format: text

text:
# Krichever correspondence for algebraic varieties

## 1 Introduction

In 70’s years I. M. Krichever suggested a construction how to attach to some algebraic-geometric data, connected with algebraic curves and vector bundles on them, an infinite-dimensional (Fredholm) subspace in the space $`k((z))`$ of Laurent power series ( ). This construction was successfully used in the theory of integrable systems, in paricular, in the theory of KP and KdV equations (, , ).

There were also found applications of this construction to the theory of modules of algebraic curves (, ). Besides, this construction turned out to be connected with description of commutative subrings in the rings of pseudo-differential operators (, ). Now this construction is called the Krichever correspondence or the Krichever map (, , , ). But in these works it is essentially that algebraic-geometric data are connected with $`1`$-dimensional varieties and $`1`$-dimensional local field $`k((z))`$.

Recently, in works ,  it were pointed out some connections between the theory of the KP-equations and $`n`$-dimensional local fields; also it was suggested a variant of the Krichever map for algebraic-geometric data which is connected with algebraic surfaces, vector bundles on them and $`2`$-dimensional local fields.

One of the typical examples of multidimensional local field is the field of Laurent iterated series $`k((z_1))\mathrm{}((z_n))`$.

Such fields serve for natural generalization of local objects of $`1`$-dimensional varieties to the case of multidimensional varieties. Let us consider an $`n`$-dimensional algebraic scheme $`X`$. Let $`Y_0\mathrm{}Y_n`$ be a flag of closed subschemes on $`X`$ such that $`Y_0=X`$, $`Y_i`$ is of codimension $`1`$ in $`Y_{i1}`$, and $`Y_n=x`$ is a closed point. Then there exists a construction (, , ), attaching in the canonical way to such flag some ring, which is an $`n`$-dimensional local field provided that $`x`$ is a smooth point on all $`Y_i`$. Moreover, if $`X`$ is an algebraic variety over a field $`k`$, $`x`$ is a $`k`$-rational point, and we fix local parameters $`z_1,z_2,\mathrm{},z_n\widehat{𝒪}_{x,X}`$ such that $`z_{ni+1}=0`$ is a local equation of variety $`Y_i`$ in the formal neighbourhood of the point $`x`$ on the variety $`Y_{i1}`$ ($`1in`$), then the obtained $`n`$-dimensional local field it is possible to identify with $`k((z_1))((z_2))\mathrm{}((z_n))`$.

A concept of multidimensional local field has appeared in the middle of 70’s years, and, originally, such fields were used for the development of generalization of class field theory to the schemes of higher dimension. Later there were also found applications of multidimensional local fields to many problems of algebraic geometry, where it makes sence to speak about local components of geometric objects (see ).

In this work, using multidimensional local fields, we construct the Krichever correspondence for varieties of arbitrary dimension $`n`$: that is some injective map from algebraic-geometric data, connected with projective algebraic varieties, full flags of ample divisors and their local parameters in the formal neighbourhood of the last point of the flag, vector bundles and their trivialisations in the formal neighbourhood of the last point of the flag, to some $`k`$-subspaces of finite dimensional vector space over the $`n`$-dimensional local field $`k((z_1))\mathrm{}((z_n))`$.

If $`n=1`$, then our constructed map is a variant of the Krichever map for curves.

If $`n=2`$, then our constructed map coincides with the map constructed in .

The work is organized as follows.

In §2 we give various technical lemmas about cohomology of coherent sheaves, projective and injective limits, which will be useful further in the work.

In §3 we give a construction of family of functors, which is connected with quasicoherent sheaves and a fixed flag of subvarieties, and which can be interpreted as a cohomology system of coeficients on the standart symplex.

In §4, using the construction of §3, we construct complexes of sheaves of abelian groups, which is acyclic resolutions of arbitrary quasicoherent sheaves on schemes.

In §5 we prove some theorems about intersections among components of resolutions constructed in §4. In some cases the whole resolution can be reconstructed from one $`k`$-subspace of finite dimensional vector space over $`k((z_1))\mathrm{}((z_n))`$. Using this, we construct the Krichever map in higher dimensions.

Note that connected with $`n`$-dimensional local fileds resolutions of quasicoherent sheaves on schemes were in works , . But in contrast to these works, our resolutions depend only on a single flag of subvarieties and are not resolutions of adelic type.

Note also that, in contrast to , all the constructions and proofs in this work are internal ones, i. e., they are not reduced to multidimensional adelic complexes.

During all the work we shall keep the following notations and agreements.

For any finite set $`I`$ let $`\mathrm{}I`$ be the number of elements of the set $`I`$.

If $`X`$ is a scheme, then
$`Sh(X)`$ is the category of sheaves of abelian groups on $`X`$,
$`CS(X)`$ is the category of coherent sheaves on $`X`$,
$`QS(X)`$ is the catehory of quasicoherent sheaves on $`X`$,
$`Ab`$ is the catehory of abelian groups.

If $`f:YX`$ is a morphism of two schemes, then always $`f^{}`$ is the pull-back functor in the category of sheaves of abelian groups, $`f_{}`$ is the direct image functor in the category of sheaves of abelian groups.

If $`𝒰`$ is an open covering of $`X`$, $``$ is a sheaf of abelian groups on $`X`$, then $`\stackrel{ˇ}{H}^{}(𝒰,)`$ are the Čech cohomologies groups with respect to the covering $`𝒰`$.

Let $`YX`$ be a closed subscheme of a scheme $`X`$, which is defined by the ideal sheaf $`J`$. Then by $`(Y,𝒪_X/J^k)`$ denote the scheme whose topological space coincides with the topological space of the scheme $`Y`$ and the structure sheaf is $`𝒪_X/J^k`$. ($`𝒪_X`$ is the structure sheaf of the scheme $`X`$.)

The author would like to express the deep gratitude to his scientific adviser A. N. Parshin for the constant attention to the work.

## 2 Technical lemmas

###### Lemma 1

On a noetherian scheme $`X`$ any short exact sequence of quasicoherent sheaves is direct limit of short exact sequences of coherent sheaves. For $`\varphi :𝒢\mathrm{Mor}(QS(X))`$ there are $`\varphi _i:_i𝒢_i\mathrm{Mor}(CS(X))`$ with $`\underset{}{lim}\varphi _i=\varphi `$, $`_i`$, $`𝒢_i𝒢`$.

Proof. See \[11, lemma 1.2.2\] and \[10, lemma 2.1.5\].

###### Lemma 2

Let $`X`$ be a noetherian scheme. Let $`\psi :CS(X)Sh(X)`$ be an exact additive functor. Then $`\psi `$ commutes with direct limits.

Proof. (By analogy with \[11, lemma 1.2.3\] or \[10, lemma 2.2.2\].)

First let us prove that if we have a direct system of sheaves

$$\{_i:iI,\varphi _{ij}:_i_j(ij)\}$$

with $`\underset{}{lim}_i=0`$, then $`\underset{}{lim}\psi (_i)=0`$.

For this one we prove that for any open $`UX`$ $`\underset{}{lim}H^0(U,\psi (_i))=0`$. Let $`x\underset{}{lim}H^0(U,\psi (_i))`$. Let this $`x`$ be represented by $`x_iH^0(U,\psi (_i))`$. Then from coherent property of the sheaf $`_i`$ and noetherian property of the scheme $`X`$ there is some $`jI`$ such that $`\varphi _{ij}=0`$. Since $`\psi `$ is an additive functor, we have that $`\psi (\varphi _{ij})=0`$. Therefore

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill {}_{}{}^{0}(U,\psi (_i))& & H^0(U,\psi (\varphi _{ij})(\psi (_i)))\hfill \\ \hfill x_i& & 0\hfill \end{array}$$

Now consider the general case: let $`\underset{}{lim}_i=`$, $`\varphi _i:_i`$ be the canonical morphisms. Consider the following exact sequence of coherent sheaves:

$$0\mathrm{Ker}\varphi _i_i\mathrm{Coker}\varphi _i0$$

The functor $`\psi `$ is an exact functor, therefore we have the following exact sequence:

$$0\psi (\mathrm{Ker}\varphi _i)\psi (_i)\psi ()\psi (\mathrm{Coker}\varphi _i)0$$

From $`\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{Ker}\varphi _i=0`$ and $`\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{Coker}\varphi _i=0`$ it follows by arguments above that $`\underset{}{lim}\psi (\mathrm{Ker}\varphi _i)=0`$ and $`\underset{}{lim}\psi (\mathrm{Coker}\varphi _i)=0`$. Direct limit maps exact sequences to exact sequence. Therefore $`\underset{}{lim}\psi (_i)=\psi ()`$. Lemma 2 is proved.

###### Lemma 3

Let $`X`$ be a noetherian scheme. Then an exact additive functor $`\psi :CS(X)Sh(X)`$ can be uniquely extended to a functor $`\psi ^{}:QS(X)Sh(X)`$ which commutes with direct limits. This new functor is exact as well.

Proof. (By analogy with \[11, lemma 1.2.4\].)

Let $`\mathrm{Ob}(QS(X))`$. By lemma 1 $`=\underset{}{lim}_i`$, where $`_i\mathrm{Ob}(CS(X))`$. Define

$$\psi ^{}()=\underset{}{lim}\psi (_i)\text{.}$$

We have $`\psi ^{}()=\psi ()`$ for $`Ob(CS(X))`$ by lemma 2. By lemma 1, for any $`\varphi \mathrm{Mor}(QS(X))`$ we have $`\varphi =\underset{}{lim}\varphi _i`$, where $`\varphi _i\mathrm{Mor}(CS(X))`$. Define

$$\psi ^{}(\varphi )=\underset{}{lim}\psi (\varphi _i)\text{.}$$

By lemma 2, we have that $`\psi ^{}(\varphi )=\psi (\varphi )`$ for $`\varphi \mathrm{Mor}(CS(X))`$. It is clear that this definition is the only one possible. And by lemma 2, it is well defined. Lemma 3 is proved.

###### Lemma 4

Let $`X`$ be a noetherian scheme, $`i:YX`$ be a closed subscheme, which is defined by the ideal sheaf $`J`$ on $`X`$. Let $`j:UY`$ be an open subscheme of $`Y`$ such that for any point $`xX`$ there exists an affine neighborhood $`Vx`$ such that $`VU`$ is an affine subscheme. Let the supports of sheaves $`_iSh(X)`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},3`$) are in $`Y`$, and the sheaf $`_1`$ is a quasicoherent sheaf with respect to the subscheme $`(Y,𝒪_X/J^k)`$ for some $`kN`$. Then from exactness of the sequence of sheaves

$$0_1_2_30$$
(1)
it follows exactness of the following sequence

$$0i_{}j_{}j^{}_1i_{}j_{}j^{}_2i_{}j_{}j^{}_30\text{.}$$

Proof. First note that for any affine open subscheme $`WU`$ and for any quasicoherent sheaf $`𝒢`$ on the scheme $`(U,𝒪_X/J^k_U)`$ we have

$$H^1(W,𝒢)=0\text{.}$$
(2)
In fact, if the sheaf $`𝒢`$ is a quasicoherent sheaf with respect to the subscheme $`U=(U,𝒪_X/J_U)`$, then equality (2) follows from affineness of the scheme $`W`$. Now if $``$ is a quasicoherent sheaf with respect to the subscheme $`(U,𝒪_X/J^k_U)`$, $`k𝐍`$, $`k1`$, then consider the following exact sequence:

$$0J/J0\text{.}$$
(3)
But the sheaves $`J`$ and $`/J`$ are quasicoherent sheaves with respect to the subscheme $`(U,𝒪_X/J^{k1}_U)`$. Therefore we can do induction, from which it follows that

$$H^1(W,J)=0\text{and}H^1(W,/J)=0\text{.}$$

Hence and from the long cohomological sequence associated with sequence (3) we obtain equality (2).

Return to sequence (1). We have exactness of the following sequence:

$$0j^{}_1j^{}_2j^{}_30\text{.}$$

Appliing the functor $`j_{}`$, we obtain

$$0j_{}j^{}_1j_{}j^{}_2j_{}j^{}_3R^1j_{}(j^{}_1)$$

Let us show that the sheaf

$$R^1j_{}(j^{}_1)=0\text{.}$$

The sheaf $`j^{}_1`$ is a quasicoherent sheaf with respect to the subscheme $`(U,𝒪_X/J^k_U)`$ for some $`k𝐍`$, therefore the sheaf $`R^1j_{}(j^{}_1)`$ is a quasicoherent sheaf on the scheme $`(Y,𝒪_X/J^k)`$ with respect to the same $`k𝐍`$. Therefore it suffices to show that for affine open $`V`$ from the lemma’s conditions

$$H^0(VY,R^1j_{}(j^{}_1))=0\text{.}$$
(4)
But $`H^0(VY,R^1j_{}(j^{}_1))=H^1(VU,j^{}_1)`$. And equality (4) follows from equality (2). Therefore we have exactness of the following sequence:

$$0j_{}j^{}_1j_{}j^{}_2j_{}j^{}_30\text{.}$$

From $`i:YX`$ is a closed imbedding it follows that $`i_{}`$ is an exact functor. Therefore the following sequence is exact:

$$0i_{}j_{}j^{}_1i_{}j_{}j^{}_2i_{}j_{}j^{}_30\text{.}$$

Lemma 4 is proved.

Let $`X`$ be a noetherian scheme. Suppose that we have an exact and additive functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }:QS(X)Sh(X)`$. Let $`i:YX`$ be a closed subscheme of the scheme $`X`$, which is defined by the ideal sheaf $`J`$. Let $`j:UY`$ be an open subscheme of $`Y`$. Then define a functor

$$C_U\mathrm{\Phi }:CS(X)Sh(X)\text{as following:}$$

for any sheaf $`CS(X)`$:

$$C_U\mathrm{\Phi }()\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\underset{k𝐍}{\underset{}{lim}}\mathrm{\Phi }(i_{}j_{}j^{}(/J^k))\text{.}$$

###### Remark 1

It is not difficult to understand that if the sheaf $``$ is a coherent sheaf on $`X`$, then for any $`k𝐍`$ the sheaf $`i_{}j_{}j^{}(/J^k)`$ is a quasicoherent sheaf on $`X`$. In fact, the sheaf $`/J^k`$ is a coherent sheaf on the scheme $`X`$. Moreover, the sheaf $`/J^k`$ is a coherent sheaf on the closed subscheme $`(Y,𝒪_X/J^k)`$ of the scheme $`X`$. Then $`j^{}(/J^k)`$ is a coherent sheaf on the scheme $`(U,𝒪_X/J^k_U)`$, $`j_{}j^{}(/J^k)`$ is a quasicoherent sheaf on the scheme $`(Y,𝒪_X/J^k)`$. And since $`i_{}`$ coincides with the direct image functor from the subscheme $`(Y,𝒪_X/J^k)`$, we see that $`i_{}j_{}j^{}(/J^k)`$ is a quasicoherent sheaf on $`X`$.

###### Lemma 5

Let $`X`$ be a noetherian scheme, $`\mathrm{\Phi }:QS(X)Sh(X)`$ be an exact additive functor, $`i:YX`$ be a closed subscheme of the scheme $`X`$, which is defined by the ideal sheaf $`J`$ on $`X`$. Let $`j:UY`$ be an open subscheme of $`Y`$. In addition, suppose the following: for any point $`xX`$, for any open $`WX`$, $`xW`$, there exists an affine open subscheme $`VW`$, $`xV`$ such that:

1. $`VU`$ is an affine subscheme;
2. for any quasicoherent sheaf $``$ on $`X`$

$$H^1(V,\mathrm{\Phi }())=0$$
(5)

Then $`C_U\mathrm{\Phi }:CS(X)Sh(X)`$ is an exact and additive functor.

