), and assume that QC⁡(Y)\qc(Y) has a perfect generator EE. By [BoN, Proposition 6.1], there is an explicit compact generator QQ for the kernel of the restriction from UU to the intersection S=Y∩US=Y\cap U. (One can think of QQ as a form of the structure sheaf of the closed complement V=U∖SV=U\setminus S). The key to the inductive step is Neeman’s abstract categorical form [N1, Theorem 2.1] of Thomason’s extension theorem for compact objects. This allows us to extend E⊕E⁡[1]|SE\oplus E[1]|_{S} to a compact (hence perfect) object on UU, and then to glue the latter to E⊕E⁡[1]E\oplus E[1] to obtain a perfect object PP on all of XX. (Note that we extend E⊕E⁡[1]E\oplus E[1] rather than EE itself since K-theoretic obstructions vanish for the former.) One then checks by a Mayer-Vietoris argument that the sum of PP and the pushforward of QQ (which is itself compact and perfect by support considerations) to XX generates all of QC⁡(X)\qc(X).

By Lemma 3.17, we know that 𝒪X\mathcal{O}_{X} is compact, and hence that dualizable complexes are compact. The assertion that compact objects are dualizable follows from [N1]: if a set 𝒞∘\mathcal{C}^{\circ} of compact objects generates 𝒞\mathcal{C}, then all compact objects of 𝒞\mathcal{C} are summands of finite colimits of objects of 𝒞∘\mathcal{C}^{\circ} and their shifts. Since QC⁡(X)\qc(X) is generated by a perfect object, we conclude that all compact objects are summands of perfect objects, which allows one to check locally that they are indeed perfect. ∎

We next make a simple observation about compact objects.

0NX7

Lemma 3.20. Suppose p:X→Yp:X\to Y is a perfect morphism over a perfect base. Then compact and dualizable objects of QC⁡(X)\qc(X) coincide.

0NX8

Proof. First note that pushforward p∗p_{*} along the perfect morphism pp is colimit preserving, hence (by adjunction) the pullback p∗​Mp^{*}M of a compact object M∈QC⁡(Y)M\in\qc(Y) is compact. In particular we find that the structure sheaf (the monoidal unit) on XX is compact, and hence that all dualizable objects are compact. Note also that the pullback of a dualizable object is always dualizable.

Now suppose that U→YU\to Y is any affine mapping to YY, and consider the base change XUX_{U} of XX to UU. By the definition of a perfect morphism applied to pp, this base change is itself a perfect stack. Let q:XU→Xq:X_{U}\to X denote the base change morphism, which is affine since YY has affine diagonal. If M∈QC⁡(X)M\in\qc(X) is any compact object and MU=q∗​MM_{U}=q^{*}M is its pullback to UU, then MUM_{U} is itself compact since q∗q_{*} preserves colimits:

Hom⁡(MU,colim⁡Ai)\displaystyle\Hom(M_{U},\colim A_{i}) ≃\displaystyle\simeq Hom⁡(q∗​M,colim⁡Ai)\displaystyle\Hom(q^{*}M,\colim A_{i})
≃\displaystyle\simeq Hom⁡(M,q∗​colim⁡Ai)\displaystyle\Hom(M,q_{*}\colim A_{i})
≃\displaystyle\simeq Hom⁡(M,colim⁡q∗​Ai)\displaystyle\Hom(M,\colim q_{*}A_{i})
≃\displaystyle\simeq colim⁡Hom⁡(M,q∗​Ai)\displaystyle\colim\Hom(M,q_{*}A_{i})
≃\displaystyle\simeq colim⁡Hom⁡(MU,Ai).\displaystyle\colim\Hom(M_{U},A_{i}).

