Let $X\_0$ be a locally noetherian scheme and $\mathcal{F}\_0$ a coherent $\mathcal{O}\_{X\_0}$-module. Let $C$ be an artin ring with residue field $k$ and let $X \to Spec C$ be a (flat) deformation of $X\_0$ over $C$ (meaning the closed fiber isomorphic to $X\_0$). 



> 
> **Definition 1**: A **deformation of $\mathcal{F}\_0$ over $X$** consists of the following data:
> 
> 
> * A coherent $\mathcal{O}\_X$-module $\mathcal{F}$ flat over $C$
> * An epimorphism $q:\mathcal{F} \to \mathcal{F}\_0$ inducing isomorphism $\mathcal{F}\otimes\_{\mathcal{O}\_X
> } \mathcal{O}\_{X\_0} \cong \mathcal{F}\_0$
> 
> 
> **Definition 2**: The **homological dimension** of a coherent sheaf $\mathcal{F}$ is the **minimal length of coherent locally free resolutions** of $\mathcal{F}$. If $\mathcal{F}$ doesn't have a coherent locally free resolution or all it's resolutions are infinite then define the $hd(\mathcal{F})=\infty$.
> 
> 
> 


The basic question is:



> 
> **Question:** Suppose in the above situation $q:\mathcal{F} \to \mathcal{F}\_0$ is a deformation of $\mathcal{F}\_0$ which is of **finite homological dimension** $n < \infty$. **Could** $hd(\mathcal{F}) > hd(\mathcal{F}\_0)$ ? In other words **can homological dimension jump in a formal deformation?**
> 
> 
> 


In the affine case this is not possible:



> 
> **Proposition:** If $X\_0$ is affine homological dimension can't jump.
> 
> 
> 


**Proof:** Let $\mathcal{F} \to \mathcal{F}\_0$ be a deformation of $\mathcal{F}\_0$ over $X$. The kernel of $\mathcal{O}\_X \to \mathcal{O}\_{X\_0}$ is nilpotent. By factoring $Speck \to SpecC$ into small extensions we may assume that the kernel $J$ of $\mathcal{O}\_X \to \mathcal{O}\_{X\_0}$ is square zero where $X\_0 \to SpecC\_0$ is over an artin ring now and s.t. $J$ is annihilated by the maximal ideal of $C\_0$. Then by the local criteria for flatness over noetherian rings we conclude that $\mathcal{F}$ sits in an exact sequence:


$$ 0 \to \mathcal{F}\_0 \otimes\_k J \to \mathcal{F} \to \mathcal{F}\_0 \to 0$$


By the long exact sequence for the functor $Ext^{j}(-,Q)$ (with $Q$ arbitrary) we know that the $pd(\mathcal{F})$ is at most $pd(\mathcal{F}\_0)$ and in fact they are equal since a resolution of $\mathcal{F}$ will give a resolution of $\mathcal{F}\_0$. 


I will now use a somewhat strengthened version of the characterization of projective dimension which is a special case of what's proved [here](http://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/0658):



> 
> $(\*)$ Over a noetherian ring **projective dimension** (defined by the vanishing of Ext groups) equals the
>  **minimal possible length of a resolution** by **finitely generated proejctives**. In other words $hd=pd$.
> 
> 
> 


We have therefore $hd(\mathcal{F})=hd(\mathcal{F}\_0)$. Q.E.D.




---


In the non-affine case one can use the above proof to show that all deformations $\mathcal{F}$ that admit coherent locally free resolutions have the same homological dimension as $\mathcal{F}\_0$. 


So in fact if everything I said until now is correct then either homological dimension is constant along a formal deformation or it explodes. Therefore the main problem that arises in the non-affine case is the following:


* **Not enough vector bundles:** There might not exist any resolution of $\mathcal{F}$ by finitely generated locally free sheaves (even an infinite one).