###### Remark 2

For example, condition 1 of lemma 5 is satisfied in the following cases:

* $`X`$ is a separated scheme, $`U`$ is an affine subscheme (as on a separated scheme the intersection of two affine open subschemes is an affine subscheme);
* $`X`$ is a separated scheme, and $`U`$ is a complement to some Cartier divisor in $`Y`$.

Proof (of lemma 5).

Additivity of the functor $`C_U\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is obvious from the construction. Let us show exactness. Let

$$0_1_2_30$$

be an exact sequence of coherent sheaves on $`X`$.

For any $`xX`$, for any open $`WX`$ consider an open affine $`VW`$, $`Vx`$ satisfying conditions 1 2 of lemma 5. Then for the proof of exactness of the functor $`C_U\mathrm{\Phi }`$ it suffices to show exactness of the following sequence:

$$0H^0(V,C_U\mathrm{\Phi }(_1))H^0(V,C_U\mathrm{\Phi }(_2))H^0(V,C_U\mathrm{\Phi }(_3))0\text{.}$$
(6)
On the other hand, the following sequence is exact:

$$0_1/J^k_2_1_2/J^k_2_3/J^k_30\text{.}$$

Since the sheaves in the last sequence are coherent sheaves on the scheme $`(Y,𝒪_X/J^k)`$, by lemma 4 the following sequence is exact:

$$0i_{}j_{}j^{}(_1/J^k_2_1)i_{}j_{}j^{}(_2/J^k_2)i_{}j_{}j^{}(_3/J^k_3)0\text{.}$$

Since we apply the exact functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to the last sequence, we obtain exactness of the following sequence from $`Sh(X)`$:

$$0\mathrm{\Phi }(i_{}j_{}j^{}(_1/J^k_2_1))\mathrm{\Phi }(i_{}j_{}j^{}(_2/J^k_2))\mathrm{\Phi }(i_{}j_{}j^{}(_3/J^k_3))0\text{.}$$

Now from (5) we obtain exactness of the following sequence:

$`0H^0(V,\mathrm{\Phi }(i_{}j_{}j^{}(_1/J^k_2_1)))H^0(V,\mathrm{\Phi }(i_{}j_{}j^{}(_2/J^k_2)))`$

$$H^0(V,\mathrm{\Phi }(i_{}j_{}j^{}(_3/J^k_3)))0\text{.}$$
(7)
Also for any natural numbers $`k_1k_2`$ we have the following exact sequence of sheaves:

$$0J^{k_1}_2_1/J^{k_2}_2_1_1/J^{k_2}_2_1_1/J^{k_1}_2_10\text{.}$$

Hence, as above, the sheaf $`J^{k_1}_2_1/J^{k_2}_2_1`$ is a coherent sheaf on the scheme $`(Y,𝒪_X/J^{k_2})`$. Therefore by lemma 4 the following sequence is exact:

$`0i_{}j_{}j^{}(J^{k_1}_2_1/J^{k_2}_2_1)i_{}j_{}j^{}(_1/J^{k_2}_2_1)`$

$`i_{}j_{}j^{}(_1/J^{k_1}_2_1)0\text{.}`$

Since the functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is exact, we have exactness of the sequence:

$`0\mathrm{\Phi }(i_{}j_{}j^{}(J^{k_1}_2_1/J^{k_2}_2_1))\mathrm{\Phi }(i_{}j_{}j^{}(_1/J^{k_2}_2_1))`$

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(i_{}j_{}j^{}(_1/J^{k_1}_2_1))0\text{.}`$

And from (5) we obtain that the following map is a surjective map:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(i_{}j_{}j^{}(_1/J^{k_2}_2_1))\mathrm{\Phi }(i_{}j_{}j^{}(_1/J^{k_1}_2_1))$$
(8)
Now taking the projective limit with respect to all $`k𝐍`$ and using (8), from which it follows the Mittag-Leffler condition (see \[9, ch.II, §9\]), we obtain exactness of the following sequence:

$`0\underset{k𝐍}{\underset{}{lim}}H^0(V,\mathrm{\Phi }(i_{}j_{}j^{}(_1/J^k_2_1)))\underset{k𝐍}{\underset{}{lim}}H^0(V,\mathrm{\Phi }(i_{}j_{}j^{}(_2/J^k_2)))`$

$`\underset{k𝐍}{\underset{}{lim}}H^0(V,\mathrm{\Phi }(i_{}j_{}j^{}(_3/J^k_3)))0`$

or

$`0\underset{k𝐍}{\underset{}{lim}}H^0(V,\mathrm{\Phi }(i_{}j_{}j^{}(_1/J^k_2_1)))`$

$`H^0(V,C_U\mathrm{\Phi }(_2))H^0(V,C_U\mathrm{\Phi }(_3))0\text{.}`$

Thus for the proof of exactness of sequence (6) we have to show that

$$H^0(V,C_U\mathrm{\Phi }(_1))=\underset{k𝐍}{\underset{}{lim}}H^0(V,\mathrm{\Phi }(i_{}j_{}j^{}(_1/J^k_2_1)))\text{.}$$
(9)
Since the scheme $`X`$ is a noetherian scheme, by Artin-Rees lemma (see \[2, cor. 10.10\]) there exists $`l𝐍`$ such that for all $`kl`$:

$$J^k_2_1=J^{kl}(J^l_2_1)\text{.}$$
(10)
From (10) we obtain that the maps

$$_1/J^k_2_1_1/J^{kl}_1$$

are well defined and surjective. The same is for

$$_1/J^k_1_1/J^k_2_1\text{.}$$

Further, appliing successively the functors $`j^{}`$, $`j_{}`$, $`i_{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`H^0(V,)`$ and using lemma 4 and condition (5), we obtain cofinality of the projective systems:

$$H^0(V,\mathrm{\Phi }(i_{}j_{}j^{}(_1/J^k_2_1)))\text{and}H^0(V,\mathrm{\Phi }(i_{}j_{}j^{}(_1/J^k_1)))\text{.}$$

Therefore (9) is satisfied, and lemma 5 is proved.

###### Lemma 6

Let $`X`$ be a noetherian scheme, $`\mathrm{\Phi }:QS(X)Sh(X)`$ be an exact additive functor, $`i:YX`$ be a closed subscheme of the scheme $`X`$, which is defined by the ideal sheaf $`J`$ on $`X`$. Let $`j:UY`$ be an open subscheme of $`Y`$ such that for any point $`xX`$ there exists an affine neighbourhood $`Vx`$ such that $`VU`$ is an affine subscheme. Let $`𝒰=\{U_i\}_{iI}`$ be an affine open covering of the scheme $`X`$. Suppose that for any $`k1`$, for any coherent sheaf $`𝒢`$ on the scheme $`X`$ we have

$`\stackrel{ˇ}{H}^m(𝒰,\mathrm{\Phi }(i_{}j_{}j^{}(𝒢/J^k𝒢)))`$ $`=`$ $`0\text{for any}m1`$ (11)
$`H^1({\displaystyle \underset{iI_0}{}}U_i,\mathrm{\Phi }(i_{}j_{}j^{}(𝒢/J^k𝒢)))`$ $`=`$ $`0\text{for any subset}I_0I`$ (12)
$`H^1(X,\mathrm{\Phi }(i_{}j_{}j^{}(𝒢/J^k𝒢)))`$ $`=`$ $`0\text{.}`$ (13)
Then $`\stackrel{ˇ}{H}^m(𝒰,C_U\mathrm{\Phi }())=0`$ for any $`m1`$ and for any coherent sheaf $``$ on $`X`$.

Proof. Let $``$ be any coherent sheaf on $`X`$. Let

$$p_n:\underset{\mathrm{}I_0=n+1}{\underset{I_0I}{}}H^0(\underset{iI_0}{}U_i,\mathrm{\Phi }(i_{}j_{}j^{}(/J^k)))\underset{\mathrm{}I_0=n+2}{\underset{I_0I}{}}H^0(\underset{iI_0}{}U_i,\mathrm{\Phi }(i_{}j_{}j^{}(/J^k)))$$

be the map which is arised from the Čech complex with respect to the covering $`𝒰`$. Define $`H_k^n\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\mathrm{Ker}p_n`$. In addition,

$$H_k^0=H^0(X,\mathrm{\Phi }(i_{}j_{}j^{}(/J^k)))\text{.}$$

From (11) we obtain at once that for any $`n1`$

$$H_k^n=\mathrm{Im}p_{n1}\text{.}$$

Therefore for any $`m0`$ the following sequence is exact:

$$0H_k^n\underset{\mathrm{}I_0=n+1}{\underset{I_0I}{}}H^0(\underset{iI_0}{}U_i,\mathrm{\Phi }(i_{}j_{}j^{}(/J^k)))\stackrel{p_n}{}H_k^{n+1}0$$
(14)
For any natural numbers $`k_1k_2`$ we have the exact sequence

$$0J^{k_1}/J^{k_2}/J^{k_2}/J^{k_1}0\text{.}$$

Since the sheaves of this sequence are coherent sheaves on the scheme $`(Y,𝒪_X/J^{k_2})`$, by lemma 4 the following sequence is exact:

$$0i_{}j_{}j^{}(J^{k_1}/J^{k_2})i_{}j_{}j^{}(/J^{k_2})i_{}j_{}j^{}(/J^{k_1})0\text{.}$$

Further, from exactness of the functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and condition (13) we obtain surjectivity of the following maps for any natural numbers $`k_1k_2`$:

$$H^0(X,\mathrm{\Phi }(i_{}j_{}j^{}(/J^{k_2})))H^0(X,\mathrm{\Phi }(i_{}j_{}j^{}(/J^{k_1})))\text{.}$$
(15)
By condition (12), we obtain as well that for any $`k_1k_2`$ and any $`I_0I`$ the maps

$$H^0(\underset{iI_0}{}U_i,\mathrm{\Phi }(i_{}j_{}j^{}(/J^{k_2})))H^0(\underset{iI_0}{}U_i,\mathrm{\Phi }(i_{}j_{}j^{}(/J^{k_1})))\text{.}$$
(16)
are surjective maps.

Let us prove that for any $`n0`$ the map

$$H_{k_2}^nH_{k_1}^n$$
(17)
is a surjective map for any $`k_1k_2`$. In the case $`n=0`$ it is statement (15). For arbitrary $`n`$ it follows from surjectivity of $`p_{n1}`$ in exact sequence (14) and, also, surjectivity of map (16).

Now taking the projective limit in (14) and using surjectivity of (17), from which it follows the Mittag-Leffler condition for the projective systems $`{}_{k}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{n}`$, we obtain exactness of the following sequence for any $`n0`$:

$$0\underset{k}{\underset{}{lim}}H_k^n\underset{\mathrm{}I_0=n+1}{\underset{I_0I}{}}H^0(\underset{iI_0}{}U_i,C_U\mathrm{\Phi }())\underset{k}{\underset{}{lim}}H_k^{n+1}0\text{.}$$

Hence it follows at once that for any $`m1`$ $`\stackrel{ˇ}{H}^m(𝒰,C_U\mathrm{\Phi }())=0`$. Lemma 6 is proved.

In the sequel we’ll use the following variant of A. Kartan lemma, which connects the Čech cohomologies groups with the usual cohomologies groups of sheaves. For a sheaf $`𝒜`$ on a topological space $`V`$ by $`\stackrel{ˇ}{H}^q(V,𝒜)`$ denote direct limit of Čech cohomologies with respect to all coverings of the space $`V`$.

###### Lemma 7

Let $`X`$ be a topological space and $`𝒜`$ be a sheaf on . Suppoce that it is possible to cover $`X`$ by family $`𝐔`$ of open sets such that this family has the following properties:

1. If $`𝐔`$ contains $`U^{}`$ and $`U^{\prime \prime }`$, then it contains $`U^{}U^{\prime \prime }`$;
2. $`𝐔`$ contains arbitrarily small open sets;
3. $`\stackrel{ˇ}{H}^q(U,𝒜)=0`$ for any $`q1`$ and $`U𝐔`$.

Under these conditions we have isomorphism:

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{H}^q(X,𝒜)H^q(X,𝒜)\text{.}$$

Proof. See theorem 5.9.2 of \[8, ch.2\].

###### Lemma 8

Let $`X`$ be a noetherian scheme, $`j:UX`$ be an open affine subscheme. Then for any quasicoherent sheaf $``$ on $`U`$:

$`H^0(X,j_{})`$ $`=`$ $`H^0(U,)`$ (18)
$`H^i(X,j_{})`$ $`=`$ $`0\text{if}i>0\text{.}`$ (19)
Proof.

Equality (18) follows from the construction of the functor $`j_{}`$. Let us prove (19). Embed the quasicoherent sheaf $``$ in a flasque quasicoherent sheaf $`𝒢`$ on $`U`$. (It always can do, see \[9, ch. III, §3\].)

$$0𝒢𝒢/0$$

Now the following sequence is exact:

$$0j_{}j_{}𝒢j_{}(𝒢/)0\text{.}$$
(20)
(Indeed, $`R^1j_{}=0`$. The last follows from quasicoherentness of the sheaf $`R^1j_{}`$ and for any affine open $`VX`$: $`H^0(V,R^1j_{})=H^1(VU,)=0`$, as from separateness of $`X`$ it follows that $`VU`$ is an affine scheme.) Besides, it is not difficult to see that the sheaf $`j_{}𝒢`$ is an flasque sheaf. Therefore

$$H^i(X,j_{}𝒢)=0\text{for any}i>0\text{.}$$
(21)
Besides, the map

$$H^0(X,j_{}𝒢)H^0(X,j_{}(𝒢/))$$

is surjective, as $`H^0(X,j_{}𝒢)=H^0(U,𝒢)`$, $`H^0(X,j_{}(𝒢/))=H^0(U,𝒢/)\text{.}`$ And from afinneness of $`U`$ it follows that $`H^1(U,)=0`$, therefore the following map is surjective:

$$H^0(U,𝒢)H^0(U,𝒢/)\text{.}$$

Hence and from (21) we obtain that

$$H^1(X,j_{})=0\text{.}$$

Further, if $`i>1`$, then from (21) and from the long cohomological sequence associated with (20) it follows that

$$H^i(X,j_{})=H^{i1}(X,j_{}(𝒢/))\text{.}$$

But the sheaf $`𝒢/`$ is a quasicoherent sheaf on $`U`$. Hence, by induction, it is possible to assume that

$$H^{i1}(X,j_{}(𝒢/))=0\text{.}$$

Therefore $`H^i(X,j_{})=0`$. Lemma 8 is proved.

###### Lemma 9

Let $`X`$ be a noetherian scheme. Let $`YX`$ be a closed subscheme, which is defined by the ideal sheaf $`J`$, and $`j:UX`$ be the open subscheme which is complement to the subscheme $`Y`$. Let a sheaf $``$ be a quasicoherent sheaf on $`X`$, and consider the following exact sequence of quasicoherent sheaves on $`X`$:

$$0j_{}j^{}𝒢0$$

which is induced by the natural map $`j_{}j^{}`$.

Let $`=\underset{i}{\underset{}{lim}}_i`$ and $`𝒢=\underset{i}{\underset{}{lim}}𝒢_i`$, $`iI`$, where the sheaves $`_i`$ $`𝒢_i`$ are coherent sheaves on the scheme $`X`$ for any $`iI`$.

