SH02-EXCEPTIONAL-OPERATIONS — Exceptional inverse image from a finite resolution

This lesson constructs the adjunction and proves its comparisons relative to those precisely stated foundations. The opposite-bounded-range section proves the full bounded-above first-input internal-Hom comparisons and supplies the finite model for unbounded proper direct image. The unbounded supported-evaluation section proves the projection and support-forgetting comparisons for arbitrary first complexes and bounded-below duality targets, using the existing K-flat and K-injective foundations.

The exceptional inverse image is determined by what can be integrated with proper support. To construct it, we first make proper direct image exact by tensoring with a suitable sheaf. The ordinary right adjoint of this exact functor can then be assembled into a bounded resolution model. This also fixes the trace maps used in subsequent formulas.

All spaces in this lesson are locally compact Hausdorff. Write a continuous map as f:Y→Xf:Y\to X. Unless a statement says otherwise, kk is a commutative ring of finite global dimension dd, all sheaves are kk-module sheaves, and the inputs and outputs belong to D+D^+. Cohomological grading means Hi(C[s])=Hi+s(C)H^i(C[s])=H^{i+s}(C). No constructibility, finite generation, field assumption, or countability of a neighborhood basis is imposed.

SH02-EX-FOUNDATIONS — The topological foundation being used

The following are exact prerequisite contracts for proper-support sheaf theory. They belong to the earlier foundations course. They are stated here so that the construction does not hide its prerequisites inside the phrase “six operations.” The existing open prerequisite contracts supply the abelian and derived-category foundations, but their proper-base-change theorem for proper maps alone does not supply this entire list.

SH02-EX-IMP-SOFT — The compact-support resolution contract

A sheaf on a locally compact Hausdorff space is c-soft when its sections on every compact subset extend globally. Injective and flabby sheaves are c-soft. Open extension by zero and arbitrary coproducts preserve c-softness. A c-soft sheaf is acyclic for compactly supported sections. Conversely, Hcj(V;E|V)=0H_c^j(V;E|_V)=0 for all open VV and all j>0j>0 implies c-softness. These assertions are proved in compact extension, lifting and the acyclicity criterion, (C1)–(C4). In particular, that proof includes arbitrary coproducts and open extensions and does not require a finite dimension bound.

SH02-EX-IMP-FIBRES — The proper-support fibre contract

Proper direct image f!f_! is left exact, commutes with coproducts, and has stalk (f!E)x=Γc(f−1(x);E|f−1(x))(f_!E)_x=\Gamma_c(f^{-1}(x);E|_{f^{-1}(x)}). Its derived stalks are the corresponding compactly supported cohomology groups. A sheaf whose restrictions to all fibres are c-soft is f!f_!-acyclic; bounded-below complexes of such sheaves compute Rf!Rf_!. These assertions also hold after restricting the source to an open subset. The exact providers are the proper-support construction and underived fibre formula, (F2)–(F3), coproduct and open-extension comparisons, (F4)–(F5), and the derived fibre and acyclic-complex calculation, (F6). They work for bounded-below complexes on arbitrary locally compact Hausdorff spaces; neither constructibility nor countability is inserted.

SH02-EX-IMP-COMPOSE — The proper-support composition contract

For composable maps, the natural proper-support comparison Rf!Rg!≃R(fg)!Rf_!Rg_!\simeq R(fg)_! is an isomorphism on D+D^+, compatible with threefold composition and identities. The proof is composition of properly supported sections and their c-soft models, (D2)–(D3). The comparison keeps the underlying section, so it includes these identity and associativity compatibilities, not only an isomorphism of objects.

SH02-EX-IMP-BC — The base-change boundary

The full proper-support base-change theorem for arbitrary locally compact Hausdorff maps is proved by pulling back supported sections and deriving that map, (D1) and (D4). Its fibrewise acyclicity argument preserves the bounded-below range without a finite dimension or proper-map hypothesis. Under the finite dimension assumption of this lesson, the required case and its pasting compatibility are proved below as SH02-EX-BASECHANGE-BRIDGE, using the fibre and soft contracts.

The soft, fibre, composition and full proper-support base-change contracts are supplied by these exact earlier programme proofs. Their support sections do not use the later exceptional adjoint or constructible-duality applications in that reading, so using them here creates no such dependency cycle. The finite-dimensional case of nonproper base change and the projection formula required below are proved from those contracts. A theorem about a proper map or a perfect tensor factor is not used as a substitute for either assertion.

We will also use two elementary consequences of the stated compact-support contracts. A compact subset meets only finitely many members of a locally finite family of supports, after passage to a finite open cover. This explains why compactly supported sections of a sheaf coproduct are a coproduct, even though unrestricted sections need not commute with coproducts. Restriction to a closed subset preserves c-softness: a compact subset of the closed subset is compact in the ambient space, and restriction to that compact subset has the same sections.

SH02-EX-RELATIVE-SOFT — Turning proper direct image into an exact functor

Call an abelian sheaf EE on YY ff-soft if E|f−1(x)E|_{f^{-1}(x)} is c-soft for every x∈Xx\in X. By the soft criterion and the fibre formula, this is equivalent to

Rjf!(EU)=0(j>0,U⊂Y open), R^j f_!(E_U)=0\qquad(j>0,\ U\subset Y\text{ open}),

where EUE_U is restriction to UU followed by extension by zero. The use of every open UU matters: being merely f!f_!-acyclic does not express the full condition.

Assume henceforth that there is an integer r≥0r\geq0 such that

Rjf!E=0(j>r)(EX.1) R^j f_!E=0\qquad(j>r) \qquad\text{(EX.1)}

for every abelian sheaf EE on YY. This is a condition over ℤ\mathbb Z, not only over the chosen coefficient ring. The fibre formula says equivalently that all fibres have compact-support cohomological dimension at most rr. For the reverse implication in this equivalence, restrict to each fibre and use stalkwise detection of zero. For the forward implication, extend a sheaf on the closed fibre by zero to YY and take the stalk at its image point. Hence the same bound applies after any change of base.

The bound yields a useful finite dimension-shifting rule. If

E0⟶E1⟶⋯⟶Er⟶0(EX.2) E_0\longrightarrow E_1\longrightarrow\cdots\longrightarrow E_r \longrightarrow0 \qquad\text{(EX.2)}

is exact and E0,…,Er−1E_0,\ldots,E_{r-1} are ff-soft, then ErE_r is ff-soft. To see this, insert the successive kernels, apply open extension by zero, and use the long exact sequences of Rf!R f_!. For j>0j>0, repeated connecting maps identify Rjf!((Er)U)R^jf_!((E_r)_U) with Rj+rf!(NU)R^{j+r}f_!(N_U) for the kernel at the left end; that group vanishes by (EX.1). For r=0r=0 there are no middle sheaves and (EX.1) itself gives the assertion. The same argument shows that truncating an ff-soft resolution after rr steps leaves an ff-soft final cokernel.

The statements remain true for kk-module sheaves after forgetting scalars. One can compute compact-support cohomology using a resolution by sheaves which are c-soft as abelian sheaves, so the underlying abelian and kk-linear derived functors agree. Thus the integral dimension hypothesis bounds the coefficient versions without requiring kk to be flat over ℤ\mathbb Z.

SH02-EX-FLAT-SOFT — The flat relative-soft tensor lemma

Tensor lemma. Let SS be a commutative coefficient ring and let KK be an SYS_Y-module which is flat and ff-soft. Then G⊗SKG\otimes_S K is ff-soft for every SYS_Y-module GG, and

G⟼f!(G⊗SK)(EX.3) G\longmapsto f_!(G\otimes_S K) \qquad\text{(EX.3)}

is exact. The underlying integral dimension bound (EX.1) is retained.

Proof. For every pair consisting of an open set UU and a section s∈G(U)s\in G(U) there is a morphism SU→GS_U\to G taking 11 to ss. The coproduct of all these maps is surjective on every stalk. Repeating the construction for its kernel gives a resolution to the left by coproducts of the sheaves SUS_U. These are coproduct generators; their morphisms into a sheaf form a product of section modules.

After tensoring with KK, the resolution stays exact by flatness. Every term is a coproduct of open extensions KUK_U, hence is ff-soft. Apply (EX.2) to its final rr steps, with G⊗SKG\otimes_S K at the right end. This proves the first assertion. For a short exact sequence of GG’s, tensoring is exact and all three resulting sheaves are f!f_!-acyclic. The long exact derived-image sequence therefore proves exactness of (EX.3). ▫\square

Only stalkwise flatness was used. No assertion that arbitrary products of open generators are free generators enters the proof.

SH02-EX-FINITE-RESOLUTION — A finite universal resolution

There exists an exact sequence of abelian sheaves

0⟶ℤY⟶K0⟶⋯⟶Kr⟶0(EX.4) 0\longrightarrow\mathbb Z_Y\longrightarrow K^0\longrightarrow\cdots \longrightarrow K^r\longrightarrow0 \qquad\text{(EX.4)}

whose terms are both flat over ℤ\mathbb Z and ff-soft.

Here is a construction that works without a countability assumption. For an abelian sheaf EE, let

Q(E)(U)=∏y∈UEy. Q(E)(U)=\prod_{y\in U} E_y.

This is a flabby sheaf, and the map E→Q(E)E\to Q(E) sends a section to its family of germs. It is injective. If EE has torsion-free stalks, then so does Q(E)Q(E): its stalks are filtered colimits of products of torsion-free groups. Moreover, the map Ey→Q(E)yE_y\to Q(E)_y has a retraction given by evaluation at the coordinate yy. Consequently its cokernel is a direct summand of the torsion-free group Q(E)yQ(E)_y, and is torsion-free. Over ℤ\mathbb Z, torsion-free means flat. Thus both Q(E)Q(E) and Q(E)/EQ(E)/E are flat whenever EE is flat.

Start with C0=ℤYC^0=\mathbb Z_Y, set Kj=Q(Cj)K^j=Q(C^j) and Cj+1=Kj/CjC^{j+1}=K^j/C^j for 0≤j<r0\leq j<r, and finally set Kr=CrK^r=C^r. Flatness follows inductively from the preceding stalk argument. The first rr terms are flabby, hence ff-soft; the last is ff-soft by dimension shifting. If r=0r=0, simply take K0=ℤYK^0=\mathbb Z_Y: (EX.1) and the relative soft criterion say directly that it is ff-soft. This proves (EX.4).

The augmented complex (EX.4) stays exact after tensoring with any abelian sheaf: its short exact constituent sequences have flat cokernels. It follows that G→G⊗ℤK•G\to G\otimes_{\mathbb Z}K^\bullet is a quasi-isomorphism for every bounded-below complex GG. The total complexes here have finitely many KK-degrees; there is no infinite-product convergence issue.

SH02-EX-REPRESENTING-SHEAF — The sheaf representing the ordinary adjunction

Fix one flat ff-soft abelian sheaf KK. For an injective kXk_X-module II, define

JK(I)(U)=Hom⁡kX(f!(kU⊗ℤK),I).(EX.5) J_K(I)(U)=\operatorname{Hom}_{k_X} \bigl(f_!(k_U\otimes_{\mathbb Z}K),I\bigr). \qquad\text{(EX.5)}

For V⊂UV\subset U, the extension-by-zero map kV→kUk_V\to k_U gives the restriction map in (EX.5).

This presheaf is a sheaf. Indeed, for an open covering U=⋃iUiU=\bigcup_i U_i, there is the right-exact sheaf sequence

⨁i,jkUi∩Uj⟶⨁ikUi⟶kU⟶0. \bigoplus_{i,j}k_{U_i\cap U_j}\longrightarrow \bigoplus_i k_{U_i}\longrightarrow k_U\longrightarrow0.

The first map is the difference of the two inclusions. Tensor with KK and apply the exact functor (EX.3); it also preserves coproducts. Applying Hom⁡(−,I)\operatorname{Hom}(-,I) gives exactly the equalizer expressing the sheaf axiom for (EX.5). There is no assumption that an infinite coproduct has its sections computed pointwise as a presheaf coproduct.

There is a natural isomorphism

Hom⁡kX(f!(G⊗ℤK),I)≃Hom⁡kY(G,JK(I)).(EX.6) \operatorname{Hom}_{k_X}\bigl(f_!(G\otimes_{\mathbb Z}K),I\bigr) \simeq \operatorname{Hom}_{k_Y}\bigl(G,J_K(I)\bigr). \qquad\text{(EX.6)}

To construct its map, take a morphism on the left and precompose it with the morphism induced by each section kU→Gk_U\to G. This produces a compatible map G(U)→JK(I)(U)G(U)\to J_K(I)(U) on every open UU. When G=kUG=k_U, this is the identity identification in (EX.5). It is therefore an isomorphism for a coproduct of open generators. An arbitrary GG has a presentation P1→P0→G→0P_1\to P_0\to G\to0 by such coproducts. Both sides of (EX.6), regarded as contravariant functors of GG, send this presentation to the kernel of the corresponding map from their value on P0P_0 to their value on P1P_1. The isomorphisms on P0,P1P_0,P_1 identify those kernels. This proves (EX.6), including its naturality, without a representability theorem.

