research31 min studyLesson 566 in Mathematics

Quasi-coherent sheaves and vector bundles

Translate sheaves into localized modules and distinguish arbitrary module data from finite locally free bundles.

On this page

What you’ll understand

  • Compute the quasi-coherent sheaf associated to a module on affine charts.
  • Recognize finite locally free sheaves and the affine finite-projective criterion.
  • Distinguish a stalk, a residue-field fiber, and a pullback that may fail to preserve injections.

A structure sheaf describes regular functions, while its modules describe quantities that vary with those functions as coefficients. Quasi-coherence makes this module data compatible with localization and therefore usable across affine charts. Vector bundles are an especially controlled subclass, locally modeled by finite free modules, but many coherent sheaves have torsion or jump in fiber dimension. Confusing these categories erases singular support and produces incorrect conclusions about pullback. The practical task is to identify which module represents a sheaf on each chart and which additional finiteness or freeness assumptions have actually been established.

On an affine scheme, quasi-coherence is module geometry

For an A-module M, the associated sheaf on Spec A has sections M_f on D(f) and stalk M_p at a prime p. A quasi-coherent sheaf is locally of this form. On an affine scheme, global sections and the associated-sheaf construction are inverse equivalences between modules and quasi-coherent sheaves. This is stronger than saying that a sheaf can be described by generators near one point: it controls the restriction maps on all affine localizations and the homomorphisms between such sheaves.

The affine equivalence is exact because localization is exact, and tensor products of associated sheaves correspond to tensor products of modules. On a locally Noetherian scheme, coherence is equivalent to being quasi-coherent and locally finitely generated. Outside that setting, coherence has extra relation-finiteness conditions and should not be replaced blindly by finite generation. Quasi-coherence itself does not require finite rank, finite presentation, or local freeness; all three are additional properties with different uses.

Γ(D(f),M~)=Mf,M~p=Mp,M~⊗OXN~≅M⊗AN~(X=Spec⁡A)\Gamma(D(f),\widetilde M)=M_f,\qquad \widetilde M_{\mathfrak p}=M_{\mathfrak p},\qquad \widetilde M\otimes_{\mathcal O_X}\widetilde N\cong\widetilde{M\otimes_A N}\quad(X=\operatorname{Spec}A)
These are module localizations and tensor products. The stalk M_𝔭 still has coefficients in the local ring A_𝔭; a fiber requires an additional tensor product with its residue field.↔ Scroll wide equations horizontally.

A bundle has local bases that persist on neighborhoods

A finite locally free sheaf has an open cover on which it is isomorphic to a finite direct sum of the structure sheaf. Its rank is locally constant; different connected components may have different ranks. On Spec A, such sheaves correspond exactly to finite projective A-modules. Equivalently, the module is finitely presented and flat. A finite projective module need not be globally free, so a bundle may have bases locally without one preferred basis across the entire scheme.

Changing a local basis uses an invertible matrix with regular-function entries, and the transition matrices satisfy a cocycle on triple overlaps. This is the linear version of the gluing used for schemes. One can construct a geometric total space from the symmetric algebra, with a dual depending on the chosen convention; here the term vector bundle refers to its finite locally free sheaf of sections. A quotient module with torsion does not become a bundle simply because it has a finite presentation or one-dimensional fibers at some points.

M finite projective ⟺ M~ finite locally free on Spec⁡A ⟺ M finitely presented and flat,F(x)=Fx⊗OX,xκ(x)M\text{ finite projective}\ \Longleftrightarrow\ \widetilde M\text{ finite locally free on }\operatorname{Spec}A\ \Longleftrightarrow\ M\text{ finitely presented and flat},\qquad \mathcal F(x)=\mathcal F_x\otimes_{\mathcal O_{X,x}}\kappa(x)
The three module conditions are equivalent in the stated affine setting. Fiber dimension alone is not the definition of local freeness; it discards part of the local-ring action.↔ Scroll wide equations horizontally.

Fibers forget relations and pullback can lose exactness

The fiber at a point is a vector space over its residue field. Forming it sets every element of the local maximal ideal to zero, so it can hide nilpotent or torsion relations that remain visible in the stalk. A stalk can have a nonzero annihilator even when its residue-field fiber looks like an ordinary one-dimensional vector space. The correct local-freeness test asks for a neighborhood with a basis, or an equivalent finite-presentation and flatness criterion, rather than a visual inspection of one fiber.