Then for any $`iI`$ there exists $`l(i)𝐍`$ such that

$$J^{l(i)}_i=0\text{and}J^{l(i)}𝒢_i=0\text{.}$$
(22)
Proof. From the exact sequence

$$0J^m𝒪_X𝒪_X/J^m0$$

it follows the following sequence of quasicoherent sheaves on $`X`$

$$0om_X(𝒪_X/J^m,)om_X(𝒪_X,)om_X(J^m,)xt_X^1(𝒪_X/J^m,)\text{.}$$

Taking direct limit with respect to $`m`$, we obtain

$$0\underset{}{lim}_mom_X(𝒪_X/J^m,)\underset{}{lim}_mom_X(J^m,)\underset{}{lim}_mxt_X^1(𝒪_X/J^m,)\text{.}$$

By \[9, ch. III, ex. 3.7(a)\] we have

$$\underset{}{lim}_mom_X(J^m,)=j_{}j^{}\text{.}$$

Now (22) follows from

$$=\underset{}{lim}_mom_X(𝒪_X/J^m,)\text{and}𝒢\underset{}{lim}_mxt_X^1(𝒪_X/J^m,)\text{.}$$

Lemma 9 is proved.

## 3 Construction and its original properties

Let $`X`$ be a noetherian separated scheme. Consider a flag of closed subschemes

$$XY_0Y_1\mathrm{}Y_n$$

in the scheme $`X`$. Let $`J_j`$ be the ideal sheaf of the subscheme $`Y_j`$ in $`X`$ ($`0jn`$). Let $`i_j`$ be the embedding of the subscheme $`Y_jX`$. Let $`U_i`$ be an open subscheme of $`Y_i`$ which is complement to the closed subscheme $`Y_{i+1}`$ ($`0in1`$). Let $`j_i:U_iY_i`$ be the open embedding of the subscheme $`U_i`$ to the scheme $`Y_i`$ ($`0in1`$). By definition, let $`U_n=Y_n`$ and $`j_n`$ be the identity morphism from $`U_n`$ to $`Y_n`$.

Assume that for any point $`xX`$ there exists an open affine neithbourhood $`Ux`$ such that $`UU_i`$ is an affine scheme for any $`0in`$. In the sequel we’ll say that a flag of subschemes $`\{Y_i,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}in\}`$ with such condition is the flag with locally affine complements.

###### Remark 3

For example, the last condition of locally affineness of complements is satisfied in the following cases

* $`Y_{i+1}`$ is the Cartier divisor on the scheme $`Y_i`$ ($`0in1`$), or
* $`U_i`$ is an affine scheme for any $`0in1`$. (On a separated scheme the intersection of two open affine subschemes is an affine subscheme.)

Consider the $`n`$-dimensional simplex and its standard simplicial set (without degenerations). To be precise, consider the set:

$$(\{0\},\{1\},\mathrm{},\{n\})\text{.}$$

(Here are all the integers between $`0`$ and $`n`$.)
Then the simplicial set $`S=\{S_k\}`$ :

* $`S_0\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\{\eta \{0\},\{1\},\mathrm{},\{n\}\}`$.
* $`S_k\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\{(\eta _0,\mathrm{},\eta _k),\text{where}\eta _lS_0\text{and}\eta _{l1}<\eta _l\}`$.

The boundary map $`_i`$ ($`0<i<k`$) is given by eliminating the $`i`$-th component of the vector $`(\eta _0,\mathrm{},\eta _k)`$. (It is the $`i`$-th face of $`(\eta _0,\mathrm{},\eta _k)`$.)
Definition. For any $`(\eta _0,\mathrm{},\eta _k)S_k`$ define the functor

$$V_{(\eta _0,\mathrm{},\eta _k)}:QS(X)Sh(X)$$

uniquely determined by the following inductive conditions:

1. $`V_{(\eta _0,\mathrm{},\eta _k)}`$ commutes with direct limits.
2. If $``$ is a coherent sheaf, and $`\eta S_0`$, then

$$V_\eta ()\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\underset{m𝐍}{\underset{}{lim}}(i_\eta )_{}(j_\eta )_{}(j_\eta )^{}(/J_\eta ^m)\text{.}$$
3. If $``$ is a coherent sheaf, and $`(\eta _0,\mathrm{},\eta _k)S_k`$ ($`k1`$), then

$$V_{(\eta _0,\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _k)}()\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\underset{m𝐍}{\underset{}{lim}}V_{(\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _k)}\left((i_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}(/J_{\eta _0}^m)\right)\text{.}$$

In the sequel, to avoid the confusion of notations in the case of a lot of schemes and flags of closed subschemes we’ll use sometimes the equivalent notation for $`V_{(\eta _0,\mathrm{},\eta _k)}()`$, in which the closed subschemes is written explicitly:

$$V_{(\eta _0,\mathrm{},\eta _k)}()=V_{(Y_{\eta _0},\mathrm{},Y_{\eta _k})}(X,)\text{.}$$

###### Proposition 1

Let $`\sigma =(\eta _0,\mathrm{},\eta _k)S_k`$. Then

1. The functor $`V_\sigma :QS(X)Sh(X)`$ is well defined.
2. The functor $`V_\sigma `$ is exact and additive.
3. The functor $`V_\sigma `$ is local on $`X`$, i. e., for any open $`UX`$ for any quasicoherent sheaf $``$ on $`X`$:

$$V_{(Y_{\eta _0},\mathrm{},Y_{\eta _k})}(X,)_U=V_{(Y_{\eta _0}U,\mathrm{},Y_{\eta _k}U)}(U,_U)\text{.}$$

(Here if $`Y_jU=ø`$, then $`Y_iU`$ is an empty subscheme of $`U`$ which is defined by the ideal sheaf $`𝒪_U`$.)
4. For any quasicoherent sheaf $``$ on the scheme $`X`$ the sheaf $`V_{(\eta _0,\mathrm{},\eta _k)}()`$ is a sheaf of $`𝒪_X`$-modules with the support on the subscheme $`Y_{\eta _k}`$. (Usually, this sheaf is not quasicoherent.)
5. For any quasicoherent sheaf $``$ on $`X`$:

$$V_\sigma ()=V_\sigma (𝒪_X)_{𝒪_X}\text{.}$$
6. If all $`U_i`$ is affine ($`0in`$), then for any affine covering $`𝒰`$ of the scheme $`X`$, for any quasicoherent sheaf $``$ on $`X`$, for any $`m1`$:

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{H}^m(𝒰,V_\sigma ()))=0\text{.}$$
7. If all $`U_i`$ is affine ($`0in`$), then for any quasicoherent sheaf $``$ on $`X`$, for any $`m1`$

$$H^m(X,V_\sigma ())=0\text{.}$$

Proof.
1. Well-posedness of the definition of $`V_\sigma `$ is proved by induction by means of using of lemma 1, lemma 2, lemma 3, lemma 5, lemma 6 and lemma 7. Let us check the base of induction for lemmas 5 and 6 (when the functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }=id`$). Namely

* for any affine scheme $`𝒱`$ and any quasicoherent sheaf $``$ on $`V`$

$$H^1(V,)=0\text{.}$$
* Let us show that if $`i:YX`$ is a closed subscheme with the ideal sheaf $`J`$, $`j:UY`$ is an open imbedding of the affine scheme $`U`$ in $`Y`$. Then for any quasicoherent sheaf $``$ on $`X`$, for any $`k1`$, for any affine open covering $`𝒰`$ of the scheme $`X`$, for any $`m1`$:

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{H}^m(𝒰,i_{}j_{}j^{}(/J^k))=0\text{.}$$

From affineness of the covering $`𝒰`$ it follows that it is acyclic for quasicoherent sheaves. Consequently the Čech cohomologies groups with respect to this covering coincide with the usual cohomologies groups of quasicoherent sheaves. (See \[9, ch.3, theorem 4.5\]) Therefore it suffices to prove that for any integer $`k1`$

$$H^m(X,i_{}j_{}j^{}(/J^k))=0\text{.}$$
(23)
If $`k=1`$, then the sheaf $`/J`$ is quasicoherent with respect to the subscheme $`Y`$, and

$$H^m(X,i_{}j_{}j^{}(/J))=H^m(Y,j_{}(j^{}(/J)))=0\text{.}$$

Where the last equality follows from lemma 8.

If $`k>1`$, then by lemma 4 the following sequence is exact

$$0i_{}j_{}j^{}(J^{k1}/J^k)i_{}j_{}j^{}(/J^k)i_{}j_{}j^{}(/J^{k1})0\text{.}$$
(24)
In addition, the sheaves $`J^{k1}/J^k`$ and $`/J^{k1}`$ are quasicoherent with respect to the subscheme $`(Y,𝒪_X/J^{k1})`$. Therefore, by induction, we obtain

$$H^m(X,i_{}j_{}j^{}(J^{k1}/J^k))=0\text{and}H^m(X,i_{}j_{}j^{}(/J^{k1}))=0\text{.}$$

Hence, from (24) we have (23). Item 1 of proposition 1 is proved.

2. The proof of this item is analogous to the proof of item 1 by means of the same lemmas.
3. Localness follows by induction from the construction of the functor $`V_{(\eta _0,\mathrm{},\eta _k)}`$.
4. This item follows by induction from the construction.
5. We have the natural map:

$$V_\sigma ()\text{,}$$

which induces the following map:

$$V_\sigma (𝒪_X)_{𝒪_X}V_\sigma (𝒪_X)_{𝒪_X}V_\sigma ()V_\sigma (𝒪_X)_{V_\sigma (𝒪_X)}V_\sigma ()=V_\sigma ()\text{.}$$
(25)
Let us show that (25) gives us an isomorphism between $`V_\sigma (𝒪_X)_{𝒪_X}`$ and $`V_\sigma ()`$. Since the functor $`V_\sigma `$ and tensor products commute with direct limits, we can assume that $``$ is a coherent sheaf. In view of item 3 of this proposition, we can restrict ourself to the local situation. That is, we suppose $`X=\mathrm{Spec}A`$, $`=\stackrel{~}{M}`$ for some finitely generated $`A`$-module $`M`$. Then for some $`r𝐍`$ there exists an exact sequence of sheaves as:

$$0\stackrel{~}{N}𝒪_X^r\stackrel{~}{M}0\text{,}$$

where $`N`$ is some finitely generated $`A`$-module. Hence we obtain the commutative diagram:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}& V_\sigma (𝒪_X)_{𝒪_X}\stackrel{~}{N}& & V_\sigma (𝒪_X)_{𝒪_X}𝒪_X^r& & V_\sigma (𝒪_X)_{𝒪_X}\stackrel{~}{M}& 0\\ & \text{}& & \text{}& & \text{}& \\ 0& V_\sigma (\stackrel{~}{N})& & V_\sigma (𝒪_X^r)& \stackrel{\delta }{}& V_\sigma (\stackrel{~}{M})& 0\text{,}\end{array}$$

where the lower row is exact by virtue of item 2. Besides, it is clear that $`\beta `$ is an isomorphism. Therefore from surjectivity of $`\delta `$ it follows that $`\alpha `$ is surjective. Since $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ is a coherent sheaf, we have that the map $`\gamma `$ is surjective as well. Hence, from exactness of the lower row and non complicated diagram search it follows that the map $`\alpha `$ is injective.
6. The proof is similar to the proof of item 1 by means of the same lemmas.
7. This item follows from the previous item of this proposition and lemma 7. (Since every point has arbitrarily small affine neithbourhood with affine intersection to all $`U_i`$, we obtain that this affine neithbourhood satisfies item 6 of proposition 1.)

###### Proposition 2

1. Let $`X`$ be a noetherian separated scheme. Let

$$Y_0Y_1\mathrm{}Y_n\text{and}Y_0^{}Y_1^{}\mathrm{}Y_n^{}$$

be two flags of closed subschemes in $`X`$ with the corresponding ideal sheaves $`J_i`$ and $`J_i^{}`$ ($`0in`$) such that for any $`0in`$ there exist integers $`l_i1`$ and $`l_i^{}1`$ with the following properties:

$$J_i^{l_i}J_i^{}\text{and}(J_i^{})^{l_i^{}}J_i\text{.}$$
(26)
Then the functors

$$V_{(Y_{\eta _0},\mathrm{},Y_{\eta _k})}(X,)\text{and}V_{(Y_{\eta _0}^{},\mathrm{},Y_{\eta _k}^{})}(X,)$$

coincides for any $`(\eta _0,\mathrm{},\eta _k)S_k`$.
2. Consider the flag of closed subschemes:

$$XZY_0\mathrm{}Y_n$$

on a noetherian separated scheme $`X`$. Let $`i:ZX`$ be a closed imbedding. Then for any quasicoherent sheaf $``$ on the scheme $`Z`$ we have

$$i_{}\left(V_{(Y_0,\mathrm{},Y_n)}(Z,)\right)=V_{(Y_0,\mathrm{},Y_n)}(X,i_{})\text{.}$$

###### Remark 4

Condition (26) is equivalent to the statement that the topological spaces of subschemes $`Y_i`$ and $`Y_i^{}`$ are the same for all $`0in`$.

Proof (of proposition 2).
1. It suffices to prove for the case when $`J_i=J_i^{}`$ for all $`ij`$, $`0in`$, where some fixing $`0jn`$. From inductance of the definition of the functor $`V_{(Y_{\eta _0},\mathrm{},Y_{\eta _k})}(X,)`$ (and $`V_{(Y_{\eta _0}^{},\mathrm{},Y_{\eta _k}^{})}(X,)`$) we can restrict ourself to the case $`j=0`$. This case follows from cofinality of the projective systems $`/J_j^k`$ and $`/(J_j^{})^k`$ (from condition 26).
2. This item follows at once from the construction and the fact that supports of all appearing from induction sheaves are on the subscheme $`Z`$.

## 4 Complexes and their exactness

Consider again the usual $`n`$-simplex without degenerations $`S=\{S_k,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}kn\}`$. If $`\sigma =(\eta _0,\mathrm{},\eta _k)S_k`$, then $`_i(\sigma )`$ is the $`i`$-th face of $`\sigma `$ ($`0ik`$). Then define the morphism of functors

$$d_i(\sigma ):V_{_i(\sigma )}V_\sigma \text{,}\text{as}$$

commuting with direct limits, and on coherent sheaves it is a map

$$V_{_i(\sigma )}()V_\sigma ()$$
(27)
which is defined by the following rules:

* if $`i=0`$, then (27) is obtained from application of the functor $`V_{_0(\sigma )}`$ to the map

$$(i_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}(/J_{\eta _0}^m)$$

and passage to the projective limit on $`m`$;
* if $`i=1`$, $`k=1`$, then we have the natural map

$$(i_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}(/J_{\eta _0}^m)V_{(\eta _1)}((i_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}(/J_{\eta _0}^m))\text{.}$$

Now after passage to the projective limit on $`m`$ we obtain the map (27) in this case.
* $`i0`$, $`k>1`$, then from induction on $`k`$ we can suppose that we have the map

$$V_{_{i1}(_0(\sigma ))}((i_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}(/J_{\eta _0}^m))V_{_0(\sigma )}((i_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}(/J_{\eta _0}^m))\text{.}$$

And passage to the projective limit on $`m`$ gives us the map (27) in this case.

###### Proposition 3

For any $`1kn`$, $`0ik`$ define

$$d_i^k\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\underset{\sigma S_k}{}d_i(\sigma ):\underset{\sigma S_{k1}}{}V_\sigma \underset{\sigma S_k}{}V_\sigma \text{.}$$

Also define

$$d_0^0:id\underset{\sigma S_0}{}V_\sigma $$

as the direct sum of the natural maps $`V_\sigma ()`$. (Here $`id`$ is the functor of the natural imbedding of $`QS(X)`$ into $`Sh(X)`$, $``$ is a quasicoherent sheaf on $`X`$, $`\sigma S_0`$.)

Then for all $`0i<jkn1`$ we have

$$d_j^{k+1}d_i^k=d_i^{k+1}d_{j1}^k\text{.}$$
(28)
Proof. Using the inductance of the definition, the proof is done by induction from non complicated consideration of some cases. It suffices to consider the small $`i`$ and $`k`$ only. (For example, see similar cases in \[11, §2.4\] or .)