If the scheme $X$ has the **resolution property** (meaning every coherent sheaf is a quotient of a coherent locally free sheaf) then this problem disappears and we are left with the following questions:



> 
> 1. **Is the resolution property inherited by formal deformations?** Suppose $X\_0$ has the resolution property and $X$ is a deformation of $X\_0$ over an artin ring $C$, does $X$ have the resolution property?
> 
> 
> 


If $X$ doesn't have the resolution property everything seems to be stuck. Therefore I must ask the following imprecise question:



> 
> 2. Is there a **deformation theoretic** way to **detect the resolution property**?
> 
> 
> 



Can the homological dimension of a coherent sheaf explode along a formal deformation? (is the resolution property hereditary for formal deformations?)
You ask many questions. I will answer the question that you labelled "question". The way that you phrase the question is ambiguous. When you write "**finite homological dimension $n<\infty$**", you do not specify whether you are assuming that $\mathcal{F}$ has finite homological dimension, or whether you are assuming that $\mathcal{F}\_0$ has finite homological dimension. I will answer both formulations.


 **If $hd(\mathcal{F})$ is finite, then it equals $hd(\mathcal{F}\_0)$.** As you explain, if $\mathcal{F}$ has finite homological dimension, then the homological dimension of $\mathcal{F}$ equals the finite homological dimension of $\mathcal{F}\_0$. As you point out, the homological dimension of $\mathcal{F}$ is at least as large as the homological dimension of $\mathcal{F}\_0$. If the homological dimension of $\mathcal{F}\_0$ equals $n$, then for every exact complex of locally free $\mathcal{O}\_X$-modules, $$ \mathcal{E}\_{n-1}\xrightarrow{d\_{n-1}} \mathcal{E}\_{n-2} \xrightarrow{d\_{n-2}} \dots \xrightarrow{d\_2} \mathcal{E}\_1\xrightarrow{d\_1} \mathcal{E}\_0\xrightarrow{\eta} \mathcal{F}\to 0,$$ the kernel of $d\_{n-1}$ is locally free. This can be checked locally on open affines. Then you can use the argument that you outline. Thus, if the homological dimension of $\mathcal{F}$ is finite, then the homological dimension of $\mathcal{F}$ equals the homological dimension of $\mathcal{F}\_0$.


**On a nonseparated scheme, even if $hd(\mathcal{F}\_0)$ is finite, $hd(\mathcal{F})$ may be infinite.** There do exist examples where $\mathcal{F}\_0$ has finite homological dimension, yet $\mathcal{F}$ has infinite homological dimension. Let $C$ be $k[\epsilon]/\langle \epsilon^2 \rangle$. Consider polynomial rings $A=C[a,b]$ and $R=C[r,s]$. Denote by $\phi$ the isomorphism of $C$-algebras, $$ C[a,b]\leftrightarrow C[r,s], \ \ a\leftrightarrow r, \ \ b\leftrightarrow s.$$ This gives rise to a $C$-isomorphism $f$ between $\text{Spec}(A)$ and $\text{Spec}(R)$ that identifies the closed points $\langle \epsilon, a,b\rangle$ and $\langle \epsilon, r,s\rangle$. Thus, $f$ identifies the open complements of these closed points, say $U=\text{Spec}(A)\setminus \langle \epsilon,a,b\rangle$ and $V=\text{Spec}(R)\setminus\langle \epsilon,r,s\rangle$. Denote by $X$ the locally Noetherian (non-separated) flat $C$-scheme containing $\text{Spec}(A)$ and $\text{Spec}(R)$ as open subschemes obtained by glueing $U$ and $V$ via $f$. Denote this common open by $O$.


