Constant Presheaf not necessarily a sheaf. Proof?












5












$begingroup$


Let $mathcal{X}$ be a topological space and $mathcal{F}$ the constant presheaf, that assigns to each open set $mathcal{U}$ of $mathcal{X}$ the set $A$. The restriction map is the identity $A rightarrow A$. I want to show that this presheaf is not necessarily a sheaf and I am trying to understand the argument in this wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant_sheaf.
In particular, let $emptyset = cup_i mathcal{U}_i, , mathcal{U}_i=emptyset$, be a covering of the empty set. Take two sections over $emptyset$, i.e. take $s,s' in mathcal{F}(emptyset)=A$. The wikipedia article says that the restrictions of $s,s'$ to any $mathcal{U}_i$ must be equal. I don't understand this. For example, since $mathcal{U}_i subset emptyset$, then we have a restriction map $mathcal{F}(emptyset) rightarrow mathcal{F}(mathcal{U}_i)$ which sends $s$ to $s$ and $s'$ to $s'$. So why $s=s'$?
Something else, possibly related to what I am missing: since the elements of $A$ are abstract, we can not really say anything about $s|_{mathcal{U}_i}$, right?



Thanks.






algebraic-geometry







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    5












    $begingroup$


    Let $mathcal{X}$ be a topological space and $mathcal{F}$ the constant presheaf, that assigns to each open set $mathcal{U}$ of $mathcal{X}$ the set $A$. The restriction map is the identity $A rightarrow A$. I want to show that this presheaf is not necessarily a sheaf and I am trying to understand the argument in this wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant_sheaf.
    In particular, let $emptyset = cup_i mathcal{U}_i, , mathcal{U}_i=emptyset$, be a covering of the empty set. Take two sections over $emptyset$, i.e. take $s,s' in mathcal{F}(emptyset)=A$. The wikipedia article says that the restrictions of $s,s'$ to any $mathcal{U}_i$ must be equal. I don't understand this. For example, since $mathcal{U}_i subset emptyset$, then we have a restriction map $mathcal{F}(emptyset) rightarrow mathcal{F}(mathcal{U}_i)$ which sends $s$ to $s$ and $s'$ to $s'$. So why $s=s'$?
    Something else, possibly related to what I am missing: since the elements of $A$ are abstract, we can not really say anything about $s|_{mathcal{U}_i}$, right?



    Thanks.






    algebraic-geometry







    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      5












      5








      5


      3



      $begingroup$


      Let $mathcal{X}$ be a topological space and $mathcal{F}$ the constant presheaf, that assigns to each open set $mathcal{U}$ of $mathcal{X}$ the set $A$. The restriction map is the identity $A rightarrow A$. I want to show that this presheaf is not necessarily a sheaf and I am trying to understand the argument in this wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant_sheaf.
      In particular, let $emptyset = cup_i mathcal{U}_i, , mathcal{U}_i=emptyset$, be a covering of the empty set. Take two sections over $emptyset$, i.e. take $s,s' in mathcal{F}(emptyset)=A$. The wikipedia article says that the restrictions of $s,s'$ to any $mathcal{U}_i$ must be equal. I don't understand this. For example, since $mathcal{U}_i subset emptyset$, then we have a restriction map $mathcal{F}(emptyset) rightarrow mathcal{F}(mathcal{U}_i)$ which sends $s$ to $s$ and $s'$ to $s'$. So why $s=s'$?
      Something else, possibly related to what I am missing: since the elements of $A$ are abstract, we can not really say anything about $s|_{mathcal{U}_i}$, right?



      Thanks.






      algebraic-geometry







      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      Let $mathcal{X}$ be a topological space and $mathcal{F}$ the constant presheaf, that assigns to each open set $mathcal{U}$ of $mathcal{X}$ the set $A$. The restriction map is the identity $A rightarrow A$. I want to show that this presheaf is not necessarily a sheaf and I am trying to understand the argument in this wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant_sheaf.
      In particular, let $emptyset = cup_i mathcal{U}_i, , mathcal{U}_i=emptyset$, be a covering of the empty set. Take two sections over $emptyset$, i.e. take $s,s' in mathcal{F}(emptyset)=A$. The wikipedia article says that the restrictions of $s,s'$ to any $mathcal{U}_i$ must be equal. I don't understand this. For example, since $mathcal{U}_i subset emptyset$, then we have a restriction map $mathcal{F}(emptyset) rightarrow mathcal{F}(mathcal{U}_i)$ which sends $s$ to $s$ and $s'$ to $s'$. So why $s=s'$?
      Something else, possibly related to what I am missing: since the elements of $A$ are abstract, we can not really say anything about $s|_{mathcal{U}_i}$, right?