For a morphism of schemes, pulling back a quasi-coherent sheaf is locally tensoring its module with the new coordinate ring. Tensor product is right exact, but it can destroy an injection. Flatness of the base-change algebra prevents that loss for all module sequences. This phenomenon also explains why the fiber of a subsheaf need not sit inside the fiber of the ambient sheaf: a nonzero local generator can map to zero after passing to the residue field.

A coherent sheaf that is not a line bundle

Let A=k[x] and M=A/(x²). Describe its associated sheaf on D(x), its stalk and fiber at x=0, and decide whether it is locally free near zero.

  1. After inverting x, the relation x²=0 forces the module to vanish, so M_x=0. Thus the sheaf is supported at the origin, even though its defining module has a finite presentation.

  2. At zero the stalk is A_(x)/(x²), a nonzero module killed by x². Its residue-field fiber is M⊗A k≅k, because imposing x=0 removes the nilpotent relation's visible action.

  3. The local ring A_(x) is a domain, so every nonzero free module over it has no nonzero annihilator. The stalk above does have one and cannot be free. The one-dimensional fiber therefore does not make the sheaf a line bundle.

The result

The stalk retains a length-two torsion relation that the one-dimensional fiber forgets. Coherence does not imply local freeness.

Explore the model

Interactive lab

Interactive lab · matrix

Inspect valid changes of a local free basis

Pause and Reset; set Diagonal scale a=1,Shear b=0 and predict the identity basis. For a fresh comparison Reset and set a=0.5,b=1; predict determinant 0.5, two nonzero singular values, and another invertible basis change. All supported a values are positive. This real two-dimensional free-module model illustrates admissible transition matrices; it does not represent the torsion quotient in the worked example or diagnose local freeness from a picture.

Inspect valid changes of a local free basisThe selected matrix is A = [[a,b],[0,1]]. Playback interpolates geometry between the identity and A; readouts always describe A. Its determinant is a and its singular values come from AᵀA. Positive a makes every supported matrix invertible. This two-dimensional family is not a general eigensolver or a learned network. Current readings: Area scale · det A: 1.4; Singular values · σmax, σmin: 1.597, 0.876; Condition number · κ₂(A): 1.823. All parameters are adjustable with the labeled controls below.Matrix A with first row 1.4, 0.6 and second row zero, one; display interpolates between identity and A while final determinant remains 1.4.−4−2024−2−1012x · equal geometric scaleyA = [ 1.4 0.6 ; 0 1 ]Display blend: 0% · final values below
Interpolated geometryOriginal unit squareSelected final transform
Area scale · det A
1.4
Singular values · σmax, σmin
1.597, 0.876
Condition number · κ₂(A)
1.823
t = 0 s

The selected matrix is A = [[a,b],[0,1]]. Playback interpolates geometry between the identity and A; readouts always describe A. Its determinant is a and its singular values come from AᵀA. Positive a makes every supported matrix invertible. This two-dimensional family is not a general eigensolver or a learned network. Parameter changes pause playback and recompute the model at the current elapsed time. Reset restores both parameters and returns time to zero. Playback starts paused. Adjust either parameter, then choose Play or Step.

Look forA bundle transition preserves a local basis; arbitrary coherent-module presentations need not admit such bases.

Check your understanding

Which condition on an A-module M characterizes a finite locally free associated sheaf on Spec A?

Try it yourself

Let I=(x)⊂A=k[x]. Is I a free A-module? Compute I⊗A k at x=0 and the map from that fiber to A⊗A k induced by inclusion.

Take a moment to make a prediction or work it out on paper. Open a hint when you need one.

Give me a hint

Use multiplication by x as a map A→I, then distinguish the module fiber from evaluating an ambient polynomial.

Compare with the solution

Multiplication by x is an A-module isomorphism A→I, so I is free of rank one. Its fiber is I/xI=(x)/(x²), a one-dimensional k-vector space generated by the class of x. The inclusion into A induces the zero map on fibers because x maps to zero in A/(x). Thus an injective sheaf map can have a noninjective fiber map; tensoring with k is not left exact here.

Take it with you

  • Quasi-coherent sheaves on affines are modules with their localization data.
  • Finite locally free sheaves correspond to finite projective modules, not arbitrary coherent modules.
  • A fiber can lose relations and can fail to preserve an inclusion.

Read further

Original sources and deeper explanations to follow at your own pace.

Optional progress, saved in this browser when available. Revisit any lesson at any time.

Lesson not marked complete.