The left side of (EX.6) is exact in GG, by (EX.3) and injectivity of II. Hence JK(I)J_K(I) is injective. The construction is covariant in II and contravariant in KK.

SH02-EX-ADJOINT — The derived adjunction and its normalization

Existence theorem. Under (EX.1), Rf!:D+(kY)→D+(kX)Rf_!:D^+(k_Y)\to D^+(k_X) has a right adjoint

f!:D+(kX)⟶D+(kY). f^!:D^+(k_X)\longrightarrow D^+(k_Y).

More precisely, f!D≥a⊂D≥a−rf^!D^{\geq a}\subset D^{\geq a-r}. No preservation of DbD^b is asserted for an arbitrary map between the present spaces.

Construction and proof. Represent F∈D+(kX)F\in D^+(k_X) by a bounded-below injective complex II. Using (EX.4), form the finite-width Hom total complex

(JKI)n=⨁p=0rJKp(In+p).(EX.7) (J_K I)^n=\bigoplus_{p=0}^r J_{K^p}(I^{n+p}). \qquad\text{(EX.7)}

For a homogeneous map of total degree nn, its differential is the usual Hom differential

d(h)=dI∘h−(−1)nh∘dK. d(h)=d_I\circ h-(-1)^n h\circ d_K.

Each degree of (EX.7) is a finite sum of injectives, hence injective. If II starts in degree aa, (EX.7) starts in degree a−ra-r. The same formula sends chain homotopies to chain homotopies and commutes with the standard shift identifications.

For a bounded-below complex GG, the tensor lemma says that every term of G⊗ℤK•G\otimes_{\mathbb Z}K^\bullet is ff-soft. Its augmentation is a quasi-isomorphism, so

Rf!G≃f!(G⊗ℤK•). Rf_!G\simeq f_!(G\otimes_{\mathbb Z}K^\bullet).

Applying (EX.6) in every bidegree and the tensor–Hom sign convention gives an isomorphism of Hom complexes

Hom⁡•(f!(G⊗ℤK•),I)≃Hom⁡•(G,JKI).(EX.8) \operatorname{Hom}^\bullet \bigl(f_!(G\otimes_{\mathbb Z}K^\bullet),I\bigr) \simeq \operatorname{Hom}^\bullet(G,J_K I). \qquad\text{(EX.8)}

Taking degree-zero cohomology computes morphisms in the derived category on both sides, because the target complexes are bounded-below injectives. Thus f!F=JKIf^!F=J_KI has the desired adjunction. Bounded-below complexes of injectives model D+D^+, so this construction descends to a triangulated functor. The bound follows from (EX.7). ▫\square

Define the unit ηG:G→f!Rf!G\eta_G:G\to f^!Rf_!G and the trace, or counit,

ϵF:Rf!f!F⟶F(EX.9) \epsilon_F:Rf_!f^!F\longrightarrow F \qquad\text{(EX.9)}

as the images of the identity morphisms under (EX.8). Naturality of that isomorphism gives the triangular identities

ϵRf!G∘Rf!(ηG)=1Rf!G,f!(ϵF)∘ηf!F=1f!F.(EX.10) \epsilon_{Rf_!G}\circ Rf_!(\eta_G)=1_{Rf_!G},\qquad f^!(\epsilon_F)\circ\eta_{f^!F}=1_{f^!F}. \qquad\text{(EX.10)}

For example, applying the adjunction bijection to the first composite reduces it to the definition of ηG\eta_G; applying its inverse to the second reduces it to the definition of ϵF\epsilon_F. This is a proof of the normalization, not merely an assertion that some abstract right adjoint exists.

Any other construction with its adjunction is uniquely isomorphic to this one by the map whose transpose is its counit. The inverse is obtained by exchanging the two constructions; (EX.10) makes both composites identities. This identifies different choices of (EX.4), respects the trace, and satisfies the cocycle identity for three choices. Because (EX.8) is an isomorphism of complexes with the displayed Hom differential, simultaneously shifting source and target commutes with the adjunction. In particular, the trace of F[1]F[1] is the shift of the trace of FF under the chosen triangulated identifications; no independent sign can be inserted.

The same construction also proves the ringed-space variant. Given sheaves of rings ℛ\mathcal R on XX, 𝒮\mathcal S on YY and a homomorphism f−1ℛ→𝒮f^{-1}\mathcal R\to\mathcal S, replace kUk_U in (EX.5) by 𝒮U\mathcal S_U and take Hom in ℛ\mathcal R-modules. The functor f!(−⊗ℤK)f_!(-\otimes_{\mathbb Z}K), followed by restriction of scalars, is exact. The generator and injectivity arguments are unchanged and give a right adjoint D+(ℛ)→D+(𝒮)D^+(\mathcal R)\to D^+(\mathcal S). Commutativity and finite global dimension are not needed for this existence construction; those hypotheses enter the tensor assertions below.

SH02-EX-PROJECTION — Projection with arbitrary coefficients

For G∈D+(kY)G\in D^+(k_Y) and B∈D+(kX)B\in D^+(k_X), there is a canonical isomorphism

Rf!G⊗kLB→∼Rf!(G⊗kLf−1B).(EX.11) Rf_!G\otimes_k^L B\xrightarrow{\sim} Rf_!\bigl(G\otimes_k^L f^{-1}B\bigr). \qquad\text{(EX.11)}

Here finite global dimension of kk ensures that all tensor products displayed in D+D^+ stay in D+D^+. The assertion allows arbitrary BB, with no perfection assumption.

First suppose that EE is a flat ff-soft kYk_Y-module. On a fibre, the functor

M⟼Γc(f−1(x);E|f−1(x)⊗kM) M\longmapsto\Gamma_c(f^{-1}(x);E|_{f^{-1}(x)}\otimes_k M)

is exact by the tensor lemma. It preserves coproducts. The natural map from Γc(E|f−1(x))⊗kM\Gamma_c(E|_{f^{-1}(x)})\otimes_k M to this functor is an isomorphism for free modules, hence for every module by a free presentation and right exactness. It follows in addition that Γc(E|f−1(x))\Gamma_c(E|_{f^{-1}(x)}) is flat. The stalk formula now proves both that f!Ef_!E is flat and that

f!E⊗kB≃f!(E⊗kf−1B)(EX.12) f_!E\otimes_k B\simeq f_!(E\otimes_k f^{-1}B) \qquad\text{(EX.12)}

for every sheaf BB. The map is defined on sections by multiplying a properly supported section by a pulled-back local section. Its support remains proper.

For the derived statement, use a bounded-below flat resolution PP of GG, starting at most dd degrees earlier, and one for BB. Here is a precise way to obtain the required lower bound from the flat-resolution contract, proved by local cycle attachment, Theorem 3.1. Start with its termwise-flat complex QQ representing an object in D≥aD^{\geq a}. Put Cm=coker⁡(Qm−1→Qm)C^m=\operatorname{coker}(Q^{m-1}\to Q^m). For m<am<a, exactness gives 0→Cm→Qm+1→Cm+1→00\to C^m\to Q^{m+1}\to C^{m+1}\to0. On each stalk, dd successive Tor connecting isomorphisms identify Tor⁡1(Ca−d,M)\operatorname{Tor}_1(C^{a-d},M) with Tor⁡d+1(Ca,M)=0\operatorname{Tor}_{d+1}(C^a,M)=0. Thus Ca−dC^{a-d} is flat, and replacing the part of QQ below degree a−da-d by this cokernel gives the bounded-below flat resolution. When d=0d=0, every stalk module is already flat and the same truncation works directly.

Why this truncation is still a K-flat model. The dimension-shifting step uses the long exact Tor sequence and the flatness criterion, Proposition 3.2 and Theorem 3.3. Write c=a−dc=a-d, and let PP be the complex with Pn=0P^n=0 for n<cn<c, Pc=CcP^c=C^c, and Pn=QnP^n=Q^n for n>cn>c. Its first differential is induced by that of QQ. The quotient in degree cc and the identity in higher degrees define a chain map q:Q→Pq:Q\to P. It is a quasi-isomorphism: the good truncation preserves cohomology in degrees at least cc, and the lower cohomology of QQ vanishes because c≤ac\leq a.

The kernel N=ker⁡qN=\ker q has terms QnQ^n below cc, the sheaf im⁡(Qc−1→Qc)\operatorname{im}(Q^{c-1}\to Q^c) in degree cc, and zero above. Exactness of QQ in degree c−1<ac-1<a identifies that last term with Cc−1C^{c-1}. The same dd connecting isomorphisms as above identify first Tor of each stalk of Cc−1C^{c-1} with (d+1)(d+1)st Tor of the corresponding stalk of Ca−1C^{a-1}, which is zero. Thus that last term is flat; for d=0d=0 it is flat directly. The flatness-of-stalks criterion makes every term of NN flat. Its cohomology is zero, either from the short exact sequence below or directly from the description of its last differential. It is bounded above, so Lemma 2.3 of the K-flat lesson proves that NN is K-flat.

We have an exact sequence of complexes

0⟶N⟶Q→qP⟶0.(PF1) 0\longrightarrow N\longrightarrow Q\xrightarrow{q}P\longrightarrow0. \qquad\text{(PF1)}

Every term of its quotient PP is flat. Consequently tensoring this sequence with any sheaf remains exact in each degree, by the flat-quotient assertion of Lemma 1.3 in the same lesson. Tensoring with a complex and taking direct-sum totalizations therefore also gives an exact sequence. For an acyclic complex AA, the tensors with NN and QQ are acyclic by their K-flatness; the resulting long exact cohomology sequence proves that A⊗PA\otimes P is acyclic. This proves K-flatness of PP, rather than inferring it from flatness of its terms.

If ϵ:Q→G\epsilon:Q\to G is the original resolution, the identification of this bounded-below model with GG is the explicit quasi-isomorphism zigzag

P←qQ→ϵG.(PF2) P\xleftarrow{q}Q\xrightarrow{\epsilon}G. \qquad\text{(PF2)}

A chain map P→GP\to G is not being assumed. In the derived category the identification is ϵq−1\epsilon q^{-1}. Here GG and PP are on YY, whereas BB is on XX. Applying the construction to BB gives a bounded-below K-flat kXk_X-complex RR representing it. Since the coefficients are the constant sheaves of the same ring kk, inverse image is exact and its stalks preserve the coefficient modules. It preserves flatness and K-flatness by Lemma 2.2 of the K-flat lesson. Thus f−1Rf^{-1}R is a bounded-below K-flat kYk_Y-model for f−1Bf^{-1}B. The tensor-invariance and resolution-comparison proof, Lemma 1.1 and Theorem 1.2, identifies P⊗kf−1RP\otimes_k f^{-1}R with G⊗kLf−1BG\otimes_k^L f^{-1}B on YY, compatibly with those zigzags and derived morphisms. This supplies the models needed below, including their lower bounds. It does not claim that an arbitrary complex of flat terms is K-flat.

Tensor PP over ℤ\mathbb Z with (EX.4). Its total complex EE is termwise flat over kk, termwise ff-soft, and quasi-isomorphic to GG. All the double complexes used here lie in a translated first quadrant. Thus termwise flat resolutions calculate the derived tensor products of these bounded-below inputs, and termwise ff-soft resolutions calculate Rf!Rf_!. Applying (EX.12) to the double complexes gives (EX.11).

The identity, associativity and symmetry compatibilities of this projection map can be checked before deriving: both ways of multiplying a supported section by two local coefficient sections give the same section, and interchanging homogeneous factors introduces exactly the usual Koszul sign. Flat resolutions preserve these equalities. Its compatibility with open restriction is immediate from the same description. These facts will fix the tensor comparisons of f!f^!.

SH02-EX-COMPOSITION — Composition, restriction, and change of base

Suppose Z→gY→fXZ\xrightarrow{g}Y\xrightarrow{f}X satisfy the integral dimension bounds ss and rr. Then (fg)!(fg)_! has cohomological dimension at most r+sr+s. Indeed, apply the composition import and filter Rg!ERg_!E by its cohomology sheaves: their degrees lie between 00 and ss, and applying Rf!Rf_! gives degrees at most r+sr+s. This finite filtration is the usual derived-functor spectral-sequence argument, and does not require the spectral sequence to have infinitely many nonzero diagonals.

