## Return to Answer

2 added 9 characters in body

The situation as I see it is as follows:

The first definition you give is the natural one. It implies that D-modules on the $X$ are given by sheaves of modules for the sheaf of algebras $f_\ast D_X$ on $Y$. However, I am curious if there are actually any interesting examples of such a morphism. Projective spaces and flag varieties don't live in interesting families... Is it then the case that any D-affine morphism is either affine or a product $X=Y\times Z$, where $Z$ is $D$-affine?

The second definition is far too weak. For example, under that definition, if a scheme $X$ is D-affine over a point then any D-module on $X$ is a local system. I think the only schemes that are D-affine in the second sense are finite collections of points.

As you remark, it is not true that D-affineness respects composition. For example, take $X$ to be the total space of $\mathcal O(1)$ living over $Y=\mathbb P^1$. Then $f:X\to Y$ is affine and $Y\to pt$ is D-affine. However, $f_\ast \mathcal O_X = \bigoplus _{n\geq 0} \mathcal O(-n)$, which has higher cohomologies. So $X$ is not D-affine (over a point).

To me D-affineness is a strange and mysterious thing. Flag varieties are D-affine for very different reasons than affine varieties. Perhaps it is not helpful to include both these things in the same definition. Being D-affine is somehow not a notion that is intrinsic to D-modules: I don't think it can be expressed just in terms of the de Rham stack $X_{dR}$ and D-module functors. It is defined in terms of the forgetful functor to $\mathcal O$-modules.

I hope this helps!

1

The situation as I see it is as follows:

The first definition you give is the natural one. It implies that D-modules on the $X$ are given by sheaves of modules for the sheaf of algebras $f_\ast D_X$ on $Y$. However, I am curious if there are actually any interesting examples of such a morphism. Projective spaces and flag varieties don't live in interesting families... Is it then the case that any D-affine morphism is either affine or a product $X=Y\times Z$, where $Z$ is $D$-affine?

The second definition is far too weak. For example, under that definition, if a scheme $X$ is D-affine over a point then any D-module on $X$ is a local system. I think the only schemes that are D-affine in the second sense are finite collections of points.

As you remark, it is not true that D-affineness respects composition. For example, take $X$ to be the total space of $\mathcal O(1)$ living over $Y=\mathbb P^1$. Then $f:X\to Y$ is affine and $Y\to pt$ is D-affine. However, $f_\ast \mathcal O_X = \bigoplus _{n\geq 0} \mathcal O(-n)$, which has higher cohomologies. So $X$ is not D-affine (over a point).

To me D-affineness is a strange and mysterious thing. Flag varieties are D-affine for very different reasons than affine varieties. Perhaps it is not helpful to include both these things in the same definition. Being D-affine is somehow not a notion that is intrinsic to D-modules: I don't think it can be expressed just in terms of the de Rham stack $X_{dR}$ and D-module functors. It is defined in terms of the forgetful functor to $\mathcal O$-modules.

I hope this helps!
{"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": 34, "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": true, "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": "plain"}, "remove_chinese": true, "remove_edit_buttons": true, "extract_latex": true}, "english_confidence": 0.9428275227546692, "perplexity_flag": "head"}