Since UU itself is perfect, it follows that MUM_{U} is dualizable and (by Proposition 3.6) perfect. We now show that the pullback of MM to any affine is perfect. Assume that the map U→YU\rightarrow Y is surjective, so as a consequence XU→XX_{U}\rightarrow X is also surjective. Now let f:V→Xf:V\rightarrow X be any affine mapping to XX. We may form the Cartesian diagrams:

U×YV\textstyle{U\times_{Y}V\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}f′\scriptstyle{f^{\prime}}q′\scriptstyle{q^{\prime}}XU\textstyle{X_{U}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}q\scriptstyle{q}U\textstyle{U\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}U\textstyle{U\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}f\scriptstyle{f}X\textstyle{X\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}Y\textstyle{Y}

We now verify that f∗​Mf^{*}M is perfect, given the hypotheses above. The fiber product U×YVU\times_{Y}V is affine, since YY has affine diagonal, and the map q′q^{\prime} is surjective since qq is. Since MUM_{U} is perfect, f′⁣∗​MU≃q′⁣∗​f∗​Mf^{\prime*}M_{U}\simeq q^{\prime*}f^{*}M is perfect, as well. Thus, in summary, we know that q′⁣∗​f∗​M=𝒪⁡(V×YU)⊗𝒪⁡(U)f∗​Mq^{\prime*}f^{*}M=\mathcal{O}(V\times_{Y}U)\otimes_{\mathcal{O}(U)}f^{*}M is perfect, where q′q^{\prime} is surjective, and hence f∗​Mf^{*}M is perfect. Since the pullback of MM to any affine is perfect, therefore MM is itself perfect by Definition 3.1 and hence (again by Proposition 3.6) dualizable. ∎

0NX9

Proposition 3.21. Let YY be a perfect stack and p:X→Yp:X\to Y a relative quasi-compact derived scheme with affine diagonal and a relatively ample family of line bundles (for example, pp quasi-projective, or in particular affine). Then XX is perfect.

0NXA

Proof. By Lemma 3.20, we know that compact and dualizable objects in QC⁡(X)\qc(X) coincide. Thus we need only to check that QC⁡(X)\qc(X) is compactly generated. The pullbacks p∗​Mp^{*}M of compact (hence dualizable) objects on YY are dualizable, hence compact, as are the line bundles ℒ\mathcal{L} in the given relatively ample family. We claim the ∞\infty-category of compact objects p∗​M⊗ℒp^{*}M\otimes\mathcal{L} generates QC⁡(X)\qc(X). The argument is as above in the case of an external product: let NN be right orthogonal to the compact objects, so that Hom⁡(p∗​M⊗ℒ,N)=0\Hom(p^{*}M\otimes\mathcal{L},N)=0. We first find by adjunction and the fact that YY is compactly generated that p∗​ℋ​o​m​(ℒ,N)=0p_{*}{\mathcal{H}om}(\mathcal{L},N)=0. Since the objects ℒ\mathcal{L} form a relatively ample family of line bundles this forces N=0N=0. ∎

0NXB

Corollary 3.22. In characteristic zero, the quotient X/GX/G of a quasi-projective derived scheme XX by a linear action of an affine algebraic group GG is perfect.

0NXC

Proof. First note that in characteristic zero, B​G​LnBGL_{n} is clearly perfect: the compact and dualizable objects are both finite dimensional representations which generate.

If GG is an affine algebraic group, we can embed G↪G​LnG\hookrightarrow GL_{n} as a subgroup of G​LnGL_{n} for some nn. Thus we obtain a morphism B​G→B​G​LnBG\to BGL_{n} with fiber G​Ln/GGL_{n}/G. By a theorem of Chevalley [Ch], G​Ln/GGL_{n}/G is a quasi-projective variety, and so by Proposition 3.21, B​GBG itself is perfect.

Finally, for a quasi-projective derived scheme XX with a linear action of GG, the morphism X/G→B​GX/G\to BG is quasi-projective, so applying Proposition 3.21 again, we conclude that X/GX/G is perfect. ∎

0NXD

Corollary 3.23. Let p:X→Yp:X\to Y be a morphism between perfect stacks. Then pp is perfect.