      Thanks.






      algebraic-geometry




      algebraic-geometry






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Dec 11 '18 at 23:05









      dantopa

      6,46942243




      6,46942243










      asked Sep 13 '12 at 19:14









      ManosManos

      13.9k33084




      13.9k33084






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          7












          $begingroup$

          The argument in the Wikipedia article states that you should take the empty covering of the empty set, i.e. your indexing set (where $i$ comes from) is the empty set. The empty union is the empty set, so it is a covering.



          Then you pick any $s neq s^prime in A$ and consider them to be sections over the empty set ($A$ needs to have at least two elements). The condition that they agree after restricting is an empty one (because there is no set to restrict to), so by the local identity axiom, you would need $s=s^prime$, a contradiction.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            What do you mean that "the condition is an empty one"? Why an empty condition is true?
            $endgroup$
            – Manos
            Sep 13 '12 at 20:11










          • $begingroup$
            Ok, call the indexing set $I = emptyset$. Formally, the condition of the local identity axiom says: for all $i in I$, if $s$ and $s^prime$ get mapped to the same element in $mathcal{F}(U_i)$, then they should agree. But since $I$ is empty, there is nothing to check.
            $endgroup$
            – Alexander Körschgen
            Sep 13 '12 at 20:14












          • $begingroup$
            I agree that there is nothing to check. But then why does that mean that $s,s'$ get mapped to the same element in $mathcal{F}(U_i)$?
            $endgroup$
            – Manos
            Sep 13 '12 at 20:23






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Let's denote the statement "$s$ and $s^prime$ agree when restricted to $i$ by $phi(i)$. Then the local identity axiom (for fixed $s$ and $s^prime$ says: $(forall i in I: phi(i)) => (s=s^prime)$. But the condition $(forall i in I: phi(i))$ is a true statement, regardless of what $s$ and $s^prime$ are. It is a general fact that a statement that is quantified over the empty set is always true.
            $endgroup$
            – Alexander Körschgen
            Sep 13 '12 at 20:54






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            To make this even more precise, let's think about what the statement $(forall i in I: phi(i))$ means. In first-order logic, one would have to write $(forall i) ((i in I) => phi(i))$, and $i in I$ will always evaluate to false, because $I=emptyset$, so $((i in I) => phi(i))$ will always be true (one may deduce anything from a wrong statement ;)). Hope that helps to clarify things.
            $endgroup$
            – Alexander Körschgen
            Sep 13 '12 at 20:55



















          -1












          $begingroup$

          I think you are taken the wrong definition of the constant presheaf. Since the presheaf $mathcal{F}$ is a functor on the category of open sets of $X$, the constant presheaf means that $mathcal{F}$ is a constant function, i.e., $mathcal{F}(U)= mathcal{F}(V)$ for all $U,V$ open in $X$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            The definition of constant presheaf in the question is correct. Specifically, the OP is considering the constant presheaf where $mathcal(U)=A$ for some fixed set $A$ for all $U$ opin in $mathcal X$.
            $endgroup$
            – Alex Becker
            Sep 19 '12 at 18:44











          Your Answer





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

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

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

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


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f195363%2fconstant-presheaf-not-necessarily-a-sheaf-proof%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes








          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          7












          $begingroup$

          The argument in the Wikipedia article states that you should take the empty covering of the empty set, i.e. your indexing set (where $i$ comes from) is the empty set. The empty union is the empty set, so it is a covering.



