forked from daattali/beautiful-jekyll
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
- Loading branch information
Showing
1 changed file
with
11 additions
and
9 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -1,18 +1,20 @@ | ||
\mtexe{3.2.13} | ||
\begin{proof} | ||
Fix an algebraic closure $\bar{k}$ of $k$. Let's begin with the more straightforward directions. Let $k'$ be a finite extension of $k$, so we have a canonical tower $\bar{k}/k'/k$ of fields, and the corresponding base-change morphisms $X_{\bar{k}} \to X_{k'} \to X$. First, suppose that $X$ is geometrically reduced, so that $X_{\bar{k}}$ is reduced. To show that $X_{k'}$ is reduced, it suffices to show this on an open cover. Let $\Spec A$ be an open affine of $X_{k'}$, and note that then $\Spec(A \otimes_{k'} \bar{k})$ is an open affine in $X_{\bar{k}}$ containing the preimage of $\Spec A$. So, the above morphism corresponds to the ring homomorphism $A \to A \otimes_{k'} \bar{k}$. But this map is injective since $A$ is a (free, hence) flat $k'$-algebra, and the codomain is reduced as it comes from an open subscheme of a reduced scheme, so $A$ must be reduced as desired. | ||
We will show something slightly more general than the claim in this problem. Fix an algebraic extension $L$ of $k$. Then I claim that $X_L$ is reduced, irreducible, or connected if and only if $X_{k'}$ is reduced, irreducible, or connected, respectively, for each finite subextension $L/k'/k$. | ||
|
||
Now, suppose that $X$ is geometrically irreducible, so that $X_{\bar{k}}$ is irreducible. But $\Spec\bar{k} \to \Spec k'$ is surjective, which is preserved by base change, so $X_{\bar{k}} \to X_{k'}$ is surjective, and the image of an irreducible topological space is again irreducible. So $X_{k'}$ is irreducible as claimed. Similarly, if $X$ is geometrically connected, then $X_{\bar{k}}$ is connected, and the image of a connected space is connected. | ||
Let's begin with the more straightforward directions. Let $K$ be a finite subextension of $L/k$, and the corresponding base-change morphisms $X_L \to X_K \to X$. First, suppose that $X_L$ is reduced. To show that $X_K$ is reduced, it suffices to show this on an open cover. Let $\Spec A$ be an open affine of $X_K$, and note that then $\Spec(A \otimes_K L)$ is an open affine in $X_L$ containing the preimage of $\Spec A$. So, the above morphism corresponds to the ring homomorphism $A \to A \otimes_K L$. But this map is injective since $A$ is a (free, hence) flat $K$-algebra, and the codomain is reduced as it comes from an open subscheme of a reduced scheme, so $A$ must be reduced as desired. | ||
|
||
We'll now address each converse. Suppose first that $X$ is not geometrically reduced, so that $X_{\bar{k}}$ is not reduced. Again, this can be checked locally, so it must be the case that some stalk $\scO_{X_{\bar{k}},p}$ is not a reduced ring. Choose an open affine $\Spec A \subseteq X$ containing the image of $p$, so that $\Spec(A \otimes_k \bar{k})$ is an open affine neighborhood of $X_{\bar{k}}$ containing $p$. Now $A \otimes_k \bar{k}$ is not reduced (else each of its localizations would be reduced, including at $p$), so we can choose a nonzero nilpotent | ||
Now, suppose that $X_L$ is irreducible. But $\Spec L \to \Spec K$ is surjective, which is preserved by base change, so $X_L \to X_K$ is surjective, and the image of an irreducible topological space is again irreducible. So $X_K$ is irreducible as claimed. Similarly, if $X_L$ is connected, then so is $X_K$ since the image of a connected space is connected. | ||
|
||
We'll now address each converse. Suppose first that $X_L$ is not reduced. Again, this can be checked locally, so it must be the case that some stalk $\scO_{X_L,p}$ is not a reduced ring. Choose an open affine $\Spec A \subseteq X$ containing the image of $p$, so that $\Spec(A \otimes_k L)$ is an open affine neighborhood of $X_L$ containing $p$. Now $A \otimes_k L$ is not reduced (else each of its localizations would be reduced, including at $p$), so we can choose a nonzero nilpotent | ||
\[ f = \sum_{i=1}^n a_i \otimes b_i \] | ||
for some $n$, some $a_1,\ldots,a_n \in A$, and some $b_1,\ldots,b_n \in \bar{k}$. But now each $b_i$ is algebraic over $k$ by design, and there are finitely many of them, so $k' = k[b_1,\ldots,b_n]$ is a finite extension of $k$. I claim that $X_{k'}$ is also not reduced. One of its affine neighborhoods is $\Spec(A \otimes_k k')$, but then this ring contains the element $f$. The map $A \otimes_k k' \to A \otimes_k \bar{k}$ is injective, so the fact that $f^N = 0$ in the larger ring means $f^N=0$ in the smaller one as well, so that $X_{k'}$ is not reduced as claimed. | ||