Define

$$d^m\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\underset{0im}{}(1)^id_i^m$$

Then proposition 3 makes possible to construct the complex of sheaves $`V()`$ from any quasicoherent sheaf $``$ on $`X`$ in the standard way:

$$\mathrm{}\underset{\sigma S_{m1}}{}V_\sigma ()\stackrel{d^m}{}\underset{\sigma S_m}{}V_\sigma ()\mathrm{}$$

Where $`d^{m+1}d^m=0`$ follows from (28) by means of non complicated direct calculations.

###### Theorem 1

Let $`X`$ be a noetherian separated scheme. Let $`Y_0Y_1\mathrm{}Y_n`$ be a flag of closed subschemes with locally affine complements. Assumee that $`Y_0=X`$. Then the following complex is exact:

$$0\stackrel{d^0}{}V()0\text{.}$$
(29)
Proof. It suffices to consider only the case when the sheaf $``$ is coherent. Consider the exact sequence of sheaves

$$0(j_0)_{}(j_0)^{}𝒢0$$
(30)
Here $``$ and $`𝒢`$ is the kernel and the cokernel of the natural map of sheaves $`(j_0)_{}(j^0)^{}`$. From exactness of functors $`V_\sigma `$ (for any $`\sigma `$) we obtain the following exact sequence of complexes of sheaves:

$$0V()V()V((j_0)_{}(j_0)^{})V(𝒢)0$$
(31)
By lemma 9 the supports of sheaves $``$ and $`𝒢`$ are on $`Y_1`$, therefore in the case $`\eta _0=0`$ we have $`V_{(Y_{\eta _0},\mathrm{},Y_{\eta _k})}(X,)=0`$ and $`V_{(Y_{\eta _0},\mathrm{},Y_{\eta _k})}(X,𝒢)=0`$. Therefore, using it, lemma 9 (which decompose the sheaves $``$ and $`𝒢`$ in direct limits of sheaves which is coherent on subschemes with topological space $`Y_1`$), proposition 2, permutability of the functors $`V_\sigma `$ with direct limits, we can apply induction on the length of flag and suppose that the complexes

$$0\stackrel{d^0}{}V()0\text{and}$$
(32)
$$0𝒢\stackrel{d^0}{}V(𝒢)0$$
(33)
are already exact. It is not difficult to understand that for any $`\sigma =(\eta _0,\mathrm{},\eta _k)S_k`$ if $`\eta _0=0`$, then $`V_\sigma ((j_0)_{}(j_0)^{})=V_\sigma ()`$; if $`\eta _00`$, then $`V_\sigma ((j_0)_{}(j_0)^{})=V_\sigma ^{}()`$, where $`\sigma ^{}=(0,\eta _0,\mathrm{},\eta _k)S_{k+1}`$. Hence, the complex $`V((j_0)_{}(j_0)^{})`$ has the same components $`V_\sigma ^{}()`$ in the degree $`k`$ and $`k+1`$. Therefore, successively from the highest degrees spliting off the trivial complexes

$$0V_\sigma ((j_0)_{}(j_0)^{})V_\sigma ^{}((j_0)_{}(j_0)^{})0\text{,}$$

we obtain exactness of the complex

$$0(j_0)_{}(j_0)^{}\stackrel{d^0}{}V((j_0)_{}(j_0)^{})0\text{.}$$
(34)
Now, since complexes (32), (33), (34) are exact, we obtain exactness of complex (29) from exactness of (31) and (30). Theorem 1 is proved.

For any $`\sigma S_k`$ define

$$A_\sigma ()\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}H^0(X,V_\sigma ())\text{.}$$

###### Proposition 4

Let $`X`$ be a noetherian separated scheme. $`Y_0Y_1\mathrm{}Y_n`$ be a flag of closed subschemes such that all $`U_i`$ are affine ($`0in`$). Let $`\sigma S_k`$ be arbitrary. Then

1. $`A_\sigma `$ is an exact and additive functor: $`QS(X)Ab`$.
2. If $`X=\mathrm{Spec}A`$, $`M`$ is some $`A`$-module, then

$$A_\sigma (\stackrel{~}{M})=A_\sigma (𝒪_X)_AM\text{.}$$

Proof.
1. This item follows at once from items 2 and 7 of proposition 1.
2. Similarly to the proof of item 5 of proposition 1 we can suppose that the module $`M`$ is finitely generated over $`A`$. Now consider the exact sequence of $`A`$-modules:

$$0NA^^rM0\text{.}$$

Hence we obtain the commutative diagramm:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}& A_\sigma (𝒪_X)_A\stackrel{~}{N}& & A_\sigma (𝒪_X)^^r& & A_\sigma (𝒪_X)_AM& 0\\ & \text{}& & \text{}& & \text{}& \\ 0& A_\sigma (\stackrel{~}{N})& & A_\sigma (𝒪_X^r)& \stackrel{\delta }{}& A_\sigma (\stackrel{~}{M})& 0\text{,}\end{array}$$

where the lower row is exact by virtue of item 1 of this proposition. It is clear that $`\beta `$ is an isomorphism. Therefore, arguing as in item 5, we obtain at first surjectivity of the map $`\alpha `$, and afterwards we obtain injectivity of $`\alpha `$. Proposition 4 is proved.

Let $``$ be any quasicoherent sheaf on $`X`$. Apply the functor $`H^0(X,)`$ to the complex $`V()`$. We obtain the complex of abelian groups $`A()`$:

$$\mathrm{}\underset{\sigma S_{m1}}{}A_\sigma ()\underset{\sigma S_m}{}A_\sigma ()\mathrm{}\text{.}$$

###### Theorem 2

Let $`X`$ be a noetherian separated scheme. Let $`Y_0Y_1\mathrm{}Y_n`$ be a flag of closed subschemes such that $`Y_0=X`$ and all $`U_i`$ are affine ($`0in`$). Then cohomology of the complex $`A()`$ coincide with cohomology of the sheaf $``$ on $`X`$, i. e., for any $`i`$

$$H^i(X,)=H^i(A())\text{.}$$

Proof. From theorem 1 and item 7 of proposition 1 it follows that $`V()`$ is an acyclic resolution for the sheaf $``$. Therefore it is possible to calculate cohomology of the sheaf $``$ by means of global sections of this resolution. Theorem 2 is proved.
From the last theorem we obtain at once the following geometrical corollary.

###### Theorem 3

Let $`X`$ be a projective algebraic scheme of dimension $`n`$ over a field. Let $`Y_0Y_1\mathrm{}Y_n`$ be a flag of closed subschemes such that $`Y_0=X`$ and $`Y_i`$ is an ample divisor on the scheme $`Y_{i1}`$ for any $`1in`$. Then for any quasicoherent sheaf $``$ on $`X`$, for any $`i`$ we have

$$H^i(X,)=H^i(A())\text{.}$$

Proof. In fact, since $`Y_i`$ is an ample divisor on $`Y_{i1}`$ for all $`1in`$,we have that $`U_i`$ is an affine scheme for all $`0in1`$. Since $`dimY_n=0`$, we have that $`U_n=Y_n`$ is affine as well. Now application of theorem 2 concludes the proof.

###### Remark 5

Let us remark that for any quasicoherent sheaf $``$, for any $`\sigma =(\eta _0)S_0`$$`A_\sigma ()`$ is the group of section over $`U_{\eta _0}`$ of the sheaf $``$ lifted to the formal neighbourhood of the subscheme $`Y_{\eta _0}`$ in $`X`$. And the complex $`A()`$ can be interpreted as the Čech complex for the such ”covering ” of the scheme $`X`$.

## 5 Combinatorial properties and the Krichever map.

###### Lemma 10

Let $`X`$ be a noetherian separated scheme. Let $`Y_0Y_1\mathrm{}Y_n`$ be a flag of closed subschemes such that $`Y_0=X`$ and $`Y_i`$ is an ample Cartier divisor on the scheme $`Y_{i1}`$ ($`1in`$). Let $`J_i`$ be the ideal sheaves on $`X`$ defining the corresponding subschemes $`Y_i`$ in $`X`$. Let $`\sigma =(\eta _0,\mathrm{},\eta _k)S_k`$. Then for any $`i\eta _0`$, for any quasicoherent sheaf $``$ on $`X`$ we have

$$A_\sigma ()=\underset{m}{\underset{}{lim}}A_\sigma (/J_i^m)\text{.}$$
(35)
###### Remark 6

We consider the sheaf $`/J_i^m`$ in (35) as the sheaf on the scheme $`X`$. The corresponding functor of direct image from the subscheme $`Y_i`$ is omitted for the sake of simplication of notations. Further we shall do the same in analogous situations.

Proof. From the definition of the functor $`A_\sigma `$ we have

$$\underset{m}{\underset{}{lim}}A_\sigma (/J_i^m)=\underset{m}{\underset{}{lim}}\underset{l}{\underset{}{lim}}A_{_0(\sigma )}((j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}(/(J_i^m+J_{\eta _0}^l)))=$$

$$=\underset{(m,l)}{\underset{}{lim}}A_{_0(\sigma )}((j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}(/(J_i^m+J_{\eta _0}^l)))=\underset{l}{\underset{}{lim}}A_{_0(\sigma )}((j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}(/J_{\eta _0}^l))=A_\sigma ()\text{,}$$

where next to the last equality follows from cofinality of the projective systems

$$A_{_0(\sigma )}((j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}(/(J_i^m+J_{\eta _0}^l)))\text{and}A_{_0(\sigma )}((j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}(/J_{\eta _0}^l))\text{.}$$

The last follows from cofinality of the systems $`/(J_i^m+J_{\eta _0}^l)`$ and $`/J_{\eta _0}^l`$. Besides, in our reasonings we meant that if $`\sigma S_0`$, then $`A_{_0(\sigma )}=H^0(X,)`$. The lemma is proved.

###### Lemma 11

Let $`X`$ be a Cohen-Macaulay noetherian scheme. Let $`Y_0Y_1\mathrm{}Y_n`$ be a flag of closed subschemes such that $`Y_0=X`$ and $`Y_i`$ is a Cartier divisor on the scheme $`Y_{i1}`$ ($`1in`$). Let $`J_i`$ be the ideal sheaves on $`X`$ defining the corresponding subschemes $`Y_i`$ in $`X`$. Let $`j_k`$ be an open imbedding of $`Y_k\backslash Y_{k+1}`$ into $`Y_k`$ ($`0k<n`$). Then for any $`0k<n`$, for any $`m1`$, for any locally free sheaf $``$ on $`X`$ the natural map

$$/J_k^m(j_k)_{}(j_k)^{}(/J_k^m)$$

is an imbedding.

Proof. Let us do induction on $`m`$.

Let $`m=1`$. Then $`/J_k`$ is a locally free sheaf on $`Y_k`$. Therefore, applying lemma 9 to the pair $`Y_{k+1}Y_k`$, we obtain injectivity in this case, since Cartier divisor is locally generated by one element which is not divisor of zero in the structure sheaf.

Let $`m>1`$. Then since $`Y_i`$ are Cartier divisors on $`Y_{i1}`$, we have that $`Y_k`$ is a local complete intersection in $`X`$ and locally defined by a regular sequence on $`X`$. Therefore the sheaf $`J_k^{m1}/J_k^m`$ is locally free on $`Y_k`$ (see \[9, ch. II, th. 8.21A\]). From the exact sequence

$$0J_k^{m1}/J_k^m/J_k^m/J_k^{m1}0$$
(36)
and lemma 4 we obtain exactness of the following sequence

$$0(j_k)_{}(j_k)^{}(J_k^{m1}/J_k^m)(j_k)_{}(j_k)^{}(/J_k^m)(j_k)_{}(j_k)^{}(/J_k^{m1})0\text{.}$$
(37)
The sheaf $`J_k^{m1}/J_k^m=_{𝒪_X}J_k^{m1}/J_k^m`$ is locally free $`Y_k`$. Therefore the map

$$J_k^{m1}/J_k^m(j_k)_{}(j_k)^{}(J_k^{m1}/J_k^m)$$

is an imbedding. Also the map

$$/J_k^{m1}(j_k)_{}(j_k)^{}(/J_k^{m1})$$

is an imbedding by induction hypothesis. From this, (36), (37) and non complicated diagram search we obtain that the map

$$/J_k^m(j_k)_{}(j_k)^{}(/J_k^m)$$

is an imbedding. The lemma is proved.

###### Lemma 12

Let $`X`$ be a projective equidimensional Cohen-Macaulay algebraic scheme of dimension $`n`$ over a field. Let $`Y_0Y_1\mathrm{}Y_k`$ be a flag of closed subschemes such that $`Y_0=X`$ and $`Y_i`$ is an ample Cartier divisor on the scheme $`Y_{i1}`$ for any $`i`$ ($`1ik`$). Let $`J_i`$ be the ideal sheaves on $`X`$ defining the corresponding subschemes $`Y_i`$ in $`X`$. Then for any locally free sheaf $``$ on $`X`$ the natural map

$$H^0(X,)\underset{m}{\underset{}{lim}}H^0(X,/J_k^m)$$

is an imbedding; and if $`k<n`$, then this one is an isomorphism.

Proof. The proof will be done by induction on $`k`$.

Let at first $`k=1`$. The sheaf $`J_1`$ is the dual of the ample invertible sheaf on $`X`$. And from conditions on $`X`$ (that is Cohen-Macaulayness, projectiveness , equidimensionality) there exist (see \[9, ch. III, th. 7.6\]) $`l>0`$ such that for any $`m>l`$ we have $`H^0(X,J_1^m)=0`$, and if $`n2`$, then we have $`H^1(X,J_1^m)=0`$ as well.

Hence and from the exact sequence

$$0J_1^m/J_1^m0$$

we obtain that the map

$$H^0(X,)H^0(X,/J_1^m)$$

is an imbedding for $`m>l`$, and

$$H^0(X,)=H^0(X,/J_1^m)$$

for $`m>l`$ and $`n2`$. And after passage to the projective limit on $`m`$ we obtain the imbedding

$$H^0(X,)\underset{m}{\underset{}{lim}}H^0(X,/J_1^m)=H^0(X,\underset{m}{\underset{}{lim}}/J_1^m)\text{,}$$

and if $`n>1`$, then this one is the isomorphism

$$H^0(X,)H^0(X,\underset{m}{\underset{}{lim}}/J_1^m)\text{.}$$

Now let $`k>1`$ be arbitrary. From lemmas conditions it follows that $`Y_k`$ is locally defined by a regular sequence on $`X`$. Therefore $`Y_k`$ is a Cohen-Macaulay scheme, and $`J_k^m/J_k^{m+1}`$ are locally free sheaves on $`Y_k`$ (see \[9, ch. II, th. 8.21A\]). By induction hypothesis we have

$$\underset{l}{\underset{}{lim}}H^0(X,/J_{k1}^l)=H^0(X,)\text{.}$$
(38)
From cofinality of projective systems $`/J_k^m`$ and $`/(J_k^m+J_{k1}^l)`$ we have that

$$\underset{m}{\underset{}{lim}}H^0(X,/J_k^m)=\underset{(l,m)}{\underset{}{lim}}H^0(X,/(J_k^m+J_{k1}^l))=\underset{l}{\underset{}{lim}}\underset{m}{\underset{}{lim}}H^0(X,/(J_k^m+J_{k1}^l))\text{.}$$

Frim this one and equality (38) it suffices for the proof of the lemma to show that for any $`l1`$ the map

$$H^0(X,/J_{k1}^l)\underset{m}{\underset{}{lim}}H^0(X,/(J_k^m+J_{k1}^l))$$

is an imbedding, and if $`k<n`$ then this map is an isomorphism.