There is a canonical isomorphism

(fg)!≃g!f!.(EX.13) (fg)^!\simeq g^!f^!. \qquad\text{(EX.13)}

For every H∈D+(kZ)H\in D^+(k_Z) and F∈D+(kX)F\in D^+(k_X), the successive adjunctions give

Hom⁡(H,g!f!F)≃Hom⁡(Rg!H,f!F)≃Hom⁡(Rf!Rg!H,F)≃Hom⁡(R(fg)!H,F). \begin{aligned} \operatorname{Hom}(H,g^!f^!F) &\simeq\operatorname{Hom}(Rg_!H,f^!F)\\ &\simeq\operatorname{Hom}(Rf_!Rg_!H,F)\\ &\simeq\operatorname{Hom}(R(fg)_!H,F). \end{aligned}

Representing this natural bijection defines (EX.13). Its trace is exactly

Rf!Rg!g!f!F→Rf!(ϵg)Rf!f!F→ϵfF.(EX.14) Rf_!Rg_!g^!f^!F\xrightarrow{Rf_!(\epsilon_g)} Rf_!f^!F\xrightarrow{\epsilon_f}F. \qquad\text{(EX.14)}

For three maps, either parenthesization has the trace obtained by successively applying the three traces in their order of composition. The associativity of the imported proper-support comparison identifies their sources. Uniqueness of an adjoint identification preserving the trace therefore proves the associativity of (EX.13). For the identity map the trace is the identity, so the unit coherence follows in the same way.

SH02-EX-EMBEDDING — Open, closed, and locally closed inclusions

For an open embedding j:U↪Xj:U\hookrightarrow X, the exact functor j!j_! has exact right adjoint j−1j^{-1}. The ordinary adjunction therefore gives j!=j−1j^!=j^{-1}, with its usual extension-by-zero counit. For a closed embedding i:Z↪Xi:Z\hookrightarrow X, its exact direct image has right adjoint i−1ΓZi^{-1}\Gamma_Z at the sheaf level. To prove this, a map i*A→Fi_*A\to F lands in the subsheaf of sections supported on ZZ, and maps to that subsheaf are determined by their restriction to ZZ. Deriving the adjunction gives

i!F≃i−1RΓZF,RΓZF≃i*i!F.(EX.15) i^!F\simeq i^{-1}R\Gamma_ZF, \qquad R\Gamma_ZF\simeq i_*i^!F. \qquad\text{(EX.15)}

For a locally closed embedding, factor it as a closed embedding into an open subset and then use (EX.13). More explicitly, if ZZ is closed in UU and j:U↪Xj:U\hookrightarrow X, set RΓZF=Rj*RΓZU(j−1F)R\Gamma_ZF=Rj_*R\Gamma_Z^U(j^{-1}F), where the superscript marks closed support inside UU. This object is also RℋomX(kZ,F)R\mathcal Hom_X(k_Z,F), with kZk_Z extended by zero from the locally closed subset: the ordinary extension/restriction and closed-support adjunctions identify both expressions. The result is i!F≃i−1RΓZFi^!F\simeq i^{-1}R\Gamma_ZF. Independence of the chosen open ambient neighborhood follows from this intrinsic internal-Hom description, or by restricting the two factorizations to their intersection and applying their adjunctions. Ordinary direct image Rj*Rj_*, rather than extension by zero, is part of this support convention.

These formulas also identify the open restriction of f!f^!. If V⊂XV\subset X is open, write j:V→Xj:V\to X, j′:f−1V→Yj':f^{-1}V\to Y, and fV:f−1V→Vf_V:f^{-1}V\to V. The equality fj′=jfVfj'=jf_V and the composition isomorphisms give

j′−1f!F≃fV!(F|V).(EX.16) j'^{-1}f^!F\simeq f_V^!(F|_V). \qquad\text{(EX.16)}

This isomorphism preserves the traces after restriction. One can also see it directly in (EX.5), since a section supported properly over VV is tested against I|VI|_V and open restriction preserves injectives.

SH02-EX-BASECHANGE-BRIDGE — A finite-dimensional base-change proof

Here is the promised finite-dimensional base-change bridge. In a cartesian square with horizontal f:Y→Xf:Y\to X, f′:Y′→X′f':Y'\to X' and vertical g,g′g,g', pulling back a properly supported section gives the underived map g−1f!E→f!′g′−1Eg^{-1}f_!E\to f'_!g'^{-1}E: the pullback of its support is proper over the new base. The fibre contract identifies its two stalks with the same compactly supported sections on the same fibre, so the map is an isomorphism.

Choose (EX.4) for ff. Its pullback g′−1K•g'^{-1}K^\bullet is still flat, exact over ℤ\mathbb Z, and f′f'-soft: the fibre restrictions are precisely those of K•K^\bullet under the fibre homeomorphisms. Thus G⊗K•G\otimes K^\bullet computes Rf!GRf_!G, while g′−1(G⊗K•)g'^{-1}(G\otimes K^\bullet) computes Rf!′g′−1GRf'_!g'^{-1}G. Apply the underived base-change isomorphism term by term to obtain g−1Rf!G≃Rf!′g′−1Gg^{-1}Rf_!G\simeq Rf'_!g'^{-1}G on D+D^+. For two base changes, either composite is pullback of the same sections in this model. Thus identity squares, open restrictions and pasted squares have the asserted canonical compatibilities. No compactness of ff itself is used.

SH02-EX-BASECHANGE — Two exceptional base-change comparisons

Consider the cartesian square described in SH02-EX-IMP-BC. If f!f_! has integral cohomological dimension at most rr, so does f!′f'_!, since their fibres over corresponding points are homeomorphic. There are two different exceptional comparisons:

f!Rg*→∼Rg*′f′!,β:g′−1f!⟶f′!g−1.(EX.17) f^!Rg_*\xrightarrow{\sim}Rg'_*f'^!, \qquad \beta:g'^{-1}f^!\longrightarrow f'^!g^{-1}. \qquad\text{(EX.17)}

The first is an isomorphism; the second is at this stage only a morphism.

For the first map, take A∈D+(kY)A\in D^+(k_Y) and B∈D+(kX′)B\in D^+(k_{X'}). The following natural sequence of bijections gives its definition and proof:

Hom⁡(A,f!Rg*B)≃Hom⁡(Rf!A,Rg*B)≃Hom⁡(g−1Rf!A,B)≃Hom⁡(Rf!′g′−1A,B)≃Hom⁡(g′−1A,f′!B)≃Hom⁡(A,Rg*′f′!B). \begin{aligned} \operatorname{Hom}(A,f^!Rg_*B) &\simeq\operatorname{Hom}(Rf_!A,Rg_*B)\\ &\simeq\operatorname{Hom}(g^{-1}Rf_!A,B)\\ &\simeq\operatorname{Hom}(Rf'_!g'^{-1}A,B)\\ &\simeq\operatorname{Hom}(g'^{-1}A,f'^!B)\\ &\simeq\operatorname{Hom}(A,Rg'_*f'^!B). \end{aligned}

The third line is the proper-support base-change bridge just proved. Every other line is one of the already specified adjunctions.

Define the second map by the requirement that its Rf!′⊣f′!Rf'_!\dashv f'^! transpose be

Rf!′g′−1f!F→∼g−1Rf!f!F→g−1ϵfg−1F.(EX.18) Rf'_!g'^{-1}f^!F \xrightarrow{\sim}g^{-1}Rf_!f^!F \xrightarrow{g^{-1}\epsilon_f}g^{-1}F. \qquad\text{(EX.18)}

This explicit definition is useful in calculations: it fixes which way the map goes and its normalization. For an identity square it gives the identity, by (EX.10). For two successive base changes, transpose the composite of their β\beta maps. Inserting (EX.18) first for the inner square and then for the outer one cancels the intermediate unit–counit pair by (EX.10). The resulting map is the pasted proper-support comparison followed by the pulled-back trace of ff. The pasting compatibility proved in SH02-EX-BASECHANGE-BRIDGE identifies it with the transpose for the composite square. Since transposition is a bijection, the two β\beta maps agree.

For open gg, (EX.16) shows that β\beta is invertible. A general closed change of base can fail to be invertible; a worked example below detects this failure with a shift.

SH02-EX-COEFFICIENTS — Forgetting the coefficient action

Let ϕ\phi denote the forgetful functor from kk-module sheaves to abelian sheaves. The exceptional inverse images constructed with the two coefficient systems satisfy

ϕYfk!F≃fℤ!(ϕXF).(EX.19) \phi_Y f_k^!F\simeq f_{\mathbb Z}^!(\phi_XF). \qquad\text{(EX.19)}

For A∈D+(ℤY)A\in D^+(\mathbb Z_Y), its proof is the following chain of adjunctions:

Hom⁡ℤ(A,fℤ!ϕXF)≃Hom⁡ℤ(Rf!A,ϕXF)≃Hom⁡k(kX⊗ℤLRf!A,F)≃Hom⁡k(Rf!(kY⊗ℤLA),F)≃Hom⁡k(kY⊗ℤLA,fk!F)≃Hom⁡ℤ(A,ϕYfk!F). \begin{aligned} \operatorname{Hom}_{\mathbb Z}(A,f_{\mathbb Z}^!\phi_XF) &\simeq\operatorname{Hom}_{\mathbb Z}(Rf_!A,\phi_XF)\\ &\simeq\operatorname{Hom}_k(k_X\otimes_{\mathbb Z}^LRf_!A,F)\\ &\simeq\operatorname{Hom}_k(Rf_!(k_Y\otimes_{\mathbb Z}^LA),F)\\ &\simeq\operatorname{Hom}_k(k_Y\otimes_{\mathbb Z}^LA,f_k^!F)\\ &\simeq\operatorname{Hom}_{\mathbb Z}(A,\phi_Yf_k^!F). \end{aligned}

The middle line is (EX.11) over ℤ\mathbb Z. The tensor products stay bounded below because ℤ\mathbb Z has global dimension one. Thus this argument permits torsion in kk. Its canonical identification preserves the traces, since its construction uses precisely those traces in the two adjunctions. It asserts compatibility with forgetting the coefficient action, not an unrestricted theorem about extension of coefficients.

SH02-EX-INTERNAL — Internal adjunction and its tensor structure

For F∈D+(kX)F\in D^+(k_X) and G∈Db(kY)G\in D^b(k_Y), there are canonical isomorphisms

RℋomX(Rf!G,F)≃Rf*RℋomY(G,f!F),(EX.20) R\mathcal Hom_X(Rf_!G,F) \simeq Rf_*R\mathcal Hom_Y(G,f^!F), \qquad\text{(EX.20)}

𝑹𝑯𝒐𝒎X(Rf!G,F)≃𝑹𝑯𝒐𝒎Y(G,f!F).(EX.21) \mathbf{RHom}_X(Rf_!G,F) \simeq\mathbf{RHom}_Y(G,f^!F). \qquad\text{(EX.21)}

Here 𝑹𝑯𝒐𝒎X(A,B)=RΓ(X;RℋomX(A,B))\mathbf{RHom}_X(A,B)=R\Gamma(X;R\mathcal Hom_X(A,B)) is a complex of kk-modules; the script Hom denotes a sheaf on XX. The finite dimension bound makes Rf!GRf_!G bounded. Both internal Hom objects in (EX.20) are therefore in D+D^+, which is essential for the operations currently constructed.

To define the map from right to left in (EX.20), put H=RℋomY(G,f!F)H=R\mathcal Hom_Y(G,f^!F). Evaluation, the ordinary counit f−1Rf*H→Hf^{-1}Rf_*H\to H, (EX.11), and the exceptional trace give

Rf!G⊗LRf*H⟶Rf!(G⊗Lf−1Rf*H)⟶Rf!(G⊗LH)⟶Rf!f!F⟶F.(EX.22) \begin{aligned} Rf_!G\otimes^L Rf_*H &\longrightarrow Rf_!(G\otimes^L f^{-1}Rf_*H)\\ &\longrightarrow Rf_!(G\otimes^L H) \longrightarrow Rf_!f^!F\longrightarrow F. \end{aligned} \qquad\text{(EX.22)}

Currying (EX.22), with the tensor symmetry where needed, gives the desired morphism.