          Then you pick any $s neq s^prime in A$ and consider them to be sections over the empty set ($A$ needs to have at least two elements). The condition that they agree after restricting is an empty one (because there is no set to restrict to), so by the local identity axiom, you would need $s=s^prime$, a contradiction.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            What do you mean that "the condition is an empty one"? Why an empty condition is true?
            $endgroup$
            – Manos
            Sep 13 '12 at 20:11










          • $begingroup$
            Ok, call the indexing set $I = emptyset$. Formally, the condition of the local identity axiom says: for all $i in I$, if $s$ and $s^prime$ get mapped to the same element in $mathcal{F}(U_i)$, then they should agree. But since $I$ is empty, there is nothing to check.
            $endgroup$
            – Alexander Körschgen
            Sep 13 '12 at 20:14












          • $begingroup$
            I agree that there is nothing to check. But then why does that mean that $s,s'$ get mapped to the same element in $mathcal{F}(U_i)$?
            $endgroup$
            – Manos
            Sep 13 '12 at 20:23






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Let's denote the statement "$s$ and $s^prime$ agree when restricted to $i$ by $phi(i)$. Then the local identity axiom (for fixed $s$ and $s^prime$ says: $(forall i in I: phi(i)) => (s=s^prime)$. But the condition $(forall i in I: phi(i))$ is a true statement, regardless of what $s$ and $s^prime$ are. It is a general fact that a statement that is quantified over the empty set is always true.
            $endgroup$
            – Alexander Körschgen
            Sep 13 '12 at 20:54






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            To make this even more precise, let's think about what the statement $(forall i in I: phi(i))$ means. In first-order logic, one would have to write $(forall i) ((i in I) => phi(i))$, and $i in I$ will always evaluate to false, because $I=emptyset$, so $((i in I) => phi(i))$ will always be true (one may deduce anything from a wrong statement ;)). Hope that helps to clarify things.
            $endgroup$
            – Alexander Körschgen
            Sep 13 '12 at 20:55
















          7












          $begingroup$

          The argument in the Wikipedia article states that you should take the empty covering of the empty set, i.e. your indexing set (where $i$ comes from) is the empty set. The empty union is the empty set, so it is a covering.



          Then you pick any $s neq s^prime in A$ and consider them to be sections over the empty set ($A$ needs to have at least two elements). The condition that they agree after restricting is an empty one (because there is no set to restrict to), so by the local identity axiom, you would need $s=s^prime$, a contradiction.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            What do you mean that "the condition is an empty one"? Why an empty condition is true?
            $endgroup$
            – Manos
            Sep 13 '12 at 20:11










          • $begingroup$
            Ok, call the indexing set $I = emptyset$. Formally, the condition of the local identity axiom says: for all $i in I$, if $s$ and $s^prime$ get mapped to the same element in $mathcal{F}(U_i)$, then they should agree. But since $I$ is empty, there is nothing to check.
            $endgroup$
            – Alexander Körschgen
            Sep 13 '12 at 20:14












          • $begingroup$
            I agree that there is nothing to check. But then why does that mean that $s,s'$ get mapped to the same element in $mathcal{F}(U_i)$?
            $endgroup$
            – Manos
            Sep 13 '12 at 20:23






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Let's denote the statement "$s$ and $s^prime$ agree when restricted to $i$ by $phi(i)$. Then the local identity axiom (for fixed $s$ and $s^prime$ says: $(forall i in I: phi(i)) => (s=s^prime)$. But the condition $(forall i in I: phi(i))$ is a true statement, regardless of what $s$ and $s^prime$ are. It is a general fact that a statement that is quantified over the empty set is always true.
            $endgroup$
            – Alexander Körschgen
            Sep 13 '12 at 20:54






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            To make this even more precise, let's think about what the statement $(forall i in I: phi(i))$ means. In first-order logic, one would have to write $(forall i) ((i in I) => phi(i))$, and $i in I$ will always evaluate to false, because $I=emptyset$, so $((i in I) => phi(i))$ will always be true (one may deduce anything from a wrong statement ;)). Hope that helps to clarify things.
            $endgroup$
            – Alexander Körschgen
            Sep 13 '12 at 20:55














          7












          7








          7





          $begingroup$

          The argument in the Wikipedia article states that you should take the empty covering of the empty set, i.e. your indexing set (where $i$ comes from) is the empty set. The empty union is the empty set, so it is a covering.



          Then you pick any $s neq s^prime in A$ and consider them to be sections over the empty set ($A$ needs to have at least two elements). The condition that they agree after restricting is an empty one (because there is no set to restrict to), so by the local identity axiom, you would need $s=s^prime$, a contradiction.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          The argument in the Wikipedia article states that you should take the empty covering of the empty set, i.e. your indexing set (where $i$ comes from) is the empty set. The empty union is the empty set, so it is a covering.