For this one let us consider the exact sequence

$$0\frac{J_k^m+J_{k1}^l}{J_{k1}^l}/J_{k1}^l/(J_k^m+J_{k1}^l)0\text{.}$$

It suffices to show that for all sufficiently large $`m`$

$$H^0(X,\frac{J_k^m+J_{k1}^l}{J_{k1}^l})=0\text{,}$$
(39)
and if $`k<n`$, then

$$H^1(X,\frac{J_k^m+J_{k1}^l}{J_{k1}^l})=0\text{.}$$
(40)
For this one let us do induction on $`l`$. If $`l=1`$, then (39) and (40) follows at once from \[9, ch. III, th. 7.6\] and the fact that the sheaf $`J_k/J_{k1}`$ is the dual of the ample invertible sheaf on $`Y_{k1}`$.

If $`l>1`$, then from the identity $`\frac{A+B}{B}=\frac{A}{AB}`$ it follows the exact sequence

$$0\frac{J_k^mJ_{k1}^{l1}}{J_k^mJ_{k1}^l}_{𝒪_X}\frac{J_k^m+J_{k1}^l}{J_{k1}^l}\frac{J_k^m+J_{k1}^{l1}}{J_{k1}^{l1}}0\text{.}$$

Restricting ourself to the local situation and using the fact that $`J_i`$ is generated by a regular sequence and \[9, ch. II, th. 8.21A\], it is not difficult to understand that

$$\frac{J_k^mJ_{k1}^{l1}}{J_k^mJ_{k1}^l}_{𝒪_X}=\frac{J_k^{ml+1}+J_{k1}}{J_{k1}}\left(\frac{J_{k1}^{l1}}{J_{k1}^l}_{𝒪_X}\right)\text{.}$$

In addition, the sheaf $`\frac{J_{k1}^{l1}}{J_{k1}^l}_{𝒪_X}`$ is locally free on $`Y_{k1}`$. The sheaf $`J_k/J_{k1}`$ is the dual of the ample invertible sheaf on the Cohen-Macaulay scheme $`Y_{k1}`$. Therefore from \[9, ch. III, th. 7.6\] we have for sufficiently large $`m`$ that:

$$H^0(X,\frac{J_k^mJ_{k1}^{l1}}{J_k^mJ_{k1}^l}_{𝒪_X})=0\text{, and}$$

$$\text{if}k<n\text{, then}H^1(X,\frac{J_k^mJ_{k1}^{l1}}{J_k^mJ_{k1}^l}_{𝒪_X})=0\text{.}$$

The lemma is proved.

Corollary(from lemma 12)
Under the conditions of lemma 12 for any $`\sigma S_0`$ the natural map

$$H^0(X,)A_\sigma ()$$

is an imbedding.

Proof. Let $`\sigma =(m)`$. By lemma 12 we have the imbedding

$$0/J_k^m(j_k)_{}(j_k)^{}(/J_k^m)\text{.}$$

Hence we obtain the imbedding

$$0H^0(X,/J_k^m)H^0(X,(j_k)_{}(j_k)^{}(/J_k^m))\text{.}$$

After passage to the projective limit on $`m`$ we obtain the imbedding

$$0\underset{m}{\underset{}{lim}}H^0(X,/J_k^m)A_\sigma ()\text{.}$$

Now application of lemma 12 concludes the proof of the corollary.

###### Theorem 4

Let $`X`$ be a projective equidimensional Cohen-Macaluay scheme of dimension $`n`$ over a field. Let $`Y_0Y_1\mathrm{}Y_n`$ be a flag of closed subschemes such that $`Y_0=X`$ and $`Y_i`$ is an ample Cartier divisor on the scheme $`Y_{i1}`$ for any $`1in`$. Then for any locally free sheaf $``$ on $`X`$ we have that

1. for any $`\sigma S_k`$ ($`0kn`$) the natural map

$$H^0(X,)A_\sigma ()$$

is an imbedding,
2. for any $`\sigma S_k`$ ($`1kn`$), for any $`i`$ ($`0ik`$) the natural map

$$d_i(\sigma ):A_{_i(\sigma )}()A_\sigma ()$$

ia an imbedding.

###### Remark 7

Taking into account (28) from proposition 3, it is possible to reformulate item 2 of this theorem in the following way:
for any locally free sheaf $``$ on $`X`$, for any $`\sigma _1,\sigma _2S`$, $`\sigma _1\sigma _2`$ the natural map $`A_{\sigma _1}()A_{\sigma _2}()`$ ia an imbedding.

Proof. Let $`J_i`$ be the ideal sheaves on $`X`$ defining the corresponding subschemes $`Y_i`$ in $`X`$. Let us prove first item 2 of the theorem. Consider 3 cases.
Case 1. Let $`\sigma =(\eta _0,\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _k)`$, and $`i=0`$. Then $`_0(\sigma )=(\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _k)`$.

By lemma 11 for any $`m1`$ the map

$$/J_{\eta _0}^m(j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}(/J_{\eta _0}^m)$$

is an imbedding. Apply to this sequence the exact functor $`A_{_0(\sigma )}`$. We obtain the imbedding:

$$A_{_0(\sigma )}(/J_{\eta _0}^m)A_{_0(\sigma )}((j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}(/J_{\eta _0}^m))\text{.}$$

After passage to the projective limit on $`m`$ we obtain the imbedding

$$\underset{m}{\underset{}{lim}}A_{(\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _k)}(/J_{\eta _0}^m)A_\sigma ()\text{.}$$

In addition, from lemma 10 we have that

$$\underset{m}{\underset{}{lim}}A_{(\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _k)}(/J_{\eta _0}^m)=A_{(\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _k)}()\text{.}$$

Thus we obtain that in this case the map

$$A_{_0(\sigma )}()A_\sigma ()$$

is an imbedding.
Case 2. Let $`\sigma =(\eta _0,\eta _1)`$, and $`i=1`$. In this case we have that

$$A_{_1(\sigma )}()=\underset{m}{\underset{}{lim}}H^0(X,(j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}(/J_{\eta _0}^m))$$

$$A_\sigma ()=\underset{m}{\underset{}{lim}}A_{_0(\sigma )}((j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}(/J_{\eta _0}^m))\text{,}$$

and for the proof of this case it suffices to show that for any $`m1`$ the map

$$H^0(X,(j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}(/J_{\eta _0}^m))A_{_0(\sigma )}((j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}(/J_{\eta _0}^m))$$
(41)
is an imbedding.

Let us show this by induction. Let $`m=1`$. Then $`/J_{\eta _0}`$ is a locally free sheaf on $`Y_{\eta _0}`$. Besides, since $`Y_{\eta _0+1}`$ is a Cartier divisor on $`Y_{\eta _0}`$, we have from item 5 of proposition 1 that

$$(j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}(/J_{\eta _0})=((j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}𝒪_{Y_{\eta _0}})_{𝒪_{Y_{\eta _0}}}(/J_{\eta _0})=$$

$$=\underset{j}{\underset{}{lim}}𝒪_{Y_{\eta _0}}(jY_{\eta _0+1})_{𝒪_{Y_{\eta _0}}}(/J_{\eta _0})=\underset{j}{\underset{}{lim}}(/J_{\eta _0})(jY_{\eta _0+1})\text{.}$$
(42)
The sheaves $`(/J_{\eta _0})(jY_{\eta _0+1})`$ are locally free on $`Y_{\eta _0}`$ as well.

Therefore by corollary from lemma 12 the map

$$H^0(X,(/J_{\eta _0})(jY_{\eta _0+1}))A_{_0(\sigma )}((/J_{\eta _0})(jY_{\eta _0+1}))$$

is an imbedding. After passage to the projective limit on $`j`$ we obtain injectivity of (41) in the case $`m=1`$.

If $`m>1`$, then the statement will follow from induction hypothesis and consideration of the following two exact sequences:

$$\begin{array}{c}0H^0(X,(j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}𝒢)H^0(X,(j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}/J_{\eta _0}^m)\hfill \end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill H^0(X,(j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}/J_{\eta _0}^{m1})0\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{c}0A_{_0(\sigma )}((j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}𝒢)A_{_0(\sigma )}((j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}/J_{\eta _0}^m)\hfill \end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill A_{_0(\sigma )}((j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}/J_{\eta _0}^{m1})0\text{,}\end{array}$$

where the sheaf $`𝒢=J_{\eta _0}^{m1}/J_{\eta _0}^m`$ is a locally free on $`Y_{\eta _0}`$. Case 2 is analyzed.
Case 3. We shall consider all that are not in cases 1 and 2. Let $`\sigma =(\eta _0,\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _k)`$ and $`i0`$. Let us do induction on $`i`$. The case $`i=0`$ is already analyzed (case 1). We have

$$A_{_i(\sigma )}()=\underset{}{lim}_mA_{_{i1}(_0(\sigma ))}((j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}(/J_{\eta _0}^m))\text{and}$$

$$A_\sigma ()=\underset{}{lim}_mA_{_0(\sigma )}((j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}(/J_{\eta _0}^m))\text{.}$$

By induction hypothesis applied to the scheme $`Y_{\eta _0}`$ we can suppoce that for any locally free sheaf $``$ on $`Y_{\eta _0}`$ the map

$$0A_{_{i1}(_0(\sigma ))}()A_{_0(\sigma )}()$$
(43)
is an imbedding. Let us show that for any $`m`$ the map

$$A_{_{i1}(_0(\sigma ))}((j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}(/J_{\eta _0}^m))A_{_0(\sigma )}((j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}(/J_{\eta _0}^m))$$
(44)
is an imbedding.

If $`m=1`$, then, using (42), as in case 2, we reduce all at once to the sequence (43). Afterwards we pass to the direct limit.

If $`m>1`$, then as in case 2 we can do induction on $`m`$ by means of using of two following exact sequences:

$$\begin{array}{c}0A_{_{i1}(_0(\sigma ))}(j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}𝒢)A_{_{i1}(_0(\sigma ))}((j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}/J_{\eta _0}^m)\hfill \end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill A_{_{i1}(_0(\sigma ))}((j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}/J_{\eta _0}^{m1})0\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{c}0A_{_0(\sigma )}((j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}𝒢)A_{_0(\sigma )}((j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}/J_{\eta _0}^m)\hfill \end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill A_{_0(\sigma )}((j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}/J_{\eta _0}^{m1})0\text{,}\end{array}$$

where the sheaf $`𝒢=J_{\eta _0}^{m1}/J_{\eta _0}^m`$.

Now after passage in (44) to the limit we conclude the proof of case 3.

Now consider item 1 of the theorem. If $`k=0`$, then this is corollary of lemma 12. If $`k>0`$, then consider the map

$$H^0(X,)A_\sigma ()$$

as composition of the maps

$$H^0(X,)A_{_0(\sigma )}()\text{and}A_{_0(\sigma )}()A_\sigma ()\text{,}$$

where we can suppose that by induction on $`k`$ the first map is injective, and by item 2 of this theorem the second map is injective as well. Theorem 4 is proved.

###### Lemma 13

Let all the conditions of theorem 4 be satisfied. By $`J_i`$ denote the ideal sheaves on $`X`$ defining the corresponding $`Y_i`$ in $`X`$. Then for any locally free sheaf $``$ on $`X`$, for any $`m>0`$ we have that

1. the map

$$H^0(X,/J_i^m)A_\sigma (/J_i^m)$$

is an imbedding for any $`\sigma =(\zeta _0,\mathrm{},\zeta _k)`$, $`0i\zeta _0`$.
2. the map

$$A_{\sigma _1}(/J_i^m)A_{\sigma _2}(/J_i^m)$$

is an imbedding for any $`\sigma _1,\sigma _2S`$, $`\sigma _1\sigma _2=(\eta _0,\mathrm{},\eta _k)`$ , $`0i\eta _0`$.

Proof. Let us show item 1. If $`m=1`$, then this follows from theorem 4, which is applied to the scheme $`Y_i`$.

If $`m>1`$, then apply induction. For this consider the exact sequence

$$0J_i^{m1}/J_i^m/J_i^m/J_i^{m1}0\text{.}$$

Hence and from exactness of the functor $`A_\sigma `$ we have the following commutative diagram:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}0& H^0(X,J_i^{m1}/J_i^m)& & H^0(X,/J_i^m)& & H^0(X,/J_i^{m1})& \\ & \text{}& & \text{}& & \text{}& \\ 0& A_\sigma (J_i^{m1}/J_i^m)& & A_\sigma (/J_i^m)& & A_\sigma (/J_i^{m1})& 0\text{.}\end{array}$$

The sheaf $`J_i^{m1}/J_i^m=\frac{J_i^{m1}}{J_i^m}_{𝒪_X}`$ is locally free on $`Y_i`$ (see \[9, ch. II, th. 8.21A\]). Therefore the map $`\alpha `$ is an imbedding. The map $`\gamma `$ is an imbedding by the induction hypothesis. Now from non complicated diagram search it follows that $`\beta `$ is an imbedding as well. Item 1 is proved.

Item 2 follows at once from analogous to item 1 and inductive on $`m`$ reasonings applied to the following diagram:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}0& A_{\sigma _1}(J_i^{m1}/J_i^m)& & A_{\sigma _1}(/J_i^m)& & A_{\sigma _1}(/J_i^{m1})& \\ & \text{}& & \text{}& & \text{}& \\ 0& A_{\sigma _2}(J_i^{m1}/J_i^m)& & A_{\sigma _2}(/J_i^m)& & A_{\sigma _2}(/J_i^{m1})& 0\text{.}\end{array}$$

The lemma is proved.

###### Theorem 5

Let all the conditions of theorem 4 be satisfied. Then for any locally free sheaf $``$, for any $`\sigma _1,\sigma _2S`$ we have that

1. if $`\sigma _1\sigma _2=ø`$, then

$$A_{\sigma _1}()A_{\sigma _2}()=H^0(X,)\text{;}$$
2. if $`\sigma _1\sigma _2ø`$, then

$$A_{\sigma _1}()A_{\sigma _2}()=A_{\sigma _1\sigma _2}()\text{.}$$

###### Remark 8

According to theorem 4, the intersections make sense, because we can always imbed $`A_{\sigma _1}()`$ and $`A_{\sigma _2}()`$ into $`A_\eta ()`$, where $`\eta `$ contains $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\sigma _2`$. For instance, $`\eta =\sigma _1\sigma _2`$.

Proof. As usually, by $`J_i`$ denote the ideal sheaves on $`X`$ defining the corresponding subschemes $`Y_i`$ in $`X`$.

Let us show item 1. Let $`\sigma _1=(\eta _0,\mathrm{})`$, $`\sigma _2=(\zeta _0,\mathrm{})`$, $`\sigma _1\sigma _2=ø`$. Without loss of generality it can be assumed that $`\zeta _0>\eta _0`$. Assume that $`\sigma _1S_0`$.

By lemma 11 for any $`m>1`$ we have the exact sequence:

$$0/J_{\eta _0}^m(j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}(/J_{\eta _0}^m)𝒢_m0\text{,}$$

where the sheaf $`𝒢_m=\frac{(j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}(/J_{\eta _0}^m)}{/J_{\eta _0}^m}`$.

Let us show by induction on $`m`$ that the natural map

$$A_{_0(\sigma _1)}(𝒢_m)A_{_0(\sigma _1)\sigma _2}(𝒢_m)$$
(45)
is an imbedding.

