[Math] On sheafification and stalks

sheaf-theory

I have a problem but it may be easy for you.
So, please give me a lecture.
Thank you.

Let $\mathcal{F}$ be a presheaf on a topological space $X$ and ${}^a\mathcal{F}$ a sheafification of $\mathcal{F}$:

${}^a\mathcal{F}(U):=\{s:U\to \bigoplus_{x\in X}\mathcal{F}_x\ |\ s\text{ is a section of }\pi:\mathcal{F}_x\ni a\to x\in X\}$,

where $U$ is an open set in $X$ and $\mathcal{F}_x$ is a stalk of $\mathcal{F}$ associated with $x\in U$.

I understood that ${}^a\mathcal{F}$ is a sheaf, but I did not understand that $({}^a\mathcal{F})_x \simeq \mathcal{F}_x$ for any $x\in X$.
According to some texts, it is clear by definion. Why?

Best Answer

As said in the comments, your description of $\mathcal{F}^a$ is not completely correct. First, it should be the disjoint union instead of the direct sum of the $\mathcal{F}_x$. Then all sections of $\pi$ are not allowed, only those that satisfy this condition : $$ (1) \quad \forall x\in U, \exists V\ni x \text{ a neighborhood of $x$ in $U$ and }t\in\mathcal{F}(V) \text{ such that } \forall y\in V, s(y)=t_y $$ Otherwise you have too many sections, for example, if $\mathcal{F}=\mathcal{C}$ is the sheaf of continuous function on a space $X$, with your definition a section in $\mathcal{F}^a$ would consists of the choice of a germ of continuous function at every point, without conditions that these germs glue (and they might define a function which is not continuous).

Hence the good definition is the following : $$\mathcal{F}^a(U)=\{s:U\rightarrow\coprod_{x\in U}\mathcal{F}_x | s \text{ is a section of $\pi$ and satisfies condition $(1)$}\}$$


Now it is easy to see that $\mathcal{F}^a_x=\mathcal{F}_x$. Indeed, if $s_x$ is a germ of a section in $\mathcal{F}^a_x$, then you can find a representative $(U,s)$ where $s\in\mathcal{F}^a(U)$. Now by condition $(1)$, there exists $t\in\mathcal{F}(V)$ such that $\forall y\in V, s(y)=t_y$. But this implies that $(U,s)$ and $(V,t)$ define the same germ. So $s\in\mathcal{F}_x$.

To be perfectly rigorous, check that what I just described is a well-defined map $\mathcal{F}^a_x\rightarrow\mathcal{F}_x$ which is the inverse of the obvious map $\mathcal{F}_x\rightarrow\mathcal{F}^a_x$.