0NXE

Proof. Let f:A→Yf:A\to Y be a morphism from an affine derived scheme to the base, and XA→AX_{A}\to A the base change of XX. Since YY has affine diagonal, ff is affine as is the base change morphism fX:XA→Xf_{X}:X_{A}\to X. In particular Proposition 3.21 (again in the basic case of an affine morphism) applies to fXf_{X}, so that the total space XAX_{A} is perfect. ∎

0NXF

Proposition 3.24. The product X=X1×X2X=X_{1}\times X_{2} of perfect stacks is perfect. More generally, for maps pi:Xi→Yp_{i}:X_{i}\to Y, if YY has affine diagonal, then X1×YX2X_{1}\times_{Y}X_{2} is perfect.

0NXG

Proof. The second assertion follows from the first and Proposition 3.21, since X1×YX2→X1×X2X_{1}\times_{Y}X_{2}\to X_{1}\times X_{2} is an affine morphism for YY with affine diagonal.

To prove the first assertion, note that X=X1×X2X=X_{1}\times X_{2} has affine diagonal. Applying Lemma 3.20 to the projection to a factor, we see that compact and dualizable objects of QC⁡(X)\qc(X) coincide. Thus to confirm that XX is perfect, it suffices to show that QC⁡(X)\qc(X) is compactly generated.

Let us first check that the external product of compact objects is again compact. By assumption, compact objects MiM_{i} on the factors XiX_{i} are dualizable, so M1⊠M2M_{1}\boxtimes M_{2} is dualizable (it is the tensor product of pullbacks, and both operations preserve dualizabie objects), and hence compact.

Now let us check that external products of compact objects generate QC⁡(X)\qc(X). The argument is a modification of the argument of Bondal-Van den Bergh [BV] in the case of a single compact generator. Namely, let NN be right orthogonal to QC⁡(X)c\qc(X)^{c}, so that in particular Hom⁡(M1⊠M2,N)≃0\Hom(M_{1}\boxtimes M_{2},N)\simeq 0 for all Mi∈QC⁡(Xi)cM_{i}\in\qc(X_{i})^{c}. By adjunction, we have

0\displaystyle 0 ≃\displaystyle\simeq Hom⁡(M1⊠M2,N)\displaystyle\Hom(M_{1}\boxtimes M_{2},N)
≃\displaystyle\simeq Hom⁡(π1∗​M1,ℋ​o​m​(π2∗​M2,N))\displaystyle\Hom(\pi_{1}^{*}M_{1},{\mathcal{H}om}(\pi_{2}^{*}M_{2},N))
≃\displaystyle\simeq Hom⁡(M1,π1,∗​ℋ​o​m​(π2∗​M2,N))\displaystyle\Hom(M_{1},\pi_{1,*}{\mathcal{H}om}(\pi_{2}^{*}M_{2},N))

for all M1,M2M_{1},M_{2}, so that π1∗ℋom(π2∗M2,N)≃0\pi_{1*}{\mathcal{H}om}(\pi_{2}^{*}M_{2},N)\simeq 0 since such M1M_{1} generate QC⁡(X1)\qc(X_{1}). For any affines U→X1U\to X_{1} and V→X2V\to X_{2}, we therefore have