If $`m=1`$, then

$$𝒢_1=\frac{(j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}(/J_{\eta _0})}{/J_{\eta _0}}=\frac{(j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}𝒪_{Y_{\eta _0}}_{𝒪_{Y_{\eta _0}}}(/J_{\eta _0})}{/J_{\eta _0}}=$$

$$=\frac{\underset{k}{\underset{}{lim}}𝒪(kY_{\eta _0+1})_{𝒪_{Y_{\eta _0}}}(/J_{\eta _0})}{/J_{\eta _0}}=\underset{k>0}{\underset{}{lim}}((/J_{\eta _0})_{𝒪_{Y_{\eta _0}}}(𝒪_{Y_{\eta _0}}(kY_{\eta _0+1})/𝒪_{Y_{\eta _0}}))\text{.}$$

Denote the sheaf $`_k=(/J_{\eta _0})_{𝒪_{Y_{\eta _0}}}(𝒪_{Y_{\eta _0}}(kY_{\eta _0+1})/𝒪_{Y_{\eta _0}})`$. By induction on $`k`$ let us show that the maps

$$A_{_0(\sigma _1)}(_k)A_{_0(\sigma _1)\sigma _2}(_k)$$
(46)
are imbeddings.

If $`k=1`$, then the sheaf $`_1`$ is locally free on $`Y_{\eta _0+1}`$. Therefore in this case (46) follows from theorem 4 applied to $`Y_{\eta _0+1}`$.

If $`k>1`$, then from the exact sequence

$$0\frac{𝒪_{Y_{\eta _0}}((k1)Y_{\eta _0+1})}{𝒪_{Y_{\eta _0}}}\frac{𝒪_{Y_{\eta _0}}(kY_{\eta _0+1})}{𝒪_{Y_{\eta _0}}}\frac{𝒪_{Y_{\eta _0}}(kY_{\eta _0+1})}{𝒪_{Y_{\eta _0}}((k1)Y_{\eta _0+1})}0$$

it follows the commutative diagram:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}0& A_{_0(\sigma _1)}(_{k1})& & A_{_0(\sigma _1)}(_k)& & A_{_0(\sigma _1)}(_k/_{k1})& 0\\ & \text{}& & \text{}& & \text{}& \\ 0& A_{_0(\sigma _1)\sigma _2}(_{k1})& & A_{_0(\sigma _1)\sigma _2}(_k)& & A_{_0(\sigma _1)\sigma _2}(_k/_{k1})& 0\text{.}\end{array}$$

The sheaf $`_k/_{k1}=(/J_{\eta _0})_{𝒪_{Y_{\eta _0}}}(𝒪_{Y_{\eta _0}}(kY_{\eta _0+1})/𝒪_{Y_{\eta _0}}((k1)Y_{\eta _0+1}))`$ is locally free on $`Y_{\eta _0+1}`$. Therefore the map $`\gamma `$ is injective by theorem 4 applied to $`Y_{\eta _0+1}`$. The map $`\alpha `$ is injective by induction hypothesis. Hence we have that the map $`\beta `$ is injective as well. Thus (46) is proved. After passage in (46) to the direct limit on $`k`$ we obtain (45) in the case $`m=1`$.

Now let us show (45) in the case $`m>1`$. From the exact sequences:

$$0\frac{J_{\eta _0}^{m1}}{J_{\eta _0}^m}/J_{\eta _0}^m/J_{\eta _0}^{m1}0$$

and

$$0(j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}(\frac{J_{\eta _0}^{m1}}{J_{\eta _0}^m})(j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}(/J_{\eta _0}^m)(j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}(/J_{\eta _0}^{m1})0$$

it follows the exact sequence

$$0\frac{(j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}(\frac{J_{\eta _0}^{m1}}{J_{\eta _0}^m})}{\frac{J_{\eta _0}^{m1}}{J_{\eta _0}^m}}𝒢_m𝒢_{m1}0\text{.}$$

Applying the exact functors $`A_{_0(\sigma _1)}`$ and $`A_{_0(\sigma _1)\sigma _2}`$, we obtain the diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}0& A_{_0(\sigma _1)}(\frac{(j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}(\frac{J_{\eta _0}^{m1}}{J_{\eta _0}^m})}{\frac{J_{\eta _0}^{m1}}{J_{\eta _0}^m}})& & A_{_0(\sigma _1)}(𝒢_m)& & A_{_0(\sigma _1)}(𝒢_{m1})0& \\ & \text{}& & \text{}& & \text{}& \\ 0& A_{_0(\sigma _1)\sigma _2}(\frac{(j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}(\frac{J_{\eta _0}^{m1}}{J_{\eta _0}^m})}{\frac{J_{\eta _0}^{m1}}{J_{\eta _0}^m}})& & A_{_0(\sigma _1)\sigma _2}(𝒢_m)& & A_{_0(\sigma _1)\sigma _2}(𝒢_{m1})0\text{.}& \end{array}$$

The sheaf $`\frac{J_{\eta _0}^{m1}}{J_{\eta _0}^m}=\frac{J_{\eta _0}^{m1}}{J_{\eta _0}^m}_{Y_{\eta _0}}(/J_{\eta _0})`$ is locally free on $`Y_{\eta _0}`$. Therefore the map $`\alpha `$ is injective by the same reasons as in the case $`m=1`$. The map $`\gamma `$ is injective by the inductive hypothesis. Therefore the map $`\beta `$ is injective as well (this follows from non complicated diagram search). Thus we have shown (45).

Now consider the following diagram.

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}0A_{_0(\sigma _1)}(/J_{\eta _0}^m)& & A_{_0(\sigma _1)}((j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}(/J_{\eta _0}^m))& \stackrel{\psi }{}& A_{_0(\sigma _1)}(𝒢_m)0\\ \text{}& & \text{}& & \text{}\\ 0A_{_0(\sigma _1)\sigma _2}(/J_{\eta _0}^m)& & A_{_0(\sigma _1)\sigma _2}((j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}(/J_{\eta _0}^m))& & A_{_0(\sigma _1)\sigma _2}(𝒢_m)0\text{.}\end{array}$$

(Note also that here the map $`\theta `$ is injective. This follows from the fact that the map $`\beta `$ is injective by the above, and the statement $`\varphi `$ is injective by lemma 13.)

Now let an element

$$xA_{_0(\sigma _1)}((j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}(/J_{\eta _0}^m))\text{, \hspace{1em}but}$$

$$xA_{_0(\sigma _1)}(/J_{\eta _0}^m)\text{.}$$

Then since the map $`\beta `$ is injective, we have that

$$\beta \psi (x)0\text{.}$$
(47)
Now consider the diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}0A_{\sigma _2}(/J_{\eta _0}^m)& & A_{\sigma _2}((j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}(/J_{\eta _0}^m))& \stackrel{\psi _1}{}& A_{\sigma _2}(𝒢_m)0\\ \text{}& & \text{}& & \text{}\\ 0A_{_0(\sigma _1)\sigma _2}(/J_{\eta _0}^m)& & A_{_0(\sigma _1)\sigma _2}((j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}(/J_{\eta _0}^m))& & A_{_0(\sigma _1)\sigma _2}(𝒢_m)0\text{.}\end{array}$$

(Similarly to the previous reasonings we have that in this diagram all the vertical arrows are injective.)

And if an element

$$xA_{\sigma _2}(/J_{\eta _0}^m)\text{, \hspace{1em}then}$$

$$\beta _1\psi _1(x)=0\text{.}$$
(48)
Now if

$$xA_{_0(\sigma _1)}((j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}(/J_{\eta _0}^m))A_{\sigma _2}(/J_{\eta _0}^m)$$

(where the intersection is possible to be taken in $`A_{_0(\sigma _1)\sigma _2}((j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}(/J_{\eta _0}^m))`$, because all the appearing maps are injective), then from functoriality we have

$$\beta \psi (x)=\beta _1\psi _1(x)\text{.}$$

Therefore, comparing this with (47) and (48), we obtain that in
$`A_{_0(\sigma _1)\sigma _2}((j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}(/J_{\eta _0}^m))`$ is satisfied

$$A_{_0(\sigma _1)}((j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}(/J_{\eta _0}^m))A_{\sigma _2}(/J_{\eta _0}^m)=A_{_0(\sigma _1)}(/J_{\eta _0}^m)A_{\sigma _2}(/J_{\eta _0}^m)\text{.}$$

Now from the definition of $`A_\sigma `$ we have that

$$A_{\sigma _1}()=\underset{}{lim}_mA_{_0(\sigma _1)}((j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}(/J_{\eta _0}^m))\text{,}$$

from lemma 10 we have that

$$A_{\sigma _2}()=\underset{}{lim}_mA_{\sigma _2}(/J_{\eta _0}^m)\text{.}$$

Therefore,

$$A_{\sigma _1}()A_{\sigma _2}()=\left(\underset{}{lim}_mA_{_0(\sigma _1)}((j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}(/J_{\eta _0}^m))\right)\left(\underset{}{lim}_mA_{\sigma _2}(/J_{\eta _0}^m)\right)=$$

$$=\underset{}{lim}_m\left(A_{_0(\sigma _1)}((j_{\eta _0})_{}(j_{\eta _0})^{}(/J_{\eta _0}^m))A_{\sigma _2}(/J_{\eta _0}^m)\right)=$$

$$=\underset{}{lim}_m\left(A_{_0(\sigma _1)}(/J_{\eta _0}^m)A_{\sigma _2}(/J_{\eta _0}^m)\right)=$$

$$=\left(\underset{}{lim}_mA_{_0(\sigma _1)}(/J_{\eta _0}^m)\right)\left(\underset{}{lim}_mA_{\sigma _2}(/J_{\eta _0}^m)\right)=A_{_0(\sigma _1)}()A_{\sigma _2}()\text{.}$$

Acting further in this manner, i. e., eliminating the minmal number in the union of indices every time, we obtain that

$$A_{\sigma _1}()A_{\sigma _2}()=A_{(i)}()A_\sigma ()\text{, \hspace{1em}where}$$

$`\sigma =(\zeta _0,\mathrm{})`$ and $`\zeta _0>i`$. But in this case by the reasonings, which is completely analogous to the above, we obtain at once that

$$H^0(X,(j_i)_{}(j_i)^{}(/J_i^m))A_\sigma (/J_i^m)=$$

$$=H^0(X,/J_I^m)A_\sigma (/J_i^m)=H^0(X,/J_i^m)\text{.}$$

(Note that in contrast to the reasonings above with the functor $`A_\gamma `$, the functor $`H^0(X,)`$ is a left exact functor only. But the key diagram works in this case as well:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}0& A_1& & A_2& & A_3& \\ & \text{}& & \text{}& & \text{}& \\ 0& B_1& & B_2& & B_3\text{.}& \end{array}$$

If the maps $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$ are injective, then the map $`\beta `$ is injective as well.)

Now

$$A_i()A_\sigma ()=\left(\underset{}{lim}_mH^0(X,(j_i)_{}(j_i)^{}(/J_i^m))\right)\left(\underset{}{lim}_mA_\sigma (/J_i^m)\right)=$$

$$=\underset{}{lim}_m\left(H^0(X,(j_i)_{}(j_i)^{}(/J_i^m))A_\sigma (/J_i^m)\right)=\underset{}{lim}_mH^0(X,/J_i^m)=H^0(X,)\text{,}$$

where the last equality follows from lemma 12. Item 1 of theorem 5 is proved.

Now let us show item 2 of the theorem. Consider a few cases.
Case 1. $`\sigma _1\sigma _2ø`$, $`0\sigma _1`$, $`0\sigma _2`$.

By lemma 10 we have that

$$A_{\sigma _1}()=\underset{}{lim}_mA_{\sigma _1}(/J_1^m)\text{,}A_{\sigma _2}()=\underset{}{lim}_mA_{\sigma _2}(/J_1^m)\text{,}$$

$$A_{\sigma _1\sigma _2}()=\underset{}{lim}_mA_{\sigma _1\sigma _2}(/J_1^m)\text{.}$$

Let us show that for any $`m1`$

$$A_{\sigma _1\sigma _2}(/J_1^m)=A_{\sigma _1}(/J_1^m)A_{\sigma _2}(/J_1^m)\text{,}$$
(49)
where the last intersection is regarded in $`A_{\sigma _1\sigma _2}(/J_1^m)`$. (By lemma 13 we can imbed these groups there.)

Let us prove (49) by induction on $`m`$. Let $`m=1`$. In this case $`/J_1`$ is a locally free sheaf on $`Y_1`$. And equality (49) turns into the analogous equality (49) on $`Y_1`$. The scheme $`Y_1`$ has lesser dimension than dimension of $`X`$. Applying induction on dimension of scheme, we can suppose that theorem 5 is already true for schemes of lesser dimension. (For schemes of dimension 1 theorem 5 follows at once from theorem 4 and theorem 3 by trivial reasons.) Therefore (49) is true when $`m=1`$.

Let $`m>1`$. Then the exact sequence

$$0J_1^{m1}/J_1^m/J_1^m/J_1^{m1}0$$

induces the following commutative diagram:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}0A_{\sigma _1\sigma _2}(J_1^{m1}/J_1^m)& & A_{\sigma _1\sigma _2}(/J_1^m)& & A_{\sigma _1\sigma _2}(/J_1^{m1})0\\ \text{}& & \text{}& & \text{}\\ 0A_{\sigma _1}(\frac{J_1^{m1}}{J_1^m})A_{\sigma _2}(\frac{J_1^{m1}}{J_1^m})& & H_m& & \frac{H_m}{A_{\sigma _1}\left(\frac{J_1^{m1}}{J_1^m}\right)A_{\sigma _2}\left(\frac{J_1^{m1}}{J_1^m}\right)}0\text{,}\end{array}$$

where $`H_m=A_{\sigma _1}(/J_1^m)A_{\sigma _2}(/J_1^m)\text{.}`$ From $`\sigma _1\sigma _2ø`$ it follows that the functor $`A_{\sigma _1\sigma _2}`$ is exact. Therefore the upper row of the diagram is exact.

There is the natural map $`\theta `$:

$$\frac{H_m}{A_{\sigma _1}\left(\frac{J_1^{m1}}{J_1^m}\right)A_{\sigma _2}\left(\frac{J_1^{m1}}{J_1^m}\right)}H_{m1}\text{.}$$

And from the exact sequences

$$0A_{\sigma _1}(J_1^{m1}/J_1^m)A_{\sigma _1}(/J_1^m)A_{\sigma _1}(/J_1^{m1})$$

$$0A_{\sigma _2}(J_1^{m1}/J_1^m)A_{\sigma _2}(/J_1^m)A_{\sigma _2}(/J_1^{m1})$$

it follows at once that the map $`\theta `$ is an imbedding. Besides, the map $`\theta \gamma `$ is the natural map from $`A_{\sigma _1\sigma _2}(/J_1^{m1})`$ to $`H_{m1}`$; and, consequently, by the induction hypothesis it is possible to suppose that $`\theta \gamma `$ is an isomorphism.

From the last two facts we obtain at once that $`\gamma `$ is an isomorphism. Since the sheaf $`J_1^{m1}/J_1^m=J_1^{m1}/J_1^m_{𝒪_X}`$ is locally free on $`Y_1`$ and $`dimY_1<dimX`$,

we have that the map $`\alpha `$ is an isomorphism as well. Therefore from this commutative diagram it follows that the map $`\beta `$ is an isomorphism as well.

Thus, equality (49) is proved. Now passage in (49) to the projective limit on $`m`$ concludes the proof of case 1.
Case 2. $`0\sigma _1`$, $`0\sigma _2`$ (or vice versa), $`\sigma _1\sigma _2ø`$.

Now by the analogous reasonings, as in the proof of item 1 of this theorem, we obtain at once the following

$$A_{\sigma _1}()A_{\sigma _2}()=A_{_0(\sigma _1)}()A_{\sigma _2}()\text{;}$$

that reduces this case to the case 1, analyzed above.
Case 3. $`0\sigma _1`$, $`0\sigma _2`$.