          Then you pick any $s neq s^prime in A$ and consider them to be sections over the empty set ($A$ needs to have at least two elements). The condition that they agree after restricting is an empty one (because there is no set to restrict to), so by the local identity axiom, you would need $s=s^prime$, a contradiction.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Sep 13 '12 at 19:34









          Alexander KörschgenAlexander Körschgen

          47626




          47626












          • $begingroup$
            What do you mean that "the condition is an empty one"? Why an empty condition is true?
            $endgroup$
            – Manos
            Sep 13 '12 at 20:11










          • $begingroup$
            Ok, call the indexing set $I = emptyset$. Formally, the condition of the local identity axiom says: for all $i in I$, if $s$ and $s^prime$ get mapped to the same element in $mathcal{F}(U_i)$, then they should agree. But since $I$ is empty, there is nothing to check.
            $endgroup$
            – Alexander Körschgen
            Sep 13 '12 at 20:14












          • $begingroup$
            I agree that there is nothing to check. But then why does that mean that $s,s'$ get mapped to the same element in $mathcal{F}(U_i)$?
            $endgroup$
            – Manos
            Sep 13 '12 at 20:23






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Let's denote the statement "$s$ and $s^prime$ agree when restricted to $i$ by $phi(i)$. Then the local identity axiom (for fixed $s$ and $s^prime$ says: $(forall i in I: phi(i)) => (s=s^prime)$. But the condition $(forall i in I: phi(i))$ is a true statement, regardless of what $s$ and $s^prime$ are. It is a general fact that a statement that is quantified over the empty set is always true.
            $endgroup$
            – Alexander Körschgen
            Sep 13 '12 at 20:54






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            To make this even more precise, let's think about what the statement $(forall i in I: phi(i))$ means. In first-order logic, one would have to write $(forall i) ((i in I) => phi(i))$, and $i in I$ will always evaluate to false, because $I=emptyset$, so $((i in I) => phi(i))$ will always be true (one may deduce anything from a wrong statement ;)). Hope that helps to clarify things.
            $endgroup$
            – Alexander Körschgen
            Sep 13 '12 at 20:55


















          • $begingroup$
            What do you mean that "the condition is an empty one"? Why an empty condition is true?
            $endgroup$
            – Manos
            Sep 13 '12 at 20:11










          • $begingroup$
            Ok, call the indexing set $I = emptyset$. Formally, the condition of the local identity axiom says: for all $i in I$, if $s$ and $s^prime$ get mapped to the same element in $mathcal{F}(U_i)$, then they should agree. But since $I$ is empty, there is nothing to check.
            $endgroup$
            – Alexander Körschgen
            Sep 13 '12 at 20:14












          • $begingroup$
            I agree that there is nothing to check. But then why does that mean that $s,s'$ get mapped to the same element in $mathcal{F}(U_i)$?
            $endgroup$
            – Manos
            Sep 13 '12 at 20:23






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Let's denote the statement "$s$ and $s^prime$ agree when restricted to $i$ by $phi(i)$. Then the local identity axiom (for fixed $s$ and $s^prime$ says: $(forall i in I: phi(i)) => (s=s^prime)$. But the condition $(forall i in I: phi(i))$ is a true statement, regardless of what $s$ and $s^prime$ are. It is a general fact that a statement that is quantified over the empty set is always true.
            $endgroup$
            – Alexander Körschgen
            Sep 13 '12 at 20:54






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            To make this even more precise, let's think about what the statement $(forall i in I: phi(i))$ means. In first-order logic, one would have to write $(forall i) ((i in I) => phi(i))$, and $i in I$ will always evaluate to false, because $I=emptyset$, so $((i in I) => phi(i))$ will always be true (one may deduce anything from a wrong statement ;)). Hope that helps to clarify things.
            $endgroup$
            – Alexander Körschgen
            Sep 13 '12 at 20:55
















          $begingroup$
          What do you mean that "the condition is an empty one"? Why an empty condition is true?
          $endgroup$
          – Manos
          Sep 13 '12 at 20:11