0\displaystyle 0 ≃\displaystyle\simeq Γ⁡(U,π1,∗​ℋ​o​m​(π2∗​M2,N))\displaystyle\Gamma(U,\pi_{1,*}{\mathcal{H}om}(\pi_{2}^{*}M_{2},N))
≃\displaystyle\simeq HomU×X2⁡(π2∗​M2,N)\displaystyle\Hom_{U\times X_{2}}(\pi_{2}^{*}M_{2},N)
≃\displaystyle\simeq HomX2⁡(M2,(π2|U×X2)∗​N)\displaystyle\Hom_{X_{2}}(M_{2},(\pi_{2}|_{U\times X_{2}})_{*}N)

for all M2M_{2}. Since the latter objects generate QC⁡(X2)\qc(X_{2}) it follows (upon restricting to VV) that Γ⁡(U×V,N)≃0\Gamma(U\times V,N)\simeq 0, whence (by affineness of U×VU\times V) that N|U×V≃0N|_{U\times V}\simeq 0, and finally (since affines of the form U×VU\times V cover X1×X2X_{1}\times X_{2}) that N≃0N\simeq 0. ∎

0NXH

Corollary 3.25. Let XX be a perfect stack, and let Σ\Sigma be a finite simplicial set. Then the mapping stack XΣ=Map⁡(Σ,X)X^{\Sigma}=\Map(\Sigma,X) is perfect.

0NXI

Proof. Let Σ0\Sigma_{0} be the 00-simplices of Σ\Sigma. Since XX has affine diagonal, the natural projection XΣ→XΣ0X^{\Sigma}\to X^{\Sigma_{0}} is affine. By Proposition 3.24, the product XΣ0X^{\Sigma_{0}} is perfect, and so by Proposition 3.21 (in the basic case of an affine morphism), the assertion follows. ∎

Finally, we consider arbitrary quotients by finite group schemes in good characteristics.

0NXJ

Proposition 3.26. Let XX be a perfect stack with an action of an affine group scheme GG for which

  1. (1)

    The global functions Γ⁡(G,𝒪G)\Gamma(G,\mathcal{O}_{G}) is a perfect complex.

  2. (2)

    The unit 𝒪B​G\mathcal{O}_{BG} on B​GBG is compact (equivalently, the trivial GG-module is perfect).

Then X/GX/G is perfect.

0NXK

Proof. We leave to the reader the exercise of checking that X/GX/G has affine diagonal since XX has affine diagonal and GG is affine.

We will first prove that condition (1) implies QC⁡(X/G)\qc(X/G) is generated by compact dualizable objects. Since f:X→X/Gf:X\to X/G is affine, we have the identification QC⁡(X)≃Modf∗​𝒪X⁡(QC⁡(X/G))\qc(X)\simeq\Mod_{f_{*}\mathcal{O}_{X}}(\qc(X/G)).

We claim that the algebra object f∗​𝒪Xf_{*}\mathcal{O}_{X} is perfect (or equivalently, dualizable). To see this, consider the pullback square of derived stacks

G\textstyle{G\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}p\scriptstyle{p}p\scriptstyle{p}Spec⁡k\textstyle{\Spec k\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}g\scriptstyle{g}Spec⁡k\textstyle{\Spec k\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}g\scriptstyle{g}B​G\textstyle{BG}

Via base change, we obtain an equivalence g∗​g∗​𝒪k≃p∗​p∗​𝒪kg^{*}g_{*}\mathcal{O}_{k}\simeq p_{*}p^{*}\mathcal{O}_{k}, or in other words, an equivalence of kk-algebras g∗​g∗​𝒪k≃Γ⁡(G,𝒪G)g^{*}g_{*}\mathcal{O}_{k}\simeq\Gamma(G,\mathcal{O}_{G}). By assumption, Γ⁡(G,𝒪G)\Gamma(G,\mathcal{O}_{G}) is a perfect complex, and g∗g^{*} is conservative and preserves perfect complexes, so we conclude that the pushforward g∗​𝒪kg_{*}\mathcal{O}_{k} is perfect. Now consider the pullback square of derived stacks

X\textstyle{X\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}f\scriptstyle{f}q′\scriptstyle{q^{\prime}}X/G\textstyle{X/G\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}q\scriptstyle{q}Spec⁡k\textstyle{\Spec k\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}g\scriptstyle{g}B​G\textstyle{BG}

Since g∗​𝒪kg_{*}\mathcal{O}_{k} is perfect, q∗​g∗​𝒪kq^{*}g_{*}\mathcal{O}_{k} is perfect. By base change, we have the equivalence q∗​g∗​𝒪k≃f∗​q′⁣∗​𝒪kq^{*}g_{*}\mathcal{O}_{k}\simeq f_{*}q^{\prime*}\mathcal{O}_{k}, and thus we conclude that f∗​𝒪Xf_{*}\mathcal{O}_{X} is perfect.

