Return to Question

2 added 11 characters in body; deleted 16 characters in body

For example, I take differentiability, analyticity, and algebraicity(of a function). All(more or less) imply continuity. So when we define a differentiable function on $\mathbb R^n$ or an analytic function on $\mathbb C^n$, or a regular map on an affine space, we do not explicitly require that the functions are continuous. It follows automatically from the stronger condition.

But, when I look at the definitions in books of a global structure using sheaf theory, it is almost always for a global picturedefinition of a morphism, ie define on a differentiable manifold or an analytic space, or an abstract algebraic variety, the definition of a morphism requires a priori that the map be continuous, and then one requires that there is additionally a morphism of sheaves of algebras(of the suitable type of structure sheaves, depending on the local model used).

Why is this so? Is it something done for fancy, or is there a real need for the extra continuity assumption? I mean could things go wrong if this assumption is dropped?

1

Why is continuity required for sheaf-theoretic definitions of a structure on a space

For example, I take differentiability, analyticity, and algebraicity(of a function). All(more or less) imply continuity. So when we define a differentiable function on $\mathbb R^n$ or an analytic function on $\mathbb C^n$, or a regular map on an affine space, we do not explicitly require that the functions are continuous. It follows automatically from the stronger condition.

But, when I look at the definitions in books of a global structure using sheaf theory, it is almost always a global picture, ie define a differentiable manifold or an analytic space, or an abstract algebraic variety, the definition of a morphism requires a priori that the map be continuous, and then one requires that there is additionally a morphism of sheaves of algebras(of the suitable type of structure sheaves, depending on the local model used).

Why is this so? Is it something done for fancy, or is there a real need for the extra continuity assumption? I mean could things go wrong if this assumption is dropped?
{"extraction_info": {"found_math": true, "script_math_tex": 0, "script_math_asciimath": 0, "math_annotations": 0, "math_alttext": 0, "mathml": 0, "mathjax_tag": 0, "mathjax_inline_tex": 4, "mathjax_display_tex": 0, "mathjax_asciimath": 0, "img_math": 0, "codecogs_latex": 0, "wp_latex": 0, "mimetex.cgi": 0, "/images/math/codecogs": 0, "mathtex.cgi": 0}, "config": {"markdown_headings": false, "markdown_code": true, "boilerplate_config": {"ratio_threshold": 0.18, "absolute_threshold": 10, "end_threshold": 15, "enable": true}, "remove_buttons": true, "remove_image_figures": true, "remove_link_clusters": true, "table_config": {"min_rows": 2, "min_cols": 3, "format": "github"}, "remove_chinese": true, "remove_edit_buttons": true, "extract_latex": true}, "english_confidence": 0.8787779211997986, "perplexity_flag": "head"}