There is also a direct resolution proof, which verifies the map and works for modules over an arbitrary associative coefficient ring. Represent GG by a bounded complex and FF by a bounded-below injective complex II. The finite complex L=f!(G⊗ℤK•)L=f_!(G\otimes_{\mathbb Z}K^\bullet) represents Rf!GRf_!G. For every open V⊂XV\subset X, the chain-level adjunction (EX.8), applied on VV, identifies

Hom⁡V•(L|V,I|V)≃Hom⁡f−1V•(G|f−1V,(JKI)|f−1V).(EX.20a) \operatorname{Hom}^\bullet_{V}(L|_V,I|_V) \simeq \operatorname{Hom}^\bullet_{f^{-1}V} (G|_{f^{-1}V},(J_KI)|_{f^{-1}V}). \qquad\text{(EX.20a)}

These maps commute with open restriction, so they give an isomorphism of complexes of sheaves. For an injective AA-module sheaf JJ, the sheaf ℋomA(E,J)\mathcal Hom_A(E,J) is flabby as an abelian sheaf: a map on a smaller open extends by injectivity from the corresponding open extension of EE into the extension on the larger open. Boundedness of GG and LL makes every degree of the Hom complexes in (EX.20a) a finite sum of such flabby sheaves. They are bounded below and therefore compute both derived internal Hom and the required ordinary derived direct image. This proves (EX.20) directly. Its adjunction is the one in (EX.8), so in the commutative case it agrees with the evaluated map (EX.22).

For an open V⊂XV\subset X, restriction identifies Rf!G|VRf_!G|_V with R(fV)!(G|f−1V)R(f_V)_!(G|_{f^{-1}V}) and identifies f!F|f−1Vf^!F|_{f^{-1}V} by (EX.16). Taking HnRΓ(V;−)H^nR\Gamma(V;-) of (EX.22) therefore gives the adjunction bijection

Hom⁡D(kf−1V)(G|f−1V,fV!(F|V)[n])≃Hom⁡D(kV)((Rf!G)|V,F|V[n]). \operatorname{Hom}_{D(k_{f^{-1}V})} (G|_{f^{-1}V}, f_V^!(F|_V)[n]) \simeq \operatorname{Hom}_{D(k_V)} ((Rf_!G)|_V,F|_V[n]).

It is the same bijection because the last arrow in (EX.22) is the chosen trace. It is an isomorphism for every VV and every nn. The cone of (EX.20) thus has zero derived sections on every open set; passing to stalks, or using the lowest nonzero cohomology sheaf locally, shows that cone is zero. This proves (EX.20). Applying RΓ(X;−)R\Gamma(X;-) proves (EX.21).

SH02-EX-TENSOR — The normalized tensor comparison

For A,B∈D+(kX)A,B\in D^+(k_X), define

θA,B:f!A⊗kLf−1B⟶f!(A⊗kLB)(EX.23) \theta_{A,B}:f^!A\otimes_k^L f^{-1}B \longrightarrow f^!(A\otimes_k^L B) \qquad\text{(EX.23)}

to be the transpose of

Rf!(f!A⊗Lf−1B)→∼Rf!f!A⊗LB→ϵA⊗1A⊗LB.(EX.24) Rf_!(f^!A\otimes^L f^{-1}B) \xrightarrow{\sim}Rf_!f^!A\otimes^L B \xrightarrow{\epsilon_A\otimes1}A\otimes^L B. \qquad\text{(EX.24)}

There is no invertibility assertion in this generality. The following identities fix the module structure of this comparison. Under the usual unit identification, θA,kX\theta_{A,k_X} is the identity. For A,B,C∈D+A,B,C\in D^+, the composite which applies θA,B\theta_{A,B} and then θA⊗B,C\theta_{A\otimes B,C} agrees with θA,B⊗C\theta_{A,B\otimes C}, after associating the three tensor factors. To prove the unit identity, transpose it and use the unit compatibility of (EX.11): both maps become ϵA\epsilon_A. To prove associativity, transpose both composites. The defining equation (EX.24) replaces the outer trace by ϵA⊗1B⊗1C\epsilon_A\otimes1_B\otimes1_C; the projection associativity proved above identifies the source maps. The resulting transposes are equal, so the original maps are equal. The same argument with tensor symmetry supplies its Koszul signs.

The comparison also respects composition (EX.13). For Z→gY→fXZ\xrightarrow gY\xrightarrow fX, the map for fgfg equals the composite

g!f!A⊗g−1f−1B→θgg!(f!A⊗f−1B)→g!θfg!f!(A⊗B).(EX.25) g^!f^!A\otimes g^{-1}f^{-1}B \xrightarrow{\theta_g} g^!(f^!A\otimes f^{-1}B) \xrightarrow{g^!\theta_f} g^!f^!(A\otimes B). \qquad\text{(EX.25)}

Transposing successively along gg and ff turns this into the trace (EX.14) tensored with BB. The same transpose defines the left side, using the proper-support composition identification and the projection formula. Thus they coincide. This proof keeps the normalization of the composite trace visible.

SH02-EX-HOM — Exceptional inverse image of internal Hom

For A∈Db(kX)A\in D^b(k_X) and B∈D+(kX)B\in D^+(k_X), there is a canonical isomorphism

f!RℋomX(A,B)→∼RℋomY(f−1A,f!B).(EX.26) f^!R\mathcal Hom_X(A,B) \xrightarrow{\sim} R\mathcal Hom_Y(f^{-1}A,f^!B). \qquad\text{(EX.26)}

Define its map by applying (EX.23) to Rℋom(A,B)R\mathcal Hom(A,B) and AA, then applying f!f^! to evaluation, and finally currying. To prove it is invertible, test against an arbitrary C∈D+(kY)C\in D^+(k_Y):

Hom⁡(C,f!Rℋom(A,B))≃Hom⁡(Rf!C,Rℋom(A,B))≃Hom⁡(Rf!C⊗LA,B)≃Hom⁡(Rf!(C⊗Lf−1A),B)≃Hom⁡(C⊗Lf−1A,f!B)≃Hom⁡(C,Rℋom(f−1A,f!B)). \begin{aligned} \operatorname{Hom}(C,f^!R\mathcal Hom(A,B)) &\simeq\operatorname{Hom}(Rf_!C,R\mathcal Hom(A,B))\\ &\simeq\operatorname{Hom}(Rf_!C\otimes^L A,B)\\ &\simeq\operatorname{Hom}(Rf_!(C\otimes^L f^{-1}A),B)\\ &\simeq\operatorname{Hom}(C\otimes^L f^{-1}A,f^!B)\\ &\simeq\operatorname{Hom}(C,R\mathcal Hom(f^{-1}A,f^!B)). \end{aligned}

Each tensor belongs to D+D^+ because AA is bounded and the coefficient ring has finite global dimension. The map represented by this chain is the map just defined: tracing evaluation through the adjunction gives exactly (EX.24). Yoneda therefore proves (EX.26), including naturality. In particular, merely replacing the hypothesis A∈DbA\in D^b by A∈D−A\in D^- is not justified by this proof; tensoring such an AA with C∈D+C\in D^+ can leave D+D^+. The opposite-bounded-range proof supplies that broader first-input range by a finite resolution and coefficient exchange, without that tensor-boundedness assumption.

Composition compatibility of (EX.26) follows by applying its definition to evaluation and using (EX.25). Both composites are the curry of the same evaluated tensor map. Open restriction compatibility follows from (EX.16) and the open restriction of internal Hom. These are the compatibilities needed when using the identity on a diagonal or on a small neighborhood.

SH02-EX-BOUNDED-ABOVE — Internal Hom with opposite bounded ranges

Retain the uniform integral dimension bound (EX.1). The internal comparisons have the following full bounded-above first-input forms:

RℋomX(Rf!G,F)→∼Rf*RℋomY(G,f!F),G∈D−(kY),F∈D+(kX).(EXA.1) \begin{gathered} R\mathcal Hom_X(Rf_!G,F)\\ \xrightarrow{\sim}Rf_*R\mathcal Hom_Y(G,f^!F),\\ G\in D^-(k_Y),\quad F\in D^+(k_X). \end{gathered} \qquad\text{(EXA.1)}

f!RℋomX(A,B)→∼RℋomY(f−1A,f!B),A∈D−(kX),B∈D+(kX).(EXA.2) \begin{gathered} f^!R\mathcal Hom_X(A,B)\\ \xrightarrow{\sim}R\mathcal Hom_Y(f^{-1}A,f^!B),\\ A\in D^-(k_X),\quad B\in D^+(k_X). \end{gathered} \qquad\text{(EXA.2)}

No lower bound on GG or AA is imposed. These maps extend the bounded-first-input maps (EX.20) and (EX.26), with their normalizations. All the internal Hom objects in these two displays are bounded below. The proper direct image in (EXA.1) uses the unbounded derived functor, with the finite resolution model justified next. The right adjoint f!f^! is still only being applied to bounded-below objects.

The existing unbounded acyclic-model theorem applies

The module-sheaf categories are Grothendieck. K-injective resolutions, Theorems 4.1 and 5.1, supply termwise-injective K-injective replacements and the right derived functor of an additive functor on all complexes. Thus Rf!Rf_! exists on the unbounded derived category. Proposition 5.5, the finite-dimensional acyclic-model theorem, proves that any complex of f!f_!-acyclic sheaves computes it termwise under a uniform bound. Its hypotheses match here: f!f_! is left exact, and (EX.1) gives the same uniform bound rr for kk-module sheaves by the coefficient comparison already proved above.

Let K•K^\bullet be the flat relative-soft resolution (EX.4), in degrees 0,…,r0,\ldots,r. For any complex GG, including an unbounded one, its augmentation

G⟶G⊗ℤK•(EXA.3) G\longrightarrow G\otimes_{\mathbb Z}K^\bullet \qquad\text{(EXA.3)}

is a quasi-isomorphism. Here is the convergence check. Each row obtained by tensoring the augmented resolution with GiG^i is exact, since (EX.4)’s successive cokernels are flat over ℤ\mathbb Z. The cone of (EXA.3) is the total complex of these exact rows with the augmentation column included. The number of columns is bounded by r+2r+2, independently of ii. Filtering by the GG degree gives a filtration with at most r+2r+2 nonzero steps in each total degree; its first cohomology calculation is the exact row. Equivalently, on each stalk a total cocycle can be cancelled successively from the rightmost column to the leftmost using row exactness; subtracting a chosen total boundary moves the remaining component one column to the left and terminates after at most r+2r+2 steps. Hence that cone is acyclic. There is no infinite diagonal or limit interchange in this argument.

Every term of G⊗K•G\otimes K^\bullet is a finite sum of ff-soft sheaves, by the tensor lemma (EX.3), so Proposition 5.5 gives the canonical comparison

Rf!G≃TK(G):=f!(G⊗ℤK•).(EXA.4) Rf_!G\simeq T_K(G):=f_!(G\otimes_{\mathbb Z}K^\bullet). \qquad\text{(EXA.4)}

This is an acyclic-model comparison to the existing derived functor, not a new functor defined only by its agreement on bounded objects. It is natural and independent of the choice of K•K^\bullet, by that proposition’s K-injective comparison. It agrees with (EX.8) on the bounded-below range. If G∈D≤bG\in D^{\leq b}, take a representative with terms zero above bb; then TK(G)T_K(G) has terms zero above b+rb+r. In particular Rf!D≤b⊂D≤b+rRf_!D^{\leq b}\subset D^{\leq b+r}.

Direct-image internal adjunction

Represent G∈D≤bG\in D^{\leq b} by a complex zero above bb, and F∈D≥aF\in D^{\geq a} by a bounded-below injective complex II starting at aa. The chain adjunction (EX.8), restricted to every open V⊂XV\subset X, remains an isomorphism for this GG:

ℋomX•(TK(G),I)≃f*ℋomY•(G,JKI).(EXA.5) \mathcal Hom_X^\bullet(T_K(G),I) \simeq f_*\mathcal Hom_Y^\bullet(G,J_KI). \qquad\text{(EXA.5)}

In total degree nn, the left Hom has components only for a−n≤i≤b+ra-n\leq i\leq b+r. On the right, JKIJ_KI starts at a−ra-r, so only a−r−n≤i≤ba-r-n\leq i\leq b occur. These are finite index ranges. The KK index also lies in 0,…,r0,\ldots,r. Thus the same reindexing and Hom differential used in (EX.8) apply, without replacing a direct sum by an infinite product. All maps commute with restriction of VV.

Each sheaf ℋom(E,J)\mathcal Hom(E,J) with injective target JJ is flabby, by the open-extension argument preceding (EX.20a). Finite sums of such sheaves are flabby. The two Hom complexes in (EXA.5) are bounded below, with lower bound a−b−ra-b-r. The left computes derived internal Hom because II remains K-injective after open restriction. The inner complex on the right likewise computes derived internal Hom because JKIJ_KI is bounded-below injective. Its flabby terms compute the required Rf*Rf_*. The fact that a bounded-below injective complex computes morphisms from an arbitrary, not necessarily bounded, source is Lemma 3.2 and Theorem 3.3 of Injective modules and bounded-below derived functors. This proves (EXA.1).