Then

$$A_{\sigma _1}()=\underset{}{lim}_kA_{_0(\sigma _1)}((kY_1)),A_{\sigma _2}()=\underset{}{lim}_kA_{_0(\sigma _2)}((kY_1))$$

Now from case 1 (or if $`_0(\sigma _1)_0(\sigma _2)=ø`$, then from item 1 of this theorem) we have that

$$A_{_0(\sigma _1)}((kY_1))A_{_0(\sigma _2)}((kY_1))=A_{_0(\sigma _1)_0(\sigma _2)}((kY_1))\text{.}$$

(Here $`A_ø()=H^0(X,)`$).

Therefore,

$$A_{\sigma _1}()A_{\sigma _2}()=\left(\underset{}{lim}_kA_{_0(\sigma _1)}((kY_1))\right)\left(\underset{}{lim}_kA_{_0(\sigma _2)}((kY_1))\right)=$$

$$=\underset{}{lim}_k\left(A_{_0(\sigma _1)}((kY_1))A_{_0(\sigma _2)}((kY_1))\right)=\underset{}{lim}_kA_{_0(\sigma _1)_0(\sigma _2)}((kY_1))=A_{\sigma _1\sigma _2}()\text{.}$$

Theorem 5 is proved.

In the sequel we shall assume that all the conditions of theorem 4 are satisfied, and a field $`k`$ is the field of definition of the scheme $`X`$. Also, let us assume that $`Y_n=x`$, where $`x`$ is a $`k`$-rational point on $`X`$ which is smooth on any $`Y_i`$ ($`0in`$). Let us choose and fix local parameters $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_n\widehat{𝒪}_{x,X}`$ such that $`z_{ni+1}|_{Y_{i1}}=0`$ is a local equation of the divisor $`Y_i`$ in the formal neighbourhood of the point $`x`$ on the scheme $`Y_{i1}`$ ($`1in`$). Let $``$ be a rank 1 locally free sheaf on $`X`$. Fix a trivialization $`e_x`$ of the sheaf $``$ in the formal neghbourhood of the point $`x`$ on $`X`$. Now the done choice of local parameters and trivialization makes possible to identify $`A_{(0,1,\mathrm{},n)}()`$ with the $`n`$-dimensional local field $`k((z_1))\mathrm{}(((z_n))`$.

Moreover, let us fix a collection of integers $`0j_1\mathrm{}j_kn1`$. Define $`\sigma S_{nk}`$ as the set $`\{i:\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}0}in,ij_1,\mathrm{},ij_k\}`$. By theorem 4 we have the natural imbedding $`A_\sigma ()A_{(0,1,\mathrm{},n)}()`$. And under identifying of $`A_{(0,1,\mathrm{},n)}()`$ with the field $`k((z_1))\mathrm{}((z_n))`$ the space $`A_\sigma ()`$ converts to the following $`k`$-subspace in $`k((z_1))\mathrm{}((z_n))`$:

$$\{a_{i_1,\mathrm{},i_n}z_1^{i_1}\mathrm{}z_n^{i_n}:a_{i_1,\mathrm{},i_n}k,i_{nj_1}0,i_{nj_2}0,\mathrm{},i_{nj_k}0\}\text{.}$$
(50)
Thus, from theorem 5 we obtain that for determination of the images of $`A_\sigma ()`$ in $`k((z_1))\mathrm{}((z_n))`$ (for any $`\sigma S`$) it suffices to know only one image of $`A_{(0,1,\mathrm{},n1)}`$ in $`k((z_1))\mathrm{}((z_n))`$. (All the others are obtained by intersection of the image of $`A_{(0,1,\mathrm{},n1)}`$ in $`k((z_1))\mathrm{}((z_n))`$ with the standard subspaces (50) in $`k((z_1))\mathrm{}((z_n))`$.)

It is clear that these reasonings is generalized at once to locally free sheaves $``$ of rank $`r`$ and spaces $`k((z_1))\mathrm{}((z_n))^r`$.

Denote the described map

$$(X,Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_n,(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n),,e_x)A_{(0,1,\mathrm{},n1)}()A_{(0,1,\mathrm{},n1,n)}()\stackrel{e_x}{}$$

$$\stackrel{e_x}{}A_{(0,1,\mathrm{},n)}(\widehat{𝒪}_{x,X})\stackrel{z_1,\mathrm{},z_n}{}k((z_1))\mathrm{}((z_n))^r$$

by $`\mathrm{\Psi }_r`$.

Definition.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}_n\hfill & \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}& \{X,(Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_n),(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n),,e_{Y_n}\}\hfill \\ X\hfill & & \text{a projective equidimensional Cohen -Macaulay scheme}\hfill \\ & & \text{of dimension }n\text{ over a field }k\hfill \\ X=Y_0Y_1\mathrm{}Y_n\hfill & & \text{a flag of closed subschemes such that }Y_i\text{ is an ample}\hfill \\ & & \text{Cartier divisor on the scheme }Y_{i1}\text{ }(1in)\hfill \\ Y_n\hfill & & \text{a smooth }k\text{-rational point on all }Y_i\text{ }(0in)\hfill \\ z_1,\mathrm{},z_n\hfill & & \text{formal local parameters in the point }Y_n\hfill \\ & & \text{such that }\left(z_{ni+1}|_{Y_{i1}}=0\right)=Y_i\text{ in the formal}\hfill \\ & & \text{neighbourhood of the point }Y_n\text{ on the scheme }Y_{i1}\hfill \\ \hfill & & \text{a rank }r\text{ vector bundle on }X\hfill \\ e_{Y_n}\hfill & & \text{a trivialization of }\text{ in the formal neighbourhood}\hfill \\ & & \text{of the point }Y_n\text{ on }X\hfill \end{array}$$

In the field $`K=k((z_1))\mathrm{}((z_n))`$ we have the following filtration

$$K(m)=z_n^mk((z_1))\mathrm{}((z_{n1}))[[z_n]]\text{.}$$

Let $`K`$-space $`V=K^r`$, and let the filtartion $`V(m)=K(m)^r`$.

###### Theorem 6

There exists a canonical map

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_n:_n\{k\text{-vector subspaces}BK,WV\}$$

such that

1. from the subspace $`BK`$ is uniquely reconstructed the complex $`A(𝒪_X)`$, which calculates cohomology of the sheaf $`𝒪_X`$ on $`X`$;
2. from the subspace $`WV`$ is uniquely reconstructed the complex $`A()`$, which calculates cohomology of the sheaf $``$ on $`X`$;
3. if $`(B,W)\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$, then $`BBB`$, $`BWW`$;
4. for all $`m`$ the map

$$\{Y_1,(Y_2,\mathrm{},Y_n),(z_1,\mathrm{},z_{n1})|_{Y_1},(mY_1)|_{Y_1},e_{Y_n}(m)|_{Y_1}\}$$

$$\{\frac{BK(m)}{BK(m+1)}\frac{K(m)}{K(m+1)}=k((z_1))\mathrm{}((z_{n1}))\text{,}$$

$$\frac{WV(m)}{WV(m+1)}\frac{V(m)}{V(m+1)}=k((z_1))\mathrm{}((z_{n1}))^r\}$$

coincides with the map $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{n1}`$;
5. If $`q,q^{}_n`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n(q)=\mathrm{\Phi }_n(q^{})`$, then $`q`$ is isomorphic to $`q^{}`$.

Proof. If

$$q=\{X,(Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_n),(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n),,e_{Y_n}\}_n\text{,}$$

then to define the map $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$ we put

$$B=\mathrm{\Psi }_1(X,Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_n,(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n),𝒪_X,id)\text{,}$$

$$W=\mathrm{\Psi }_r(X,Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_n,(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n),,e_{Y_n})\text{,}$$

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_n(q)=\{B,W\}\text{.}$$

Now items 1-4 of this theorem follows from theorems 3, 4, 5 and reasonings above about the map $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, and also for item 4 is needed the fact that $`(j_0)_{}(j_0)^{}=\underset{m}{\underset{}{lim}}(mY_1)`$.

Let us show item 5. Intersecting $`B`$ with the standard subspaces (50), we can uniquely reconstruct the algebra $`A_{(0)}(𝒪_X)K`$. Similarly, from $`W`$ we can reconstruct the $`k`$-subspace $`A_{(0)}()V`$. Then

$$XY_1=SpecA_{(0)}(𝒪_X)$$

$$X=Proj\left(\underset{m0}{}(A_{(0)}(𝒪_X)K(m))\right)$$
(51)
$$=Proj\left(\underset{m0}{}(A_{(0)}()V(m))\right)\text{,}$$

where the last equalities follow from the following statement (see \[17, lemma 7\]): if $`X`$ is a projective scheme over a field, $``$ is a coherent sheaf on $`X`$, and $`C`$ is an ample divisor on $`X`$, then $`XProj(S)`$, $`Proj(F)`$, where $`S=_{m0}H^0(X,𝒪_X(mC))`$, $`F=_{m0}H^0(X,(mC))`$.

Besides, the image under the imbedding of

$$\underset{m0}{}(A_{(0)}(𝒪_X)K(m+1))\text{into}\underset{m0}{}(A_{(0)}(𝒪_X)K(m))$$

is the homogeneous ideal determining the subscheme $`Y_1`$ in $`X`$. Now, using item 4 of this theorem, we can reconstruct all the geometrical data on the subscheme $`Y_1`$ in the analogous way, and, further, by induction we can reconstruct all the data from $`q`$ up to an isomorphism. Theorem 6 is proved.

###### Remark 9

Note that $`(nY_1)|_{Y_1}=_{𝒪_X}𝒪(nY_1)|_{Y_1}`$ and the sheaf

$$𝒪(nY_1)|_{Y_1}=𝒪(nY_1)/𝒪((n1)Y_1)=𝒩_{Y_1/X}^n\text{,}$$

where the bundle $`𝒩_{Y_1/X}`$ coincides with the normal budle of $`Y_1`$ in $`X`$ in some cases (for example, if $`X`$ and $`Y_1`$ are smooth).

###### Remark 10

From (51) and absence of divisors of zero in the field $`K`$ it follows at once that the schemes $`X,Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_n`$, satisfied the conditions of the definiton $`_n`$, are always integral schemes.

###### Remark 11

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ is a variant of the Krichever correspondence for curves (see , ). Besides, any integral noetherian scheme of dimension $`1`$ is a Cohen-Macaulay scheme.

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ coincides with the map, constructed in . Note that any normal noetherian scheme of dimension $`2`$ is a Cohen-Macaulay scheme (see \[9, ch. II, th. 8.22A\]). Also in  is analyzed an example of the Krichever map for $`X=𝐏_2`$.

###### Remark 12

In  is discussed the problem of change of locally free sheaves to torsion free sheaves.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective surface with a flag of irreducible subvarieties $`Y_1Y_2`$ such that $`Y_1`$ is an ample divisor on $`X`$, and $`Y_2`$ is a point. Let $`𝒢`$ be any torsion free sheaf on $`X`$. Then we have the imbedding

$$0𝒢𝒢^{}\text{.}$$
(52)
The sheaf $`𝒢^{}`$ is reflexive; and since $`dimX=2`$, we have that $`𝒢^{}`$ is a locally free sheaf. Now applying the exact functors $`A_\sigma `$ and the left exact functor $`H^0(X,)`$ to sequence (52), we obtain at once from the obtained sequences and theorem 4 for the sheaf $`𝒢^{}`$ that theorem 4 is true for the sheaf $`𝒢`$ as well.

But theorem 5 is no longer true for torsion free sheaves on $`X`$. Indeed, let $`𝒢=m_Q`$, where $`m_Q`$ is the ideal sheaf of a point $`QX`$. Then, applying the exact functors $`A_\sigma `$ to the exact sequence

$$0m_Q𝒪_Xk_Q0$$

we obtain at once that

* if $`QY_1`$, then

$$A_{(0)}(𝒢)A_{(01)}(𝒢)A_{(02)}(𝒢)\text{,}$$

because $`A_{(01)}(𝒢)A_{(01)}(𝒪_X)`$, but $`A_{(01)}(𝒢)=A_{(01)}(𝒪_X)`$, $`A_{(02)}(𝒢)=A_{(02)}(𝒪_X)`$;
* if $`QY_1`$, $`QY_2`$, then

$$A_{(1)}(𝒢)A_{(01)}(𝒢)A_{(12)}(𝒢)\text{,}$$

because $`A_{(1)}(𝒢)A_{(1)}(𝒪_X)`$, but $`A_{(01)}(𝒢)=A_{(01)}(𝒪_X)`$, $`A_{(12)}(𝒢)=A_{(12)}(𝒪_X)`$.

Steklov Mathematical Institute
E-mail : d\_osipov@mi.ras.ru
E-mail : d\_osipov@mail.ru


text:
# The induced charge in a Fröhlich polaron: Sum rule and spatial extent.

## I Introduction

An electron added to an insulating polar crystal forms a quasiparticle called dielectric polaron after Fröhlich. This has been recognized as a fundamental field theoretical problem. More recently a variety of novel materials have emerged which present interesting properties when doped away from an insulating phase, like colossal magnetoresistent manganites and high temperature superconducting cuprates. The fact that these are polar crystals has produced a renewed interest in Fröhlich polaron problem.

Roughly speaking a dielectric polaron is composed of an electron and the (opposite) charge that it induces in the lattice. Electron and induced charge attract each other so that for the electron to move it has to drag the induced charge resulting in an increase of the quasiparticle mass. In this work we study correlation functions which measure the magnitude and spatial extent of the induced charge and associated polarization field.

We derive a rigorous sum rule which states that the total induced charge equals the charge induced by a classical (static) electron and it is independent of temperature. This result, well known within perturbative  and variational approaches , is proven here to be exact. The large distance behavior of the electric field is determined by this sum rule. In addition we discuss the short distance and the high temperature asymptotic limit of these quantities. These results provide constrains to approximations on the polaron problem.

Real space path integral Monte Carlo (PIMC) method is used to evaluate correlation functions. These are compared with Feynman’s variational approximation (FVA)  and analytical results in weak and strong coupling. We find that the polaron radius is determined at low temperatures by the electron-phonon coupling $`\alpha `$ alone while at high temperatures it is proportional to the de Broglie thermal wave length ($`\lambda _T=\mathrm{}\sqrt{2\pi \beta /m}`$ with $`\beta `$ the inverse temperature) and becomes independent of coupling. We define a polaron crossover temperature $`T^{}(\alpha )`$. Although the electron induces a temperature independent charge in the lattice the induced charge hinders the electron motion only below $`T^{}(\alpha )`$. At high temperatures thermal effects wash out the hindering effect of the induced charge but, we remark again, not the induced charge itself.

## II Analytical Results

Our starting point is the effective action for the Fröhlich polaron problem, after the phonons have been eliminated with the usual path integral techniques, $`S=S_0+S_I`$ with

$`S_0[𝐱]`$ $`={\displaystyle _0^\mathrm{}\beta }𝑑\tau {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m\dot{x}^2`$ (1)
$`S_I[𝐱]`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{}\omega _L)^{3/2}}{m^{1/2}}}{\displaystyle _0^\mathrm{}\beta }𝑑\tau _1{\displaystyle _0^\mathrm{}\beta }𝑑\tau _2{\displaystyle \frac{D(\tau _1\tau _2)}{|𝐱(\tau _1)𝐱(\tau _2)|}}`$ (2)
here $`m`$ is the electron mass, $`\alpha =e^2m^{1/2}/\mathrm{}\overline{ϵ}(2\mathrm{}\omega _L)^{1/2}`$, is the coupling constant with $`\omega _L`$ the phonon frequency, $`1/\overline{ϵ}=1/ϵ_{\mathrm{}}1/ϵ_0`$ and $`ϵ_{\mathrm{}}`$ ($`ϵ_0`$) is the high (zero) frequency dielectric constant.

$$D(\tau )=\frac{\mathrm{exp}(\omega _L|\tau |)+\mathrm{exp}[(\mathrm{}\beta |\tau |)\omega _L]}{\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{}\beta \omega _L)1}$$
(3)
is the phonon propagator.