Let $\mathcal{F}\_0$ be the ideal sheaf whose restriction to $\text{Spec}(A/\epsilon A)$ equals $\widetilde{\langle a,b\rangle}$ and whose restriction to $\text{Spec}(R/\epsilon R)$ equals $\widetilde{\langle r,s\rangle}.$ This $\mathcal{O}\_{X\_0}$-module has homological dimension $1$. Indeed, let $\eta:\mathcal{O}\_{X\_0}^{\oplus 2}\to \mathcal{F}\_0$ be the homomorphism of coherent sheaves that on $\text{Spec}(A)$ equals $$\eta\_A:(A/\epsilon A)^{\oplus 2} \to \langle a,b\rangle, \ \ (g,h) \mapsto g \cdot a + h \cdot b$$ and that on $\text{Spec}(R)$ equals $$\eta\_R:(R/\epsilon R)^{\oplus 2} \to \langle r,s\rangle, \ \ (g,h) \mapsto g \cdot r + h \cdot s.$$ Then $\eta$ is surjective, and the kernel is a locally free sheaf of rank $1$. Via the usual Koszul complex, this kernel is actually isomorphic to $\bigwedge^2\_{\mathcal{O}\_{X\_0}}(\mathcal{O}\_{X\_0}^{\oplus 2}) \cong \mathcal{O}\_{X\_0}$. At any rate, $\mathcal{F}\_0$ has homological dimension $1$.


Now let $\mathcal{F}$ be the ideal sheaf in $\mathcal{O}\_X$ whose restriction to $\text{Spec}(A)$ equals $\widetilde{\langle a,b\rangle}$ and whose restriction to $\text{Spec}(R)$ equals $\widetilde{\langle r,s-\epsilon \rangle}$. Observe that the restriction of each of these ideal sheaves to $U$, resp. to $V$, is the full structure sheaf. Thus, there is a glueing of these sheaves compatible with $f$. So $\mathcal{F}$ is an $\mathcal{O}\_X$-module. Checking locally, $\mathcal{F}$ is a coherent $\mathcal{O}\_X$-module that is $C$-flat.


I claim that there is no surjection from a locally free sheaf to $\mathcal{F}$. First, there is an observation about trivializations of locally free sheaves on small opens that contain both $\langle \epsilon,a,b\rangle$ and $\langle \epsilon,r,s\rangle$. For every open affine neighborhood $\text{Spec}(A[1/\alpha])$ of $\langle \epsilon,a,b\rangle$, then $\text{Spec}(R[1/\phi(\alpha)])$ is an open affine neighborhood of $\langle \epsilon,r,s\rangle$. Thus, for every locally free $\mathcal{O}\_X$-module, there exists $\alpha \in A\setminus \langle \epsilon,a,b\rangle$ such that the locally free sheaf is trivialized on $\text{Spec}(A[1/\alpha])$ and on $\text{Spec}(R[1/\phi(\alpha)])$. Denote by $W$ the union of these two open affines. By the $S2$ property, every section of $\mathcal{O}\_X$ on $U\cap D(\alpha)$ extends to a section on $\text{Spec}(A[1/\alpha])$, and similarly for sections on $V\cap D(\phi(\alpha))$. It follows that every automorphism of $\mathcal{O}\_X^{\oplus m}$ on $U\cap D(\alpha)$ extends to an automorphism on $\text{Spec}(A[1/\alpha])$, and similarly for $V\cap D(\phi(\alpha))$. Thus, the locally free sheaf on $W$ is isomorphic to $\mathcal{O}\_W^{\oplus m}$ for some integer $m$.


Finally, let $\theta:\mathcal{O}\_W^{\oplus m}\to \mathcal{F}|\_W$ be a homomorphism of coherent sheaves. The composition with the inclusion $\mathcal{F}\_W\subset \mathcal{O}\_W$ defines a homomorphism $\theta':\mathcal{O}\_W^{\oplus m} \to \mathcal{O}\_W$. Again using the $S2$ property, it follows that $\theta'$ is uniquely determined by the restriction of $\theta'$ to the open $W\cap O$. Thus, on the open $\text{Spec}(A)$, it follows that $\theta'\_A:A^{\oplus m}\to A$ factors through both $\langle a,b\rangle$ and through $\langle \phi^{-1}(r),\phi^{-1}(s+\epsilon)\rangle = \langle a,b+\epsilon \rangle$. Thus, $\theta'$ factors through $$\langle a,b\rangle \cap \langle a,b+\epsilon \rangle = \langle a, b^2,\epsilon b\rangle.$$ In particular, $\theta'$ is not surjective to $\langle a,b\rangle$. This contradiction proves that $\mathcal{F}$ is not a quotient of a locally free $\mathcal{O}\_X$-module.