The comparison is the sheafwise chain adjunction, so it has the adjunction normalization on every open. For bounded GG it is (EX.20a), hence agrees with (EX.22). No projection formula on an unrestricted unbounded tensor product was used to extend that formula outside its proved range.

Inverse-image internal Hom: the coefficient exchange

For one term KpK^p of the relative-soft resolution, write Tp(E)=f!(E⊗ℤKp)T_p(E)=f_!(E\otimes_{\mathbb Z}K^p) and Jp=JKpJ_p=J_{K^p}. The following underived projection isomorphism holds for sheaves EE on YY and PP on XX:

Tp(E)⊗kP→∼Tp(E⊗kf−1P).(EXA.6) T_p(E)\otimes_k P\xrightarrow{\sim} T_p(E\otimes_k f^{-1}P). \qquad\text{(EXA.6)}

Its map pulls a coefficient section back and multiplies it with a properly supported section. To prove invertibility, first take P=kVP=k_V for an open V⊂XV\subset X, extended by zero. Both sides are the restriction of Tp(E)T_p(E) to VV extended by zero; the map is the identity under the open-support comparison. Both functors of PP preserve coproducts and are right exact: tensor and inverse image have these properties, while TpT_p is exact and preserves coproducts by (EX.3). Present arbitrary PP by two coproducts of such open generators, apply both functors and take cokernels. The isomorphisms on those two sums identify the cokernels and prove (EXA.6). This also proves naturality, compatibility with coefficient maps and the tensor-unit normalization.

For a flat PP and injective II, internal ℋomX(P,I)\mathcal Hom_X(P,I) is injective: tensoring a monomorphism with PP stays monic, so the tensor–Hom adjunction converts extension into II into extension into this Hom sheaf. Applying (EXA.6) and (EX.6) on every open subset of YY gives

JpℋomX(P,I)≃ℋomY(f−1P,JpI).(EXA.7) J_p\mathcal Hom_X(P,I) \simeq\mathcal Hom_Y(f^{-1}P,J_pI). \qquad\text{(EXA.7)}

Indeed, testing the left side on an open U⊂YU\subset Y gives Hom⁡X(Tp(kU),ℋomX(P,I))\operatorname{Hom}_X(T_p(k_U),\mathcal Hom_X(P,I)). Tensor–Hom adjunction makes this Hom⁡X(Tp(kU)⊗P,I)\operatorname{Hom}_X(T_p(k_U)\otimes P,I). Formula (EXA.6) replaces its first argument by Tp(kU⊗f−1P)T_p(k_U\otimes f^{-1}P), and (EX.6) gives the sections on UU of the right side. These identifications commute with restriction, proving (EXA.7) as a sheaf isomorphism.

Resolving a bounded-above first input and checking signs

Take a bounded-above flat resolution P→AP\to A, with Pi=0P^i=0 for i>bi>b, from Flat modules and K-flat resolutions, Lemma 4.1. Let B→IB\to I be a bounded-below injective resolution with Ij=0I^j=0 for j<aj<a. In degree mm, the Hom complex ℋom•(P,I)\mathcal Hom^\bullet(P,I) is a finite sum over a−m≤i≤ba-m\leq i\leq b. Its terms are injective by flatness of each PiP^i, and it vanishes below a−ba-b. It is therefore a bounded-below injective model of RℋomX(A,B)R\mathcal Hom_X(A,B).

Consequently the two sides of (EXA.2) are computed by

JKℋom•(P,I),ℋom•(f−1P,JKI).(EXA.8) J_K\mathcal Hom^\bullet(P,I), \qquad \mathcal Hom^\bullet(f^{-1}P,J_KI). \qquad\text{(EXA.8)}

The inverse image of a flat sheaf is flat for constant coefficient rings, and JKIJ_KI is bounded-below injective. Both complexes in (EXA.8) start at degree a−b−ra-b-r. Formula (EXA.7) identifies their components. In total degree nn these components are indexed by 0≤p≤r0\leq p\leq r and a−n−p≤i≤ba-n-p\leq i\leq b, with target In+p+iI^{n+p+i}, so every rearrangement is finite.

The component exchange multiplies by (−1)pi(-1)^{pi}: it moves the KpK^p position past the PiP^i position in the evaluated tensor. To check the differential, write a component of total degree nn before the exchange as hp,ih_{p,i} and after it as gi,p=(−1)pihp,ig_{i,p}=(-1)^{pi}h_{p,i}. Suppressing only the fixed adjunction identifications of (EXA.7), the Hom differentials are

(Dh)p,i=dIhp,i−(−1)n+php,i+1dP−(−1)nhp+1,idK,(Dg)i,p=dIgi,p−(−1)n+igi,p+1dK−(−1)ngi+1,pdP.(EXA.9) \begin{aligned} (Dh)_{p,i} &=d_Ih_{p,i}-(-1)^{n+p}h_{p,i+1}d_P -(-1)^n h_{p+1,i}d_K,\\ (Dg)_{i,p} &=d_Ig_{i,p}-(-1)^{n+i}g_{i,p+1}d_K -(-1)^n g_{i+1,p}d_P. \end{aligned} \qquad\text{(EXA.9)}

Substituting gi,p=(−1)pihp,ig_{i,p}=(-1)^{pi}h_{p,i} in the second line gives (−1)pi(-1)^{pi} times the first: the dKd_K exponent is n+i+i(p+1)≡n+pin+i+i(p+1)\equiv n+pi, and the dPd_P exponent is n+(i+1)p=n+pi+pn+(i+1)p=n+pi+p. Thus (EXA.7) with this sign is an isomorphism of complexes, proving (EXA.2).

The construction is natural for chain maps. K-injective comparison and the flat resolutions identify it under quasi-isomorphisms and hence under derived roofs, so it is independent of representatives. When AA is bounded, it is the curry of the same projection and trace used to define (EX.26): (EXA.7) was obtained from precisely that ordinary adjunction and coefficient projection. For a merely bounded-above AA, in any fixed output degree and its two adjacent degrees only finitely many degrees of PP and KK occur. A sufficiently low brutal truncation of PP therefore gives those same components and differentials. This proves that the map and its compatibility equations extend the bounded-input ones degree by degree, rather than choosing an unrelated isomorphism.

In particular open restriction and exceptional composition retain the normalizations already checked for (EX.26). For two maps the finite-resolution widths add; the same finite-index argument applies to their composite. Equivalently, in (EXA.7) the underlying coefficient projection is pullback and multiplication, so its two iterated versions agree by associativity; the displayed graded exchanges supply the Koszul signs. This proves the required compatibilities without applying f!f^! to an object outside D+D^+.

These results supply the bounded-above first-input contract used for conic internal Hom. The unbounded supported-evaluation proof establishes the additional projection and comparison identities needed for (EX.40)–(EX.41) without imposing boundedness on the first complex. The bounded support proof and its counterexample to a boundedness shortcut remain valid.

SH02-EX-DIAGONAL — Diagonals and product tests

Assume XX has finite compact-support cohomological dimension over ℤ\mathbb Z. For the projections q1,q2:X×X→Xq_1,q_2:X\times X\to X and the diagonal Δ\Delta, let F∈D+(kX)F\in D^+(k_X) and G∈Db(kX)G\in D^b(k_X). Then

RℋomX(G,F)≃Rq1*RΓΔRℋomX×X(q2−1G,q1!F).(EX.27) R\mathcal Hom_X(G,F) \simeq Rq_{1*}R\Gamma_\Delta R\mathcal Hom_{X\times X}(q_2^{-1}G,q_1^!F). \qquad\text{(EX.27)}

The dimension assumption makes q1!q_1^! available, because its fibres are copies of XX. Let δ:X→X×X\delta:X\to X\times X be the diagonal embedding, which is closed by the Hausdorff hypothesis, and abbreviate the internal Hom on the right by HH. Formula (EX.15) rewrites RΓΔHR\Gamma_\Delta H as δ*δ!H\delta_*\delta^!H. Since q1δ=idq_1\delta=\mathrm{id}, its ordinary direct image is δ!H\delta^!H. Now apply (EX.26) to δ\delta:

δ!H≃RℋomX(δ−1q2−1G,δ!q1!F)≃RℋomX(G,F). \delta^!H \simeq R\mathcal Hom_X(\delta^{-1}q_2^{-1}G,\delta^!q_1^!F) \simeq R\mathcal Hom_X(G,F).

The last equality uses both projection–diagonal composites and (EX.13), with their identity normalizations. Thus there is no extra dimension shift in this abstract formula.

SH02-EX-RECTANGLE — A product test for duality

Let X,YX,Y be locally compact Hausdorff, with YY of finite compact-support cohomological dimension over ℤ\mathbb Z. Denote the projections of X×YX\times Y by qX,qYq_X,q_Y. For F∈D+(kX)F\in D^+(k_X) and G∈Db(kY)G\in D^b(k_Y),

RΓ(X×Y;Rℋom(qY−1G,qX!F))≃𝑹𝑯𝒐𝒎k(RΓc(Y;G),RΓ(X;F)).(EX.28) R\Gamma\bigl(X\times Y; R\mathcal Hom(q_Y^{-1}G,q_X^!F)\bigr) \simeq \mathbf{RHom}_k\bigl(R\Gamma_c(Y;G),R\Gamma(X;F)\bigr). \qquad\text{(EX.28)}

No finite cohomological dimension of XX is required here. Apply (EX.20) to qXq_X and then take derived global sections. Proper-support base change for the square over a point gives

RqX!qY−1G≃aX−1RΓc(Y;G), Rq_{X!}q_Y^{-1}G\simeq a_X^{-1}R\Gamma_c(Y;G),

where aX:X→{pt}a_X:X\to\{\mathrm{pt}\}. The usual inverse-image/direct-image adjunction, in its derived Hom form, identifies

𝑹𝑯𝒐𝒎X(aX−1A,F)≃𝑹𝑯𝒐𝒎k(A,RΓ(X;F)). \mathbf{RHom}_X(a_X^{-1}A,F) \simeq\mathbf{RHom}_k(A,R\Gamma(X;F)).

Take A=RΓc(Y;G)A=R\Gamma_c(Y;G), which is bounded by the finite dimension assumption. Combining these two identities proves (EX.28). Its map is fixed by the proper-support base-change map, evaluation, and the traces already constructed.

The product formula remains valid for left modules over an arbitrary associative ring AA, when both sides are interpreted as complexes of abelian groups and all Hom functors are AA-linear. Use the direct proof (EX.20a) and the ordinary AA-linear inverse-image/direct-image adjunction. This extension does not use a tensor product of two left AA-modules and does not require commutativity.

The same coefficient clarification applies to the diagonal formula needed for homological-dimension estimates. Its internal Hom is an abelian sheaf, and the supported operation is the integral one. For a closed embedding ii one has the mixed identity

iℤ!RℋomA(P,Q)≃RℋomA(i−1P,iA!Q)(EX.28a) i_{\mathbb Z}^!R\mathcal Hom_A(P,Q) \simeq R\mathcal Hom_A(i^{-1}P,i_A^!Q) \qquad\text{(EX.28a)}

for bounded PP and bounded-below QQ. Here is a proof specific to the closed inclusion, so no noncommutative tensor convention is implicit. If II is injective as an AA-module sheaf, a local AA-linear map into II is supported on the closed subset exactly when its image lies in ΓZI\Gamma_ZI. Consequently ΓZℋomA(P,I)=ℋomA(P,ΓZI)\Gamma_Z\mathcal Hom_A(P,I)=\mathcal Hom_A(P,\Gamma_ZI) at the sheaf level. The terms ℋomA(Pj,Il)\mathcal Hom_A(P^j,I^l) are flabby, as above; flabby sheaves are acyclic for sheaf local cohomology on a closed subset, as follows from the localization sequence and surjectivity of restriction to the complementary open. Also i−1ΓZI=iA!Ii^{-1}\Gamma_ZI=i_A^!I is injective, since i*i_* is exact. Resolve QQ by injectives and totalize; the boundedness of PP keeps this a bounded-below calculation. These observations derive the sheaf identity and prove (EX.28a). Applying it to the closed diagonal proves (EX.27) for arbitrary associative AA, with the same identity normalizations and no added shift.

SH02-EX-DUALIZING — Dualizing objects and supported dual sections

For a map satisfying (EX.1), define its relative dualizing complex by

ωY/X=f!kX. \omega_{Y/X}=f^!k_X.