for some $n$, some $a_1,\ldots,a_n \in A$, and some $b_1,\ldots,b_n \in L$. But now each $b_i$ is algebraic over $k$ by design, and there are finitely many of them, so $K = k[b_1,\ldots,b_n]$ is a finite extension of $k$. I claim that $X_K$ is also not reduced. One of its affine neighborhoods is $\Spec(A \otimes_k K)$, but then this ring contains the element $f$. The map $A \otimes_k K \to A \otimes_k L$ is injective, so the fact that $f^N = 0$ in the latter ring means $f^N=0$ in the former one as well, so that $X_K$ is not reduced as claimed. | ||
|
||
Second, suppose that $X$ is not geometrically irreducible, so that $X_{\bar{k}}$ is not irreducible. If $X$ itself is not irreducible, we are done, so assume WLOG that $X$ is irreducible. Let $W_1,W_2$ be two distinct irreducible components of $X_{\bar{k}}$, and endow them with the induced reduced subscheme structure. By Lemma 3.2.6, there exist finite subextensions $K_1,K_2$ of $\bar{k}/k$ and reduced closed subschemes $Z_1 \subseteq X_{K_1}$ and $Z_2 \subseteq X_{K_2}$ such that $W_1 = (Z_1)_{\bar{k}}$ and $W_2 = (Z_2)_{\bar{k}}$. As noted in the proof of that lemma, we can replace $K_1,K_2$ with any finite extensions contained in $\bar{k}$, and so choosing, for example, the compositum allows us to assume $K_1 = K_2 = K$. But now again using that $\Spec\bar{k} \to \Spec K$ is surjective, we get that $W_i \to Z_i$ is surjective, and so each $Z_i$ is irreducible. Furthermore, I claim that each $Z_i$ is actually an irreducible component of $X_K$, which would complete the proof of this converse, since they are distinct (having different base changes in $X_{\bar{k}}$). Indeed, by similar reasoning to previous problems in this section, the generic points of $X_{\bar{k}},X_K$ all lie in the generic fiber. But the generic points of $W_1,W_2$ are generic points of $X_{\bar{k}}$, so they map to the unique generic point in $X$, and they also map to the generic points of $Z_1,Z_2$. So, the generic points of $Z_1,Z_2$ lie in the generic fiber and so must be generic points of $X_K$, i.e. they are full irreducible components. | ||
Second, suppose that $X_L$ is not irreducible. If $X$ itself is not irreducible, we are done, so assume WLOG that $X$ is irreducible. Let $W_1,W_2$ be two distinct irreducible components of $X_L$, and endow them with the induced reduced subscheme structure. By Lemma 3.2.6, there exist finite subextensions $K_1,K_2$ of $L/k$ and reduced closed subschemes $Z_1 \subseteq X_{K_1}$ and $Z_2 \subseteq X_{K_2}$ such that $W_1 = (Z_1)_L$ and $W_2 = (Z_2)_L$. As noted in the proof of that lemma, we can replace $K_1,K_2$ with any of their finite extensions contained in $L$, and so choosing, for example, the compositum allows us to assume $K_1 = K_2 = K$. But now again using that $\Spec L \to \Spec K$ is surjective, we get that $W_i \to Z_i$ is surjective, and so each $Z_i$ is irreducible. Furthermore, I claim that each $Z_i$ is actually an irreducible component of $X_K$, which would complete the proof of this converse, since they are distinct (having different base changes in $X_L$). Indeed, by similar reasoning to previous problems in this section, the generic points of $X_L,X_K$ all make up the generic fiber. But the generic points of $W_1,W_2$ are generic points of $X_L$, so they map to the unique generic point in $X$, and they also map to the generic points of $Z_1,Z_2$. So, the generic points of $Z_1,Z_2$ lie in the generic fiber and so must be generic points of $X_K$, i.e. their closures in $X_K$ are full irreducible components. | ||
|
||
Finally, suppose that $X$ is not geometrically connected, so that $X_{\bar{k}}$ is not connected. Then $\scO_{X_{\bar{k}}}(X_{\bar{k}})$ has a nontrivial idempotent $f$. But since $k \to \bar{k}$ is flat and $X$ is a Noetherian $k$-scheme, proposition 3.1.24 tells us that | ||
\[ \scO_{X_{\bar{k}}}(X_{\bar{k}}) \cong \scO_X(X) \otimes_k \bar{k} \] | ||
Under this isomorphism, we may write $f = \sum_{i=1}^n f_i \otimes b_i$ for some $f_1,\ldots,f_n \in \scO_X(X)$ and $b_1,\ldots,b_n \in \bar{k}$. As in the reduced case, we can then consider $K = k[b_1,\ldots,b_n]$ and conclude that | ||
Finally, suppose that $X_L$ is not connected. Then $\scO_{X_L}(X_L)$ has a nontrivial idempotent $f$. But since $k \to L$ is flat and $X$ is a Noetherian $k$-scheme, proposition 3.1.24 tells us that | ||
\[ \scO_{X_L}(X_L) \cong \scO_X(X) \otimes_k L \] | ||
Under this isomorphism, we may write $f = \sum_{i=1}^n f_i \otimes b_i$ for some $f_1,\ldots,f_n \in \scO_X(X)$ and $b_1,\ldots,b_n \in L$. As in the reduced case, we can then consider $K = k[b_1,\ldots,b_n]$ and conclude that | ||
\[ f \in \scO_X(X) \otimes K \cong \scO_{X_K}(X_K) \] | ||
so that $X_K$ is also disconnected. | ||
so that $X_K$ is also disconnected. This completes the proof, and of course, taking $L = \bar{k}$ handles the original problem. | ||
\end{proof} |