          $begingroup$
          What do you mean that "the condition is an empty one"? Why an empty condition is true?
          $endgroup$
          – Manos
          Sep 13 '12 at 20:11












          $begingroup$
          Ok, call the indexing set $I = emptyset$. Formally, the condition of the local identity axiom says: for all $i in I$, if $s$ and $s^prime$ get mapped to the same element in $mathcal{F}(U_i)$, then they should agree. But since $I$ is empty, there is nothing to check.
          $endgroup$
          – Alexander Körschgen
          Sep 13 '12 at 20:14






          $begingroup$
          Ok, call the indexing set $I = emptyset$. Formally, the condition of the local identity axiom says: for all $i in I$, if $s$ and $s^prime$ get mapped to the same element in $mathcal{F}(U_i)$, then they should agree. But since $I$ is empty, there is nothing to check.
          $endgroup$
          – Alexander Körschgen
          Sep 13 '12 at 20:14














          $begingroup$
          I agree that there is nothing to check. But then why does that mean that $s,s'$ get mapped to the same element in $mathcal{F}(U_i)$?
          $endgroup$
          – Manos
          Sep 13 '12 at 20:23




          $begingroup$
          I agree that there is nothing to check. But then why does that mean that $s,s'$ get mapped to the same element in $mathcal{F}(U_i)$?
          $endgroup$
          – Manos
          Sep 13 '12 at 20:23




          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          Let's denote the statement "$s$ and $s^prime$ agree when restricted to $i$ by $phi(i)$. Then the local identity axiom (for fixed $s$ and $s^prime$ says: $(forall i in I: phi(i)) => (s=s^prime)$. But the condition $(forall i in I: phi(i))$ is a true statement, regardless of what $s$ and $s^prime$ are. It is a general fact that a statement that is quantified over the empty set is always true.
          $endgroup$
          – Alexander Körschgen
          Sep 13 '12 at 20:54




          $begingroup$
          Let's denote the statement "$s$ and $s^prime$ agree when restricted to $i$ by $phi(i)$. Then the local identity axiom (for fixed $s$ and $s^prime$ says: $(forall i in I: phi(i)) => (s=s^prime)$. But the condition $(forall i in I: phi(i))$ is a true statement, regardless of what $s$ and $s^prime$ are. It is a general fact that a statement that is quantified over the empty set is always true.
          $endgroup$
          – Alexander Körschgen
          Sep 13 '12 at 20:54




          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          To make this even more precise, let's think about what the statement $(forall i in I: phi(i))$ means. In first-order logic, one would have to write $(forall i) ((i in I) => phi(i))$, and $i in I$ will always evaluate to false, because $I=emptyset$, so $((i in I) => phi(i))$ will always be true (one may deduce anything from a wrong statement ;)). Hope that helps to clarify things.
          $endgroup$
          – Alexander Körschgen
          Sep 13 '12 at 20:55




          $begingroup$
          To make this even more precise, let's think about what the statement $(forall i in I: phi(i))$ means. In first-order logic, one would have to write $(forall i) ((i in I) => phi(i))$, and $i in I$ will always evaluate to false, because $I=emptyset$, so $((i in I) => phi(i))$ will always be true (one may deduce anything from a wrong statement ;)). Hope that helps to clarify things.
          $endgroup$
          – Alexander Körschgen
          Sep 13 '12 at 20:55











          -1












          $begingroup$

          I think you are taken the wrong definition of the constant presheaf. Since the presheaf $mathcal{F}$ is a functor on the category of open sets of $X$, the constant presheaf means that $mathcal{F}$ is a constant function, i.e., $mathcal{F}(U)= mathcal{F}(V)$ for all $U,V$ open in $X$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            The definition of constant presheaf in the question is correct. Specifically, the OP is considering the constant presheaf where $mathcal(U)=A$ for some fixed set $A$ for all $U$ opin in $mathcal X$.
            $endgroup$
            – Alex Becker
            Sep 19 '12 at 18:44
















          -1












          $begingroup$

          I think you are taken the wrong definition of the constant presheaf. Since the presheaf $mathcal{F}$ is a functor on the category of open sets of $X$, the constant presheaf means that $mathcal{F}$ is a constant function, i.e., $mathcal{F}(U)= mathcal{F}(V)$ for all $U,V$ open in $X$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            The definition of constant presheaf in the question is correct. Specifically, the OP is considering the constant presheaf where $mathcal(U)=A$ for some fixed set $A$ for all $U$ opin in $mathcal X$.
            $endgroup$
            – Alex Becker
            Sep 19 '12 at 18:44