If aX:X→{pt}a_X:X\to\{\mathrm{pt}\} has finite cohomological dimension for compact support, set ωX=aX!k\omega_X=a_X^!k. For F∈Db(kX)F\in D^b(k_X) define

DXF=RℋomX(F,ωX),DX′F=RℋomX(F,kX).(EX.29) D_XF=R\mathcal Hom_X(F,\omega_X),\qquad D'_XF=R\mathcal Hom_X(F,k_X). \qquad\text{(EX.29)}

The first is Verdier duality as an operation; the name does not assert that its square is the identity on arbitrary sheaves. The second uses the constant sheaf rather than the dualizing object.

Taking A=kXA=k_X in (EX.23) and using tensor symmetry gives

f−1B⊗LωY/X⟶f!B.(EX.30) f^{-1}B\otimes^L\omega_{Y/X}\longrightarrow f^!B. \qquad\text{(EX.30)}

Its trace is integration against the relative dualizing object, tensored with BB. Invertibility for topological submersions is proved, for every bounded-below input, in SH02-MD-SUBMERSION. Its rectangle test identifies this actual tensor comparison. It is not part of the definition of ωY/X\omega_{Y/X} and does not assert invertibility for an arbitrary map.

For composable maps to a point, (EX.13) gives f!ωX≃ωYf^!\omega_X\simeq\omega_Y. For F∈Db(kX)F\in D^b(k_X), (EX.26) therefore gives the useful typed identity

f!DXF≃DY(f−1F),(EX.31) f^!D_XF\simeq D_Y(f^{-1}F), \qquad\text{(EX.31)}

whenever the dualizing objects and f!f^! are defined under the stated finite dimension assumptions. This identity does not assume biduality of FF.

SH02-EX-DUAL-SECTIONS — Duality of ordinary and supported sections

If XX has finite compact-support cohomological dimension and F∈Db(kX)F\in D^b(k_X), (EX.21) for aXa_X gives

RΓ(X;DXF)≃𝑹𝑯𝒐𝒎k(RΓc(X;F),k).(EX.32) R\Gamma(X;D_XF) \simeq\mathbf{RHom}_k(R\Gamma_c(X;F),k). \qquad\text{(EX.32)}

Taking degree zero yields its ordinary derived-category Hom version. Restricting to an open subset UU and using (EX.16), (EX.26) and ωU≃ωX|U\omega_U\simeq\omega_X|_U gives

RΓ(U;DXF)≃𝑹𝑯𝒐𝒎k(RΓc(U;F|U),k).(EX.33) R\Gamma(U;D_XF) \simeq\mathbf{RHom}_k(R\Gamma_c(U;F|_U),k). \qquad\text{(EX.33)}

The open subset inherits the finite dimension bound, since open extension by zero is exact and preserves compactly supported cohomology.

For a compact subset K⊂XK\subset X, write i:K↪Xi:K\hookrightarrow X. It is closed. Formula (EX.31) identifies i!DXFi^!D_XF with DK(i−1F)D_K(i^{-1}F). Hence

RΓK(X;DXF)≃𝑹𝑯𝒐𝒎k(RΓ(K;i−1F),k).(EX.34) R\Gamma_K(X;D_XF) \simeq\mathbf{RHom}_k(R\Gamma(K;i^{-1}F),k). \qquad\text{(EX.34)}

Indeed, the left side is RΓ(K;i!DXF)R\Gamma(K;i^!D_XF) by (EX.15); apply (EX.32) on KK and use compactness to replace compact support by ordinary global sections. The finite dimension bound on KK follows from the exact closed direct image into XX. Notice that (EX.34) uses the restriction of FF to KK, whereas the left side uses sections of its dual supported on KK. These are different operations.

Finally, for a locally closed subset Z⊂XZ\subset X, apply (EX.21) to its extension-by-zero constant sheaf. With RΓZ(X;−)R\Gamma_Z(X;-) denoting derived global sections with that locally closed support convention, this gives

RΓZ(X;ωX)≃𝑹𝑯𝒐𝒎k(RΓc(Z;kZ),k).(EX.35) R\Gamma_Z(X;\omega_X) \simeq\mathbf{RHom}_k(R\Gamma_c(Z;k_Z),k). \qquad\text{(EX.35)}

The equality is also obtained directly by factoring the inclusion and using i!ωX=ωZi^!\omega_X=\omega_Z. Its definition and independence of the factorization are those fixed in (EX.15).

SH02-EX-SUPPORT-ERASURE — Forgetting support and checking the resulting maps

Let πf:Rf!→Rf*\pi_f:Rf_!\to Rf_* be the natural transformation which forgets the proper-support condition. It is the derived transformation induced by inclusion of properly supported sections in all sections. The identities below distinguish several maps that would otherwise look identical in a formula containing only stars and exclamation marks.

Keep the cartesian square of SH02-EX-BASECHANGE. Put

b!:g−1Rf!→∼Rf!′g′−1,b*:g−1Rf*⟶Rf*′g′−1. b_!:g^{-1}Rf_!\xrightarrow{\sim}Rf'_!g'^{-1}, \qquad b_*:g^{-1}Rf_*\longrightarrow Rf'_*g'^{-1}.

Here b*b_* is the ordinary base-change morphism from inverse-image/direct-image adjunction; it need not be invertible. There is the compatibility

(πf′g′−1)∘b!=b*∘(g−1πf).(EX.36) (\pi_{f'}g'^{-1})\circ b_! =b_*\circ(g^{-1}\pi_f). \qquad\text{(EX.36)}

At the sheaf level, both maps take a properly supported section to its pullback regarded as an unrestricted section. To derive this equality with the canonical maps, choose the flat-soft model (EX.4) for Rf!Rf_! and an injective resolution of that model for the ordinary direct images. The comparison from the soft model to the injective one induces πf\pi_f; inverse image is exact, and the adjunction definition of b*b_* applied to that comparison is pullback of the same sections. The sheaf-level equality is therefore an equality of the induced morphisms in the derived category. Changing resolutions leaves it unchanged by functoriality of derived transformations. This argument also proves that π\pi respects compositions: forgetting support in two stages is the same inclusion of sections as forgetting it for the composite map.

The mixed proper/ordinary exchange map

e:Rf!Rg*′⟶Rg*Rf!′(EX.37) e:Rf_!Rg'_*\longrightarrow Rg_*Rf'_! \qquad\text{(EX.37)}

is defined as follows. Apply g−1g^{-1}, use b!b_!, and then apply the ordinary counit g′−1Rg*′→idg'^{-1}Rg'_*\to\mathrm{id}; transpose the resulting map along g−1⊣Rg*g^{-1}\dashv Rg_*. It satisfies a useful two-path identity from Rf!Rg!′Rf_!Rg'_! to the ordinary direct image of the composite fg′=gf′fg'=gf'. One path forgets both supports immediately. The other first applies Rf!πg′Rf_!\pi_{g'}, then ee, and finally Rg*πf′Rg_*\pi_{f'}. The ordinary composition isomorphism identifies their targets, and the paths agree.

For a proof, transpose the second path along g−1⊣Rg*g^{-1}\dashv Rg_*. Its defining ee becomes b!b_! followed by the ordinary counit. Move the map πf′\pi_{f'} past b!b_! by (EX.36); this gives b*b_* followed by the same counit. The latter is exactly the adjunction description of the ordinary direct image of fg′=gf′fg'=gf'. The remaining support-forgetting map is π\pi for the composite, by its composition compatibility. This is the transpose of the first path. The adjunction bijection proves the claimed equality.

We will use the slightly stronger intermediate identity

e∘(Rf!πg′)=(πgRf!′)∘κ,κ:Rf!Rg!′→∼Rg!Rf!′.(EX.37a) e\circ(Rf_!\pi_{g'}) =(\pi_g Rf'_!)\circ\kappa, \quad \kappa:Rf_!Rg'_!\xrightarrow{\sim}Rg_!Rf'_!. \qquad\text{(EX.37a)}

The isomorphism κ\kappa is proper-support composition along the equality fg′=gf′fg'=gf'. To check (EX.37a), transpose along g−1⊣Rg*g^{-1}\dashv Rg_*. The left transpose is proper-support base change followed by the map g′−1Rg!′→idg'^{-1}Rg'_!\to\mathrm{id} which evaluates a properly supported section at its pulled-back germ. The right transpose uses the same evaluation after proper-support composition. At the sheaf level they evaluate the identical section; support is only forgotten in the outer gg direction. The proper-support resolutions, their composition comparison and the finite base-change bridge derive this equality, since all maps used are these same section maps on the resolutions. This proves (EX.37a) before applying Rg*πf′Rg_*\pi_{f'}, and in particular proves the preceding two-path identity.

For a further exchange involving exceptional inverse image in the vertical direction, assume also that g!g_! has finite integral cohomological dimension. Then g′!g'^! and g!g^! exist, because g′g' is a base change of gg. Define

c:Rf!′g′!⟶g!Rf!(EX.38) c:Rf'_!g'^!\longrightarrow g^!Rf_! \qquad\text{(EX.38)}

by transposing along Rg!⊣g!Rg_!\dashv g^! the composite

Rg!Rf!′g′!≃Rf!Rg!′g′!→Rf!ϵg′Rf!. Rg_!Rf'_!g'^!\simeq Rf_!Rg'_!g'^! \xrightarrow{Rf_!\epsilon_{g'}}Rf_!.

Let d:Rf*′g′!→∼g!Rf*d:Rf'_*g'^!\xrightarrow{\sim}g^!Rf_* be (EX.17), applied with the horizontal and vertical directions exchanged and then inverted to the displayed direction. The compatibility is

(g!πf)∘c=d∘(πf′g′!).(EX.39) (g^!\pi_f)\circ c=d\circ(\pi_{f'}g'^!). \qquad\text{(EX.39)}

To check it, transpose both maps along Rg!⊣g!Rg_!\dashv g^!. The left transpose is the composite defining cc followed by πf\pi_f. The transpose of dd on the right is the exchange Rg!Rf*′→Rf*Rg!′Rg_!Rf'_*\to Rf_*Rg'_! followed by Rf*ϵg′Rf_*\epsilon_{g'}. Apply (EX.37a) with the two directions exchanged: precomposing that exchange with Rg!πf′Rg_!\pi_{f'} is proper-support composition followed by πfRg!′\pi_f Rg'_!. Naturality of πf\pi_f moves this map past the trace ϵg′\epsilon_{g'}. The result is exactly the left transpose. Thus the transposes, and hence the maps, agree.

The extra hypothesis in (EX.38) is necessary for the functors in its statement to have been constructed. Finite cohomological dimension of f!f_! alone, which suffices for (EX.17) and (EX.37), does not supply g!g^!.

SH02-EX-HOM-SUPPORT-COMPATIBILITY — Evaluation when either support is forgotten

Let F∈D+(kX)F\in D^+(k_X), G∈Db(kY)G\in D^b(k_Y), and set H=RℋomY(G,f!F)H=R\mathcal Hom_Y(G,f^!F). There is a second supported evaluation map

u:Rf!H⟶RℋomX(Rf*G,F).(EX.40) u:Rf_!H\longrightarrow R\mathcal Hom_X(Rf_*G,F). \qquad\text{(EX.40)}

It is defined by currying the pairing obtained from the ordinary counit f−1Rf*G→Gf^{-1}Rf_*G\to G, evaluation into f!Ff^!F, the projection isomorphism, and the trace ϵF\epsilon_F. In detail, its transpose as a tensor pairing is

Rf!H⊗LRf*G⟶Rf!(H⊗Lf−1Rf*G)⟶Rf!(H⊗LG)⟶Rf!f!F⟶F. Rf_!H\otimes^L Rf_*G \longrightarrow Rf_!(H\otimes^L f^{-1}Rf_*G) \longrightarrow Rf_!(H\otimes^LG) \longrightarrow Rf_!f^!F\longrightarrow F.

The two paths from Rf!HRf_!H to RℋomX(Rf!G,F)R\mathcal Hom_X(Rf_!G,F) agree:

Rℋom(πG,F)∘u=v∘πH,(EX.41) R\mathcal Hom(\pi_G,F)\circ u =v\circ\pi_H, \qquad\text{(EX.41)}

where v:Rf*H→∼RℋomX(Rf!G,F)v:Rf_*H\xrightarrow{\sim}R\mathcal Hom_X(Rf_!G,F) is (EX.20). To verify the identity, curry both sides back against Rf!GRf_!G. The first path pairs a properly supported section of HH with a properly supported section of GG, after forgetting support on the second factor. The second path uses the same evaluation but forgets support on the first factor. Both sections together give the same evaluation in f!Ff^!F, with support contained in the intersection of the two supports, and then the same trace. On soft and flat resolutions the two evaluations are the same chain map, with the tensor symmetry signs already fixed in (EX.22). The support-forgetting and projection compatibilities therefore give (EX.41) in the derived category.

