You can view a pdf of this entry here.
A presheaf on a topological space
with values in a category
(usually with values in Grp, CommRing, or Set), can be associated to a sheaf
on
in a natural way. In fact, this association is left adjoint to the inclusion functor from the category of sheaves on
to the category of presheaves on
.
The standard construction of is fairly straightforward: consider the topology on the disjoint union of stalks
generated by the collection of sets
where is open,
and
is the image of
in
. Let
be the natural projection. For every
define
to be the set of continuous sections
of
, i.e.
. It follows that
is a sheaf and there is a natural morphism
, such that
is a sheaf if, and only if,
is an isomorphism, (this is a fairly easy exercise).
This shows that every sheaf arises as the sheaf of sections of some continuous map onto . This also justifies the terminology: an element
is called a section. At first glance, it is hard to see how this sheaf relates to
. Indeed, the canonical map
fails to be either surjective or injective, in general. This says that we cannot “complete”
by simply adding more elements, or by glueing together elements; we must do both. Thus, we can can’t view
as a subpresheaf of
or as a cover. However, there is another natural way to think of
.
Let be a sheaf on
with values in some category
, as above. One of the advantages of having a sheaf on
is that a section
is uniquely determined by the collection of elements
. This can fail for presheaves. Thus, we need
to glue together elements
such that
for all
. This is evident in the commutative diagram:
This says that and
have the same image in
for all
. Thus, because
is a sheaf,
.
Aside from glueing sections together that “should” be equal, we also need to add more elements to our presheaf . Suppose we have an open cover of an open subset
:
. If we can find a collection
, such that
, then we should be able to find a “global” section
on
such that
. Because our presheaf may be too “small” and may not contain this element, we need to ensure that our sheafification
does. The set
is compatible in the obvious sense, so we can glue them together to form a section
. This map is continuous because
. is open. Indeed, if
for some
, then there is an open subsets
such that
and
in
, so
. It is also clear that
.
To sum up our construction, we note the following: to construct we find the most “efficient” sheaf such that
- sections that have the same germ at every point are equal
- compatible sets of sections have a common extension.
This gives the following alternative description of :
where , if for all
and
,
. Note that condition
and the assumption that this extension is unique is just the sheaf axiom and, hence, it implies
.
We claim that this definition of is equivalent to the definition given above. Indeed, we can view each collection
as a section
in the natural way:
if
. This is independent of the representative of
by
. Note that
is continuous, as we showed earlier. Further, any section
arises in this way. Indeed, let
, then
for a neighborhood
of
and an element
. Thus, because
is continuous there exists
. Consider the collection
. Because
for all
, it follows that
corresponds to
. This shows that the correspondence is surjective. We claim that this correspondence is also injective. Indeed, if
and
correspond to the same section
, then
for all
. Thus,
Finally we note that this correspondence is actually a morphism of presheaves: Restricting a collection
to a subset
, yields the element
and this corresponds to the restricted section
.
This new definition has some utility. It helps to illuminate the following claims:
Claim 1 Let
be the natural map:
. Then
is a sheaf if, and only if,
is an isomorphism.
Proof: If is a sheaf then each collection
can be written uniquely as
for some
. Conversely, suppose
is an isomorphism, let
be an open subset, let
, and let
be a collection such that
. Then
for all
, so
. Thus, there exists a unique element
such that
. Therefore, for each
,
for all
. In particular, for each fixed
,
, whence,
, as desired.
Now, suppose that is a sheaf on
. Let
be a morphism of presheaves.
Claim 2 There exists a unique map
, such that
.
Proof: Let be an open subset and let
. Observe that the commutative diagrams
ensure that for all
. Thus,
and so by the sheaf axiom for
, there is a unique extension
. For convenience, we can view
as
, with
. Now, if
is an open set, then
Thus, is a morphism
. From the definition of
, it is clear that
and
is unique.