We are interested in the correlation function between the electron charge density $`e\stackrel{~}{n}(𝐫)`$ and the charge induced in the lattice $`e\stackrel{~}{n_i}(𝐫)`$ normalized to the probability density to find an electron at a given point i.e. the inverse of the volume $`V`$. Dropping the charges this is defined as,

$$\stackrel{~}{n}(0)\stackrel{~}{n_i}(𝐫)/V^1g(r)/\overline{ϵ}$$
(4)
Averages are defined as path integrals weighted by $`S`$

$$\mathrm{}=\frac{𝒟𝐱e^{S/\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{})}{𝒟𝐱e^{S/\mathrm{}}}$$
(5)
where the paths entering in Eq. (5) depart and arrive at the same point. Further integration over such a point is not performed and this assigns to Eq. (5) the meaning of a constrained average with $`𝐱(0)=𝐱(\beta )=0`$. Those averages are however equivalent to the unconstrained ones because of translational invariance. We used the spherical symmetry of the problem to define $`g(r)`$, and we divided by $`\overline{ϵ}`$ on the right hand side of Eq. (4) for later convenience. Another quantity of interest is the induced lattice polarization

$$𝐏(𝐫)\stackrel{~}{n}(0)\stackrel{~}{𝐏}(𝐫)/V^1$$
(6)
$`\stackrel{~}{𝐏}(𝐫)=e\stackrel{~}{n_i}(𝐫)`$ is the density of polarization operator. The correlation function in Eq. (6) is related to the induced electrostatic potential \[$`^2V(𝐫)=4\pi eg(r)/\overline{ϵ}`$\] considered in Ref.  and which will not be discussed here. We stress that these quantities have the meaning of correlation functions measuring average induced charge, polarization and induced potential at a distance $`r`$ from the electron position.

The charge density operator for the phonons is,

$$e\stackrel{~}{n_i}(𝐫)=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _L}{4\pi V\overline{ϵ}}}\underset{𝐤}{}k\stackrel{~}{Q}_𝐤e^{i𝐤.𝐫}.$$
(7)
where $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_𝐤`$ is the dimensionless displacement for momentum $`𝐤`$ phonons. Inserting Eq. (7) in Eq. (4) we obtain an equation for $`g(r)`$ as a function of the density displacement correlation function $`\stackrel{~}{n}(0)\stackrel{~}{Q}_𝐤`$. The phonon variables can be traced out by standard methods. We have found that it is possible to give an exact expression for the correlation functions in terms of path integrals weighted by the effective electronic action of Eq. (1). We find for the density-induced-density correlation function

$$g(r)=_0^\beta 𝑑\tau U(\tau )\delta [𝐫𝐱(\tau )]$$
(8)
and for the polarization field

$$𝐏(𝐫)=\frac{e}{4\pi \overline{ϵ}}_0^\beta 𝑑\tau U(\tau )\frac{\widehat{𝐫}}{|𝐫𝐱(\tau )|^2}$$
(9)
where $`\widehat{𝐫}𝐫/r`$ and

$$U(\tau )=\mathrm{}\omega _L\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\omega _L\tau )+\mathrm{sinh}[\omega _L(\mathrm{}\beta \tau )]}{2\mathrm{tanh}(\beta \mathrm{}\omega _L/2)\mathrm{sinh}(\beta \mathrm{}\omega _L)}.$$
(10)
Within FVA, the variational quadratic action can be exploited in Eqs. (8),(9) to analytically perform the averages and to recover the results of Refs.  and .

Eqs. (8),(9) have a simple physical interpretation. The induced charge can be seen as “distributed” along the electron path with weight $`U(\tau )`$. The polarization is the superposition of polarizations associated with those elementary induced charges.

Eq. (8) can be integrated in the whole space using the properties of the Dirac’s $`\delta `$ function. Since $`𝑑\tau U(\tau )=1`$, we conclude that $`g(r)`$ is normalized to one. The total induced charge $`q`$ is computed by integrating the density-induced density correlation function in Eq. (4):

$$q=e_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑r4\pi r^2g(r)/\overline{ϵ}=\frac{e}{\overline{ϵ}}.$$
(11)
which completes the proof of the sum rule. The total induced charge amounts to the charge the electron would induce if it where a static classical particle. In other words there are no quantum corrections to the total induced charge.

An alternative derivation can be work out following Quémerais. From the time derivative $`i\mathrm{}\ddot{\stackrel{~}{𝐏}}=[\dot{\stackrel{~}{𝐏}},\stackrel{~}{H}]`$ one obtains

$$\ddot{\stackrel{~}{𝐏}}=\omega _L^2\left(\frac{1}{4\pi \overline{ϵ}}\stackrel{~}{𝐃}\stackrel{~}{𝐏}\right)$$
(12)
Here $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ is the Hamiltonian, $`\stackrel{~}{𝐃}`$ is the electric displacement operator due to the electron ($`.\stackrel{~}{𝐃}=4\pi e\stackrel{~}{n}`$) and $`i\mathrm{}\dot{\stackrel{~}{𝐏}}=[\stackrel{~}{𝐏},\stackrel{~}{H}]`$. Taking the divergence we obtain a relation for the charge operators:

$$.\ddot{\stackrel{~}{𝐏}}(𝐫)=\omega _L^2e\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{n}(𝐫)}{\overline{ϵ}}+\stackrel{~}{n_i}(𝐫)\right)$$
(13)
We can integrate this expression in all space and take the thermodynamic average. The left hand side is proportional to the average of the net force felt by the lattice at the boundary of the system which should vanish at equilibrium. The right hand side gives Eq. (11).

Eq. (11) shows that the induced charge is independent of temperature. This contradicts the naive argument that all polaron effects should disappear at high temperatures. To understand this behavior one can do an analogy with the behavior of an harmonic oscillator in an external field. In that case, because of harmonicity, one gets a displacement which is temperature independent. Here roughly speaking the harmonic oscillator represents the phonon coordinates and the external field is the field produced by the electron on the phonons. The induced charge is a measure of how much the ions displace from their bare equilibrium positions in the presence of the electron. As for the single harmonic oscillator, this “displacement” is independent of temperature. Only anharmonicities can make the induced charge temperature dependent.

Using the sum rule it is easy to see that at distances much larger than the polaron radius, as defined below, the polarization field goes as $`𝐏(𝐫)=e\widehat{𝐫}/(4\pi \overline{ϵ}r^2)`$. Clearly the distortion produced by the electron is long range, a fact that is not always recognized in the literature. The total electric field (always in the sense of a correlation function) is given by $`𝐄=𝐃4\pi 𝐏`$ where we should include in $`𝐃=e\widehat{𝐫}/(ϵ_{\mathrm{}}r^2)`$ the high frequency screening. At long distances we have $`𝐄(𝐫)=e\widehat{𝐫}/(ϵ_0r^2)`$ which means that the electric field generated by the electron gets screened by the static dielectric constant. This is generally expected but to the best of our knowledge has never been proven for all coupling and temperatures.

Now we discuss the short distance behavior. At distances much smaller than the polaron radius we expect that the effect of the interaction becomes irrelevant in the functional integrals. This is because the latter are dominated by electron paths with short wave length or equivalently high kinetic energy. We can then replace the total action by the free electron action in Eqs. (8),(9). We obtain the asymptotic result:

$$\underset{r0}{lim}𝐏(𝐫)=\frac{e}{8\pi \overline{ϵ}l^2\mathrm{tanh}(\beta \mathrm{}\omega _L/2)}\widehat{𝐫}.$$
(14)
where $`l=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/2m\omega _L}`$ is the harmonic oscillator characteristic length. Using the same argument we obtain that $`g(r)r^1`$ for $`r0`$ and the proportionality coefficient can also be obtained with the same method. The latter behavior has been obtained in Ref.  within the FVA. These results coincide with lowest order perturbation theory.

At high temperatures we also expect that the effect of the interaction becomes irrelevant and so we can replace again the total action by the free electron action in the functional integrals. The high temperature asymptotic result for $`g(r)`$ is

$$4\pi r^2g(r)=\frac{2r}{l^2\beta \mathrm{}\omega _L}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{r^2}{l^2\beta \mathrm{}\omega _L}\right)\beta \mathrm{}\omega _L<<1.$$
(15)
This result has also been obtained in Ref.  within FVA. We remark that although the density-induced density correlation function does not vanish for large temperatures the polaron effective mass tends to the bare electron mass.

## III Numerical Results

Now we discuss the spatial extent of the induced charge at general couplings and temperatures. We have evaluated averages in Eq. (8) using PIMC. Eqs. (8),(9) being expressed in real space rather that in Fourier components are more suitable for this purpose. We have performed Metropolis PIMC calculations within the imaginary time discretization scheme. In order to regularize the attractive divergence of the retarded action at short distance, and to improve the convergence with the number of the imaginary time discretization points, we have developed a preaveraging procedure similar to the one used for local actions. Details of the method and more extensive results will be given in a separate publication. Here we just say that the results for the $`g(r)`$ are well converged as checked by doubling the number of imaginary time slices. Previous MC studies of the Fröhlich polaron were limited to small ($`\alpha 4`$) or intermediate ($`\alpha 7`$) couplings and were focused to the calculation of the ground state energy and effective mass.

Following Ref.  we have also computed $`g(r)`$ in the FVA, i.e. using Feynman’s quadratic action to evaluate the average appearing in Eq. (8).

In Fig. 1 we show $`4\pi r^2g(r)`$ for weak, intermediate and strong coupling. We also show the weak coupling result obtained by perturbation theory at $`T=0`$ and the strong coupling result in the Landau-Pekar approximation. For all couplings the correlation function decays exponentially with distance as expected for a polaron. The area under the curves is one according to the sum rule Eq. (11). The short distance asymptotic behavior Eq. (14) is exactly satisfied in FVA and is also satisfied in the PIMC within the numerical error. We define the polaron radius $`r_m`$ as the distance at which $`4\pi r^2g(r)`$ is maximum. As the coupling increases the polaron shrinks indicating the progressively more localized nature.

In Fig. 2 we show the temperature dependence of $`4\pi r^2g(r)`$ at intermediate coupling.

In Figs. 1,2 we see that, apart from a small overestimate of the polaron radius, FVA reproduces fairly well the PIMC data. We can then safely use the FVA to discuss the spatial properties of the polaron. Notice that the good agreement found between PIMC and FVA is not obvious since in principle only the free energy is expected to be accurate for the latter.

Contrary to the naive expectation the effect of temperature is to shrink the polaron (Fig. 2). Our physical explanation is the following: At low temperatures phonons relax shrinking the spatial extent of the electron till the increase in electron kinetic energy balances the gain in electron-phonon interaction energy. At high temperatures, however, a typical electron has energy $`\overline{E}=3/2\beta `$ and momentum $`\mathrm{}\overline{k}=\sqrt{3m/\beta }`$. One can construct a wave packet of width $`\mathrm{\Delta }k`$ in momentum space using plane waves with higher and smaller energy without affecting the electron internal energy. The biggest $`\mathrm{\Delta }k`$ which will not affect the electron internal energy is of order of $`\overline{k}`$ itself. One can then achieve a localization of the electron of order $`1/\overline{k}\mathrm{}/\sqrt{3m/\beta }\lambda _T`$. It follows that the phonons can relax at practically no cost till the polaron radius stabilizes at a value of this order. In fact at high temperatures the asymptotic value of the polaron radius can be obtained from Eq. (15): $`lim_{\beta 0}r_m=l\sqrt{\beta \mathrm{}\omega _L}/2=0.2\lambda _T`$. This scaling has been found by Sethia et al. for the mean square displacement of the electron in imaginary time. Notice that the polaron radius becomes independent of the coupling.

The same behavior of $`r_m`$ has been obtained in Ref.  within FVA. The authors of Ref.  ascribe the high temperature behavior of the polaron radius to the increased fluctuations of the phonon field. We conversely think that the thermal fluctuations of the electron are responsible of the high temperature behavior of the polaron radius and the phonon field acts only as a probe of the intrinsic thermal length of the electron as explained above.

To characterize the temperature and coupling dependence of the polaron size we plot in Fig. 3 the polaron radius as a function of coupling for different inverse temperatures. We see that when the temperature is such that $`0.2\lambda _T>l`$ (low temperatures, see the curves for $`\beta \mathrm{}\omega _L=20,\mathrm{}`$), the polaron radius exhibits little temperature dependence at all couplings and simply interpolates between the weak coupling polaron radius $`r_m=l`$ and the Landau-Pekar polaron radius $`r_m=3l\sqrt{\pi /2}/\alpha `$. When $`0.2\lambda _T<l`$ two different regimes occur. At small coupling the polaron radius tends to saturate at $`0.2\lambda _T`$ (horizontal arrow) whereas at high couplings one recovers the low temperature polaron radius $`r_m(\alpha ,T=0)`$. We can define a crossover line when these two lengths are of equal magnitude so that the crossover temperature as a function of $`\alpha `$ is given by the equation $`r_m(\alpha ,T=0)=0.2\lambda _T(T^{})`$. In the FVA approximation  we find the crossover temperature in energy units to be $`T^{}(\alpha )=0.15\mathrm{}\omega _Lv(\alpha ,T=0)`$ with $`v`$ the usual Feynman variational parameter. For $`\alpha 0`$, $`T^{}`$ goes to a constant of order of $`0.5\mathrm{}\omega _L`$ whereas for large $`\alpha `$ it increases quadratically with $`\alpha `$.

In the low temperature regime ($`T<T^{}`$) the polaron radius becomes almost temperature independent and is determined by the coupling. The high temperature regime $`T>T^{}`$ is characterized by a polaron radius which is independent of the coupling and is determined by the temperature alone $`(r_m=0.2\lambda _T)`$.

## IV Conclusions

We have studied the charge induced in the lattice by an electron in Fröhlich polaron problem and the associated polarization field. We have derived relations which express the charge-induced density correlation function in terms of path integral involving only the electronic degree of freedom which are suitable to be evaluated by PIMC method. A rigorous sum rule was derived that determines the total induced charge and the long distance behavior of the polarization field. We give also the asymptotic limits of these quantities at short distances and at high temperatures. We have compared results obtained using FVA through the lines of Refs.  and those obtained by PIMC method. To the best of our knowledge this is the first PIMC computation of real space correlation functions in Fröhlich model. From the spatial dependence of the induced charge we obtained a polaron radius. The polaron radius is determined by the coupling at low temperatures and by the thermal wave length at high temperatures with a crossover temperature that we evaluated in FVA.

At high temperature a polaron with small radius and small effective mass is achieved. These results are not in contradiction because the small radius at high temperatures is a thermal effect of the electron and it is not related to the lattice response. The lattice acts only as a probe of the intrinsic electron localization radius namely $`\lambda _T`$. Obviously this small radius polaron has nothing to do with the Holstein zero-temperature small polaron which induces almost local lattice displacements and moves coherently with a large effective mass.

The PIMC polaron radius is always smaller than the FVA calculation in the range of coupling and temperature studied. This effect is more pronounced at intermediate couplings. The overall temperature dependence agrees with the findings of Ref.  however our physical interpretation is different.

###### Acknowledgements.

We acknowledge the third anonymous referee to bring us the attention on Ref.  (which suggested us the second proof of the induced-density sum rule) and Ref. . We acknowledge useful discussions and suggestions from S. Fratini and J. T. Titantah. J.L. thanks P. Calvani’s group for hospitality during this work. We acknowledge partial support from the MURST 1997 matching funds program no.9702265437.