There is a boundedness issue if one attempts to state this entire diagram for unrestricted G∈D+G\in D^+. Its object HH can be unbounded below, so Rf!HRf_!H cannot be computed using only the D+D^+ acyclic-model criterion. For example, on a point over a field, take G=⨁n≥0k[−n]G=\bigoplus_{n\geq0}k[-n] and F=kF=k. Then G∈D+G\in D^+, whereas RHom⁡(G,k)R\operatorname{Hom}(G,k) has nonzero cohomology in every degree −n-n. The unbounded proper-direct-image object is supplied by the finite acyclic model (EXA.4). The following unbounded projection and supported-evaluation proof establishes (EX.40)–(EX.41) for these inputs, and for arbitrary unbounded first complexes. It does not infer that their internal Hom is bounded below.

SH02-EX-UNBOUNDED-SUPPORT — The full supported-evaluation diagram

Retain the locally compact Hausdorff spaces, coefficient convention and uniform integral dimension bound (EX.1). In this section complexes in a tensor product or a first Hom argument may be unbounded in both directions. The duality target FF remains in D+(kX)D^+(k_X), so every occurrence of f!Ff^!F uses the already constructed functor. We prove (EX.40)–(EX.41) for every G∈D(kY)G\in D(k_Y), including the full D+D^+ range described above.

The needed unbounded foundations are already available. Flat resolutions, Theorem 3.1, supplies a K-flat resolution with flat terms for every complex. Its Lemmas 2.1–2.4 prove tensor invariance, preservation by inverse image, and the required sum and tensor closure properties. The derived tensor product, Theorems 1.2 and 2.2, fixes their resolution-independent tensor, associativity and graded symmetry. Internal derived Hom, Theorems 2.2 and 3.1, supplies unbounded tensor–Hom adjunction and its actual evaluation. We use those constructions, not a bounded truncation of the inputs.

Projection on unbounded complexes

Write TK(P)=f!(P⊗ℤK•)T_K(P)=f_!(P\otimes_{\mathbb Z}K^\bullet) for the finite model in (EXA.4). It preserves quasi-isomorphisms: that formula identifies it naturally with the existing derived proper image on every complex. For arbitrary complexes PP on YY and QQ on XX, the coefficient exchange (EXA.6) gives a chain isomorphism

TK(P)⊗kQ→ρP,QTK(P⊗kf−1Q).(EXU.1) \begin{gathered} T_K(P)\otimes_k Q\xrightarrow{\rho_{P,Q}} T_K(P\otimes_k f^{-1}Q). \end{gathered} \qquad\text{(EXU.1)}

Here both tensor totalizations use direct sums. The component with degrees i,p,ji,p,j has Pi,Kp,QjP^i,K^p,Q^j, with 0≤p≤r0\leq p\leq r. Apply (EXA.6) and move KpK^p past QjQ^j, multiplying by (−1)pj(-1)^{pj}. Both sides have the same direct sum over i+p+j=ni+p+j=n in degree nn: each f!(−⊗Kp)f_!(-\otimes K^p) commutes with coproducts and the pp range is finite. This is a direct-sum reindexing, not an exchange with an infinite product.

The differential check is explicit. Before exchange the three terms dP,dK,dQd_P,d_K,d_Q have coefficients 1,(−1)i,(−1)i+p1,(-1)^i,(-1)^{i+p}. After exchange the order is P,Q,KP,Q,K, with coefficients 1,(−1)i,(−1)i+j1,(-1)^i,(-1)^{i+j}. For dPd_P the two routes have exponent pjpj. For dKd_K they have i+(p+1)ji+(p+1)j and pj+i+jpj+i+j, which agree. For dQd_Q they have i+p+p(j+1)i+p+p(j+1) and pj+ipj+i, which differ by 2p2p. Thus (EXU.1) is a chain isomorphism. On sheaf sections its unsigned component is exactly pullback and multiplication, so it has the same unit, associativity and restriction normalization as (EX.12).

If PP is K-flat, then TK(P)T_K(P) is K-flat. Indeed, for any acyclic complex QQ on XX, exact inverse image makes f−1Qf^{-1}Q acyclic; K-flatness makes P⊗f−1QP\otimes f^{-1}Q acyclic. Applying TKT_K gives an acyclic complex, and (EXU.1) identifies this with TK(P)⊗QT_K(P)\otimes Q. This is the defining K-flatness test, not an inference from flat terms alone.

Choose K-flat representatives of G∈D(kY)G\in D(k_Y) and B∈D(kX)B\in D(k_X). By (EXA.4), (EXU.1) and this K-flatness test, its two sides compute the derived objects, giving

Rf!G⊗kLB→∼Rf!(G⊗kLf−1B),G∈D(kY),B∈D(kX).(EXU.2) \begin{gathered} Rf_!G\otimes_k^L B\xrightarrow{\sim} Rf_!(G\otimes_k^L f^{-1}B),\\ G\in D(k_Y),\qquad B\in D(k_X). \end{gathered} \qquad\text{(EXU.2)}

The quasi-isomorphism invariance and common-refinement comparisons in the cited tensor lesson make this independent of representatives and natural for derived morphisms. Every coefficient map is the section map of (EX.12), with the same graded exchange, so the tensor-unit, association and symmetry identities follow from those chain identities. On bounded-below inputs it is (EX.11). No finite-amplitude assumption on either tensor factor was inserted.

We will also need precise acyclic representatives for support maps. If PP is K-flat with flat terms, put A=P⊗ℤK•A=P\otimes_{\mathbb Z}K^\bullet. Then AA is K-flat with flat kk-module terms, its terms are ff-soft, and f!A=TK(P)f_!A=T_K(P) is K-flat. For K-flatness of AA, tensor an acyclic kk-complex with the bounded flat integral complex K•K^\bullet, then with PP; both operations preserve acyclicity. Flatness of its terms follows since tensoring over kk with PiP^i, then over ℤ\mathbb Z with KpK^p, is a composite of exact functors, and direct sums of flat sheaves are flat. Relative softness follows from (EX.3) and its coproduct property. In particular, f!Af_!A is an actual model, not a complex on which termwise acyclicity is merely presumed to suffice.

Adjunction with an arbitrary first complex

For F∈D+F\in D^+ choose the bounded-below injective model II used in (EX.7). The chain adjunction (EX.8) holds for every complex GG, without boundedness. To check this point, take Hom products in each total degree, distribute each finite KK-sum, and reindex the pairs (i,p)(i,p). Hom out of a direct sum is a product, and a product of finite products is the product over those pairs. Apply (EX.6) to each component. Its differentials are the same tensor–Hom differentials as (EX.8). No exactness of products of sheaves or commutation of stalks with products is used.

Both II and JKIJ_KI are bounded-below injective, hence K-injective. Maps into them are computed in the homotopy category even when the source is unbounded. Formula (EXA.4) consequently gives the natural bijection

Hom⁡D(kX)(Rf!G,F)≃Hom⁡D(kY)(G,f!F),G∈D(kY),F∈D+(kX).(EXU.3) \begin{gathered} \operatorname{Hom}_{D(k_X)}(Rf_!G,F) \simeq\operatorname{Hom}_{D(k_Y)}(G,f^!F),\\ G\in D(k_Y),\qquad F\in D^+(k_X). \end{gathered} \qquad\text{(EXU.3)}

This extends the first variable of the existing adjunction. It neither defines f!f^! on arbitrary unbounded targets nor applies it to Rf!GRf_!G when that object lies outside D+D^+.

Set H=RℋomY(G,f!F)H=R\mathcal Hom_Y(G,f^!F). Its ordinary direct image is defined on the unbounded category: the exact left-adjoint criterion, Proposition 5.2 of the K-injective lesson, shows that f*f_* preserves K-injectives because f−1f^{-1} is exact. Resolving a target by such a complex proves the ordinary adjunction f−1⊣Rf*f^{-1}\dashv Rf_* without a boundedness restriction.

For any C∈D(kX)C\in D(k_X), those ordinary and internal adjunctions, (EXU.3), and (EXU.2) give

Hom⁡(C,Rf*H)≃Hom⁡(f−1C,H)≃Hom⁡(f−1C⊗LG,f!F)≃Hom⁡(Rf!(f−1C⊗LG),F)≃Hom⁡(C⊗LRf!G,F)≃Hom⁡(C,RℋomX(Rf!G,F)).(EXU.4) \begin{aligned} \operatorname{Hom}(C,Rf_*H) &\simeq\operatorname{Hom}(f^{-1}C,H)\\ &\simeq\operatorname{Hom}(f^{-1}C\otimes^L G,f^!F)\\ &\simeq\operatorname{Hom}(Rf_!(f^{-1}C\otimes^L G),F)\\ &\simeq\operatorname{Hom}(C\otimes^L Rf_!G,F)\\ &\simeq\operatorname{Hom}(C,R\mathcal Hom_X(Rf_!G,F)). \end{aligned} \qquad\text{(EXU.4)}

The two groups with targets HH and f!Ff^!F are taken in D(kY)D(k_Y); every other Hom group in (EXU.4) is taken in D(kX)D(k_X). Every arrow is natural in CC. The representing-object comparison therefore supplies

v:Rf*H→∼RℋomX(Rf!G,F).(EXU.5) v:Rf_*H\xrightarrow{\sim}R\mathcal Hom_X(Rf_!G,F). \qquad\text{(EXU.5)}

Uncurrying (EXU.4) describes vv exactly: use projection with the properly supported GG factor, pull back Rf*HRf_*H by the ordinary counit, evaluate H⊗LG→f!FH\otimes^L G\to f^!F, and apply the same trace ϵF\epsilon_F. The graded symmetry places HH before GG in evaluation. Thus (EXU.5) agrees with (EX.20) and (EXA.1) on their respective ranges, including their maps and normalizations, not only their underlying objects.

The support-forgetting equality at the chain level

For any complex EE, the map πE:Rf!E→Rf*E\pi_E:Rf_!E\to Rf_*E is defined using a K-injective resolution: f!IE→f*IEf_!I_E\to f_*I_E is inclusion of properly supported sections. The uniform finite-dimensional acyclic-model theorem identifies f!IEf_!I_E with Rf!ERf_!E. If EE is instead represented by a termwise ff-soft complex AA, a K-injective comparison A→IAA\to I_A represents the same map by

f!A⟶f!IA⟶f*IA.(EXU.6) f_!A\longrightarrow f_!I_A\longrightarrow f_*I_A. \qquad\text{(EXU.6)}

These are the actual support inclusions; changing resolutions gives the same derived transformation by naturality of the acyclic-model comparison.

We first prove a pairing identity for arbitrary H,G∈D(kY)H,G\in D(k_Y). Resolve each by a K-flat complex with flat terms and tensor each with a finite relative-soft resolution. Write the resulting models as AA for HH and BB for GG. The preceding model check makes A,B,f!A,f!BA,B,f_!A,f_!B K-flat, and all terms of A,BA,B are ff-soft. Moreover A⊗kBA\otimes_k B is termwise ff-soft: after reindexing, its terms are finite sums of a sheaf tensored with two of the flat relative-soft integral terms, and (EX.3) applies successively. Hence

f!(A⊗kB)≃Rf!(H⊗kLG)(EXU.7) f_!(A\otimes_k B)\simeq Rf_!(H\otimes_k^L G) \qquad\text{(EXU.7)}

by the unbounded acyclic-model theorem.

There is a natural chain pairing

μA,B:f!A⊗kf!B⟶f!(A⊗kB).(EXU.8) \mu_{A,B}:f_!A\otimes_k f_!B\longrightarrow f_!(A\otimes_k B). \qquad\text{(EXU.8)}

On an open V⊂XV\subset X, each homogeneous component sends two sections on f−1Vf^{-1}V to their tensor product. Its support is contained in the intersection of their supports, a closed subset proper over VV. This proves that the map really lands in f!f_!. Bilinearity and restriction give the sheaf map. Assemble the components using sheaf direct sums and the coproduct comparison for f!f_!; the tensor differential gives its chain-map identity. This does not identify global sections of a sheaf coproduct with a sum of global sections. Its graded symmetry is precisely the tensor flip, not an unsigned interchange.