Next observe that the right adjoint f+f^{+} to the pushforward f∗f_{*} can be calculated explicitly by

f+​(M)≃ℋ​o​m𝒪X/G​(f∗​𝒪X,M)≃M⊗𝒪X/G(f∗​𝒪X)∨.f^{+}(M)\simeq{\mathcal{H}om}_{\mathcal{O}_{X/G}}(f_{*}\mathcal{O}_{X},M)\simeq M\otimes_{\mathcal{O}_{X/G}}(f_{*}{\mathcal{O}_{X}})^{\vee}.

It follows immediately that f+f^{+} preserves colimits. It also follows that f+f^{+} is conservative since a diagram chase with the above identities leads to the identity

f∗​(M⊗𝒪X/G(f∗​𝒪X)∨)≃f∗​(M)⊗𝒪Xq′⁣∗​g∗​((g∗​𝒪k)∨)≃f∗​(M)⊗𝒪X(𝒪X⊗𝒪kΓ​(G,𝒪G)∨).f^{*}(M\otimes_{\mathcal{O}_{X/G}}(f_{*}{\mathcal{O}_{X}})^{\vee})\simeq f^{*}(M)\otimes_{\mathcal{O}_{X}}q^{\prime*}g^{*}((g_{*}{\mathcal{O}_{k}})^{\vee})\simeq f^{*}(M)\otimes_{\mathcal{O}_{X}}(\mathcal{O}_{X}\otimes_{\mathcal{O}_{k}}\Gamma(G,\mathcal{O}_{G})^{\vee}).

The unit e:Spec⁡k→Ge:\Spec k\to G gives a factorization of the identity map

𝒪k\textstyle{\mathcal{O}_{k}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}p∗\scriptstyle{p^{*}}Γ⁡(G,𝒪G)\textstyle{\Gamma(G,\mathcal{O}_{G})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}e∗\scriptstyle{e^{*}}𝒪k,\textstyle{\mathcal{O}_{k},}

and taking duals, a factorization of the identity map of 𝒪k\mathcal{O}_{k} through the dual Γ​(G,𝒪G)∨\Gamma(G,\mathcal{O}_{G})^{\vee}. Hence if f+​(M)f^{+}(M) were trivial, then f∗​(M)f^{*}(M) would also be trivial, but f∗f^{*} is conservative. Thus we conclude f∗f_{*} takes a generating set of compact objects to a generating set of compact objects.

We now appeal to condition (2)(2) that the unit in QC⁡(B​G)\qc(BG) is compact, hence so are all dualizables in QC⁡(B​G)\qc(BG). In the case when XX is a point, the above arguments show that QC⁡(B​G)\qc(BG) is compactly generated. Furthermore, it shows that all compacts are in fact dualizable (since f∗​𝒪kf_{*}\mathcal{O}_{k} is a compact dualizable generator), and hence B​GBG itself is perfect. The morphism X/G→B​GX/G\to BG is then a perfect morphism with perfect base. Thus by Lemma 3.20 compact and dualizable objects in QC⁡(X/G)\qc(X/G) coincide. This implies (in combination with the compact generation of QC⁡(X/G)\qc(X/G) above) that X/GX/G is perfect as asserted. ∎

Original mathematics by the credited authors. Source collection and HTML conversion remain in progress.

David Ben-Zvi, John Francis, David Nadler

Original source: arXiv:0805.0157v5