          -1












          -1








          -1





          $begingroup$

          I think you are taken the wrong definition of the constant presheaf. Since the presheaf $mathcal{F}$ is a functor on the category of open sets of $X$, the constant presheaf means that $mathcal{F}$ is a constant function, i.e., $mathcal{F}(U)= mathcal{F}(V)$ for all $U,V$ open in $X$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          I think you are taken the wrong definition of the constant presheaf. Since the presheaf $mathcal{F}$ is a functor on the category of open sets of $X$, the constant presheaf means that $mathcal{F}$ is a constant function, i.e., $mathcal{F}(U)= mathcal{F}(V)$ for all $U,V$ open in $X$.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Sep 18 '12 at 21:09









          CC_AzusaCC_Azusa

          1




          1












          • $begingroup$
            The definition of constant presheaf in the question is correct. Specifically, the OP is considering the constant presheaf where $mathcal(U)=A$ for some fixed set $A$ for all $U$ opin in $mathcal X$.
            $endgroup$
            – Alex Becker
            Sep 19 '12 at 18:44


















          • $begingroup$
            The definition of constant presheaf in the question is correct. Specifically, the OP is considering the constant presheaf where $mathcal(U)=A$ for some fixed set $A$ for all $U$ opin in $mathcal X$.
            $endgroup$
            – Alex Becker
            Sep 19 '12 at 18:44
















          $begingroup$
          The definition of constant presheaf in the question is correct. Specifically, the OP is considering the constant presheaf where $mathcal(U)=A$ for some fixed set $A$ for all $U$ opin in $mathcal X$.
          $endgroup$
          – Alex Becker
          Sep 19 '12 at 18:44




          $begingroup$
          The definition of constant presheaf in the question is correct. Specifically, the OP is considering the constant presheaf where $mathcal(U)=A$ for some fixed set $A$ for all $U$ opin in $mathcal X$.
          $endgroup$
          – Alex Becker
          Sep 19 '12 at 18:44


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


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

          But avoid …



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

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


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


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




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f195363%2fconstant-presheaf-not-necessarily-a-sheaf-proof%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          -

          Popular posts from this blog

          Probability when a professor distributes a quiz and homework assignment to a class of n students.

          Image
          0 0 $begingroup$ Need help with this problem. Suppose our lazy professor collects a quiz and a homework assignment from a class of n students one day, then distributes both the quizzes and the homework assignments back to the class in a random fashion for grading. Each student receives one quiz and one homework assignment to grade. (a) What is the probability that every student receives someone else's quiz to grade, and someone else's homework to grade? (b) What is the probability that no student receives both their own quiz and their own homework assignment to grade? In this case, some students may receive their own quiz, and others may receive their own homework assignment. (c) Compute the limiting probability as n approaches infinity in each case. ...
          Read more

          Aardman Animations

          Image
          Aardman Animations, Ltd. Aardman Animations Tipo privada Atividade Animação em stop-motion , Animação em CGI Fundação 1972 Fundador(es) Peter Lord David Sproxton Sede Bristol, Inglaterra  Reino Unido Proprietário(s) Dreamworks Pessoas-chave Peter Lord David Sproxton Nick Park Divisões Aardman Features Aardman Digital Aardman Commercials Aardman Broadcast Aardman International Aardman Rights Aardman Effects Aardman 3-D Systems Aardman Nathan Love AardBoiled Website oficial aardman.com ...
          Read more

          Are they similar matrix

          Image
          0 $begingroup$ Do $begin{bmatrix} 0&i&0\0&0&1\0&0&0 end{bmatrix} $ and $begin{bmatrix} 0&0&0\-i&0&0\0&1&0 end{bmatrix} $ are similar.Is this True/false Clearly both are nilpotent and one is conjucate transpose of other but how to know if they are similar.i'm stuck. Please help me linear-algebra vector-spaces eigenvalues-eigenvectors generalizedeigenvector share | cite | improve this question edited Dec 10 '18 at 6:38 Vasanth Kris asked Dec 10 '18 at 6:19 ...
          Read more