The first route from Rf!H⊗LRf!GRf_!H\otimes^L Rf_!G to Rf!(H⊗LG)Rf_!(H\otimes^LG) forgets support on GG, applies (EXU.2), and uses the ordinary counit for GG. Choose B→IBB\to I_B K-injective. By (EXU.6) that route is represented by

f!A⊗f!B⟶f!A⊗f*IB→ρf!(A⊗f−1f*IB)⟶f!(A⊗IB).(EXU.9) \begin{gathered} f_!A\otimes f_!B\longrightarrow f_!A\otimes f_*I_B\\ \xrightarrow{\rho}f_!(A\otimes f^{-1}f_*I_B) \longrightarrow f_!(A\otimes I_B). \end{gathered} \qquad\text{(EXU.9)}

This is a valid derived model even though IBI_B need not be K-flat: AA and f!Af_!A are K-flat. Every term of A⊗IBA\otimes I_B is ff-soft by the same finite-resolution tensor argument. The map A⊗B→A⊗IBA\otimes B\to A\otimes I_B is a quasi-isomorphism by K-flatness of AA, and its proper direct image is a quasi-isomorphism by the acyclic-model theorem. On sections, (EXU.9) takes a,ba,b to a⊗ιB(b)a\otimes\iota_B(b), where ιB:B→IB\iota_B:B\to I_B is the chosen comparison. Thus (EXU.9) equals f!(1A⊗ιB)∘μA,Bf_!(1_A\otimes\iota_B)\circ\mu_{A,B} as a chain map. Inverting that particular comparison in (EXU.7) identifies the first route with μA,B\mu_{A,B}.

For the second route forget support on HH instead, using A→IAA\to I_A, and project with BB as the supported factor. It equals f!(ιA⊗1B)∘μA,Bf_!(\iota_A\otimes1_B)\circ\mu_{A,B} after placing the factors in the order H,GH,G. The verification is the same section calculation: the ordinary counit restricts the image of aa, and the product is ιA(a)⊗b\iota_A(a)\otimes b. Explicitly, for total degrees m,nm,n the flip to put BB first contributes (−1)mn(-1)^{mn}, and the flip back contributes (−1)nm(-1)^{nm}, so their product is 11. The resolution exchanges are already the signed chain isomorphisms (EXU.1). K-flatness of BB makes A⊗B→IA⊗BA\otimes B\to I_A\otimes B a quasi-isomorphism, and its terms are again ff-soft. Therefore this route too is μA,B\mu_{A,B} under the canonical acyclic-model comparison. This proves equality of the two derived routes, not merely equality of stalk dimensions or an abstract isomorphism of targets.

Now take H=RℋomY(G,f!F)H=R\mathcal Hom_Y(G,f^!F). Compose the common pairing with derived evaluation and trace:

Rf!(H⊗LG)⟶Rf!f!F→ϵFF.(EXU.10) \begin{gathered} Rf_!(H\otimes^L G)\longrightarrow Rf_!f^!F \xrightarrow{\epsilon_F}F. \end{gathered} \qquad\text{(EXU.10)}

Currying the first route gives exactly RℋomX(πG,F)∘uR\mathcal Hom_X(\pi_G,F)\circ u, with uu defined by (EX.40)’s ordinary counit, projection, evaluation and trace. Currying the second gives v∘πHv\circ\pi_H by the explicit transpose of (EXU.5). The proved equality of their tensor pairings and tensor–Hom adjunction therefore yield (EX.41) for arbitrary G∈D(kY)G\in D(k_Y) and F∈D+(kX)F\in D^+(k_X). All maps commute with open restriction because their section maps and resolution comparisons do. On bounded inputs the construction is the preceding proof, with the same support inclusion, trace and signs.

The point example above still has internal Hom unbounded below. It shows why the unbounded acyclic and K-flat models were required, not a restriction on the theorem just proved. The argument does not assert biduality or extend the target domain of f!f^! beyond D+D^+.

SH02-EX-COEFFICIENT-ACTION — The coefficient action and the relative dualizing map

For A,B∈Db(kX)A,B\in D^b(k_X), put P=f−1RℋomX(A,B)P=f^{-1}R\mathcal Hom_X(A,B) and write τC:f−1C⊗ωY/X→f!C\tau_C:f^{-1}C\otimes\omega_{Y/X}\to f^!C for (EX.30). There are two ways to obtain a map

P⟶RℋomY(f−1A⊗ωY/X,f!B).(EX.42) P\longrightarrow R\mathcal Hom_Y(f^{-1}A\otimes\omega_{Y/X},f^!B). \qquad\text{(EX.42)}

The first pulls Hom back in the ordinary sense, obtaining P→Rℋom(f−1A,f−1B)P\to R\mathcal Hom(f^{-1}A,f^{-1}B), then tensors the represented maps with ωY/X\omega_{Y/X} and postcomposes with τB\tau_B. The second uses the action

P⟶Rℋom(f!A,f!B) P\longrightarrow R\mathcal Hom(f^!A,f^!B)

defined by currying f!A⊗P→θf!(A⊗Rℋom(A,B))→f!Bf^!A\otimes P\xrightarrow{\theta}f^!(A\otimes R\mathcal Hom(A,B))\to f^!B, and then precomposes with τA\tau_A.

These two maps agree. Curry both against f−1A⊗ωY/Xf^{-1}A\otimes\omega_{Y/X}. In the second composite, replace τA\tau_A by θkX,A\theta_{k_X,A} and use the associativity identity for θ\theta. It becomes the tensor comparison for the single coefficient object A⊗Rℋom(A,B)A\otimes R\mathcal Hom(A,B), followed by its evaluation to BB. Naturality of θ\theta moves evaluation before that comparison, producing τB\tau_B after ordinary pullback of evaluation. This is the first composite, including the symmetry used to place the factors in evaluation order. All applications of f!f^! here have bounded-below inputs. The internal Hom targets may be viewed in the unbounded derived category already supplied by the open internal-Hom prerequisite; no unbounded Rf!Rf_! is applied in this argument.

SH02-EX-EXAMPLE-DISCRETE — Worked tests and exercises with solutions

An arbitrary discrete fibre. Let SS be any discrete set and let a:S→{pt}a:S\to\{\mathrm{pt}\}. A compact subset of SS is finite, so a!a_! is the direct sum functor on families of modules. It is exact and has cohomological dimension zero. Its right adjoint sends a module to the constant family with that module in each component:

Hom⁡k(⨁s∈SMs,N)=∏s∈SHom⁡k(Ms,N). \operatorname{Hom}_k\left(\bigoplus_{s\in S}M_s,N\right) =\prod_{s\in S}\operatorname{Hom}_k(M_s,N).

Thus a!N=NSa^!N=N_S and ωS=kS\omega_S=k_S, with no shift, for finite or infinite SS. The trace ⨁SN→N\bigoplus_SN\to N adds the finitely many nonzero components of each vector. For S=⌀S=\varnothing the right adjoint is the zero object in the zero sheaf category and its trace is 0→N0\to N. This example tests coproducts, units and the zero-dimensional bound without any finite-rank hypothesis.

SH02-EX-EXERCISE-BASECHANGE — A noninvertible base-change map

Exercise. Let i:{0}↪ℝi:\{0\}\hookrightarrow\mathbb R and pull ii back along itself. For a nonzero coefficient ring kk, compute the exceptional inverse-image base-change map (EX.17) on kℝk_{\mathbb R} and decide whether it is invertible.

Solution. The cartesian top map and left map are identities of a point. Formula (EX.15) identifies i!kℝi^!k_{\mathbb R} with the local-cohomology complex at zero. On a small interval VV about zero, the localization triangle has middle term RΓ(V;k)=kR\Gamma(V;k)=k and complementary term RΓ(V\{0};k)=k⊕kR\Gamma(V\setminus\{0\};k)=k\oplus k, both in degree zero. These interval computations use SH02-CA-LOCAL-SYSTEM, which proves ordinary acyclicity and identifies the actual section-to-germ map for arbitrary coefficient modules. The intervening map is the diagonal k→k⊕kk\to k\oplus k. Its kernel is zero and its cokernel is kk, so the supported complex is k[−1]k[-1]. The base-change map is consequently a map k[−1]→kk[-1]\to k. Its degree-one source cohomology is kk, whereas the target has no degree-one cohomology. It cannot be a quasi-isomorphism. This is the exceptional inverse-image comparison, not a counterexample to the proper-support base-change isomorphism used to define it.

SH02-EX-EXERCISE-COMPONENTS — Open and closed components

Exercise. Let X=U⊔ZX=U\sqcup Z be a disjoint union of two open and closed subspaces. Describe j!j^!, i!i^! and the two traces for the inclusions. Check the localization triangle on an arbitrary F∈D+(kX)F\in D^+(k_X).

Solution. A sheaf or complex on XX is a pair (FU,FZ)(F_U,F_Z). Both inclusions are open, so their exceptional inverse images are the corresponding restrictions. Both are closed, so supported local cohomology is the pair (FU,0)(F_U,0) or (0,FZ)(0,F_Z). The traces are the inclusions of those summands. The localization triangle is the split triangle

(0,FZ)⟶(FU,FZ)⟶(FU,0)⟶(0,FZ)[1], (0,F_Z)\longrightarrow(F_U,F_Z)\longrightarrow(F_U,0) \longrightarrow(0,F_Z)[1],

whose connecting map is zero. This directly reconciles the open and closed descriptions of an exceptional inverse image when both apply.

SH02-EX-EXERCISE-AMPLITUDE — Dimension bounds under composition

Exercise. Suppose the integral dimensions of g!g_! and f!f_! are at most ss and rr. Give a lower bound for (fg)!F(fg)^!F if F∈D≥aF\in D^{\geq a}, and compare the direct construction with successive exceptional inverse images. Explain why this is not a proof that (fg)!(fg)^! preserves bounded complexes.

Solution. The direct construction uses a finite flat-soft resolution of length at most r+sr+s, hence gives (fg)!F∈D≥a−r−s(fg)^!F\in D^{\geq a-r-s}. The successive construction gives f!F∈D≥a−rf^!F\in D^{\geq a-r} and then g!f!F∈D≥a−r−sg^!f^!F\in D^{\geq a-r-s}. Their normalized isomorphism (EX.13) identifies these conclusions. The construction uses an injective resolution of FF, which need not terminate in the sheaf category, so no finite upper bound has been proved. Lower boundedness alone does not establish membership in DbD^b.

SH02-EX-EXERCISE-TRACE — Testing the trace sign

Exercise. In (EX.23), replace the trace ϵ\epsilon by −ϵ-\epsilon while retaining the same unit. Is this another normalized tensor comparison for the same adjunction? What changes if the coefficient ring has characteristic two?

Solution. The first triangle identity in (EX.10) becomes −1-1 rather than 11, so this does not preserve the given adjunction unless 1=−11=-1 on all the relevant objects. It also makes θA,kX\theta_{A,k_X} equal to −1-1 instead of the required unit. In characteristic two these particular signs coincide, but that coincidence gives no freedom to alter formulas over a general coefficient ring. The question illustrates why identifying the underlying functor does not by itself fix an adjunction normalization.

What this construction supports

The lesson supplies a resolution model for f!f^!, the trace and unit, restriction and composition, the two different base-change comparisons, tensor and internal-Hom identities, and the abstract dualizing objects. The exact topological imports are isolated in SH02-EX-FOUNDATIONS; the interval computation in the worked costalk test now uses the exact acyclicity proof linked there. SH02-MD-SUBMERSION identifies ω\omega with the shifted relative orientation local system and proves the submersion tensor comparison invertible. SH02-MD-TRACE fixes its normalization and base-change compatibility. Biduality with its full finiteness hypotheses remains a separate theorem; it does not follow from the existence of these operations.

The same results are treated in Schapira, An Introduction to Sheaves on Grothendieck Topologies, §§4.3–4.7: soft and compactly soft sheaves, finite cohomological dimension, projection, proper-support base change, exceptional adjunction, internal Hom and dual sections. The projection theorem there has bounded/ bounded-above input conventions, and the existence theorem for the exceptional right adjoint invokes Brown representability from a separate reference. It therefore does not replace the explicit finite soft resolution and representing-sheaf construction given here. Kashiwara and Schapira, Microlocal study of sheaves, §1.3.5, provides the manifold internal exceptional-Hom formulas with their bounded first input.

The construction above fixes every comparison by its adjoint evaluation or counit, retains finite cohomological dimension for proper-support image, and proves the stated bounded-below functor range with the finite flat/soft model. In particular the closed-embedding exceptional-to-ordinary map need not be invertible. The full bounded-above first-input internal-Hom comparisons and the unbounded proper-direct-image model are proved in SH02-EX-BOUNDED-ABOVE, using exact existing resolution providers. The unbounded projection and supported-evaluation proof supplies (EX.40)–(EX.41), with arbitrary first complexes and bounded-below duality targets. No right-adjoint construction on arbitrary unbounded targets is claimed. Original exposition, examples and reader code are dedicated under CC0 1.0 Universal; human works retain their own rights.