added lec07
This commit is contained in:
@@ -0,0 +1,160 @@
|
||||
\documentclass{lecture}
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{document}
|
||||
|
||||
\section{Functor of points}
|
||||
|
||||
Reference: Demargue-Gabriel: Groups algebraiguexue
|
||||
|
||||
We want to define quotient group schemes. For scheme $S$, $S$-subgroup $H\hookrightarrow G$ we want a short exact sequence
|
||||
\[ 0 \to H(T) \to G(T) \to (G/H)(T) \to 0 \,.\]
|
||||
But the presheaf $G/H$ is not generally a sheaf.
|
||||
|
||||
As an ansatz, consider the yoneda embedding
|
||||
\[ y:\operatorname{Sch}_S \hookrightarrow \operatorname{PSh}(\operatorname{Sch}_S) \,.\]
|
||||
Grothendieck showed: the fpqc-topology is subcanonical, ie. presentable presheaves are sheaves in the fpqc-topology. Therefore, it may be useful to consider the fppf-sheafification of $(T\mapsto G(T)/H(T)).$ (why fppf and not fpqc: later)
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{bem}Let be:
|
||||
|
||||
LRS = category of locally ringed spaces
|
||||
|
||||
Sch = category of schemes
|
||||
|
||||
Aff = category of affine schemes
|
||||
|
||||
All of these are full subcats of each other.
|
||||
|
||||
For
|
||||
\[ y:\operatorname{Sch}_S \hookrightarrow \operatorname{PSh}(\operatorname{Sch}_S) \,,\]
|
||||
our goal is to consider the essential image of $y$ without reference to $\operatorname{Sch}_S$
|
||||
\end{bem}
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{bem}[Ansatz]
|
||||
Schemes are build from affine schemes through glueing on open immersions, i.e. every scheme is a colimit (coequalizer) of affine schemes and open immersions
|
||||
\[ \coprod_{i,j\in I\;k\in J}\Spec(B_{i,j}) \,\substack{\to\\[-1em]\to}\, \coprod_{i\in I}\Spec (A_i) \to X \,.\]
|
||||
\end{bem}
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{bsp}
|
||||
For scheme $X$ and open subschemes $U,V\subseteq X$ with $U\cup V=X$ the canonical map
|
||||
\[ y(U)\amalg_{y(W)}y(V) \to y(X) \]
|
||||
is not generally an isomorphism in $\operatorname{PSh}(\operatorname{Sch})$ for $W=U\cap V$.
|
||||
|
||||
But after sheafification $a:\operatorname{PSh}(\operatorname{Sch})\to\operatorname{Sh}(\operatorname{Sch})$ we get two isomorphisms (since presheaves are reflective subcat of sheaves)
|
||||
\[ a(y(U)\amalg_{y(W)}y(V)) \to a(y(U))\amalg_{a(y(W))}a(y(V)) \to a(y(X))=y(X) \,. \]
|
||||
\end{bsp}
|
||||
|
||||
Question: What is an open immersion between affine schemes?
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{satz}
|
||||
Let $f:X\to Y$ be a morphism of schemes. TFAE (?)
|
||||
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
|
||||
\item $f$ is open immersion,
|
||||
\item $f$ is étale,
|
||||
\item $f$ is flat mono of locally finite presentation.
|
||||
\end{enumerate}
|
||||
\end{satz}
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{bem}
|
||||
A family $\{\Spec(A_i)\to\Spec(A)\}_{i\in I}$ of open immersions is an {open covering} iff it can be verfeinert by an open covering of the form $\{\Spec(A_{f_\alpha})\to\Spec(A)\}_{\alpha}$.
|
||||
TFAE
|
||||
\begin{enumerate}
|
||||
\item $\{\Spec(A_{f_\alpha})\to\Spec(A)\}_{\alpha}$ is an open covering,
|
||||
\item $A\to \prod_\alpha A_{f_\alpha}$ is faithfully flat,
|
||||
\item $(1)=(f_\alpha\mid\alpha)\subseteq A$.
|
||||
\end{enumerate}
|
||||
\end{bem}
|
||||
|
||||
$\Sh(\Sch) \simeq \Sh(\Aff)$ and there we only need open immersions:
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{bem}
|
||||
Following the preceding remark, we have the sites $\operatorname{Aff}^{\operatorname{Zar}}$ of affine schmes with zariksi topology.
|
||||
|
||||
The restriction $\operatorname{PSh}(\operatorname{Sch})\to\operatorname{PSh}(\operatorname{Aff})$ induces an equivalence of cats $\operatorname{Sh}(\operatorname{Sch})\to\operatorname{Sh}(\operatorname{Aff})$ by the comparison lemma.
|
||||
A quasi inverse is given by
|
||||
\[ F\mapsto \hat F :X\mapsto \lim_{\Spec A\to X} F(\Spec A)\,.\]
|
||||
The essential image of
|
||||
\[ \Sch \xhookrightarrow{y} \Sh_{\Zar}(\Sch) \xrightarrow{i^\ast} \Sh_{\Zar}(\Aff) \]
|
||||
consists exactly of those sheaves that can be written as coequalizer of a diagram of the form
|
||||
\[ \coprod_{i,j,k}\Spec(A_{ijk})\,\substack{\to\\[-1em]\to}\,\coprod_i\Spec A_i \]
|
||||
\end{bem}
|
||||
|
||||
The problem is to check whether something is or is not a sheaf in $\Sh_{\Zar}(\Aff)$.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{bem}
|
||||
Let $\Psh$ denote $\Psh(\Aff)=\operatorname{Fun}(\operatorname{CRing},\operatorname{Set})$ and $\Aff=\operatorname{im}(y:\operatorname{CRing}^{\operatorname{op}}\to \operatorname{PSh})$. Set $S(R):=y(R)$ as an "affine scheme".
|
||||
|
||||
For $A$ ring, $X\in\Psh$, $p\in X(A)$ we have
|
||||
\[ p^\#:S(A)\to X \]
|
||||
in $\Psh$ via $S(A)(R)\to X(R), \phi\mapsto X(\phi)(R)$.
|
||||
|
||||
A subfunctor $U\hookrightarrow X$ in $\Psh$ is an equivalence class of monos in $\Psh$.
|
||||
\end{bem}
|
||||
|
||||
When is a subfunctor an open immersion? "Open immersion" is local on target, so we can check this on open coverings by affine schemes. These are of the shortly following form
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{bem}
|
||||
For an ideal $I\subseteq A$ we have decompostion $V(I)\to \Spec (A) \leftarrow D(I)$. For ringmorphism $\phi:A\to R$ have
|
||||
\[ \Spec(\phi)^{-1}(D(I)=D(\phi(I)\cdot R)) \,. \]
|
||||
Therefore
|
||||
\[\begin{tikzcd}
|
||||
\Spec(R) \ar[r] \ar[dr,dashed,"\exists !"] & \Spec(A) \ar[d] \\
|
||||
& D(I)
|
||||
\end{tikzcd}\]
|
||||
factorizes iff $\phi(I)\cdot R=R$.
|
||||
\end{bem}
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{definition}
|
||||
\begin{itemize}
|
||||
\item For ideal $I\subseteq A$ define subfunctor $S(A)_I\subseteq S(A)$ via
|
||||
\[S(A)_I(R).=\{\phi:A\to R\mid \phi(I)\cdot R =R\}\]
|
||||
(by the above lemma, these are precisely the points which come from the open subscheme $D(I)$)
|
||||
\item An \emph{open subfunctor} is a subfunctor $U\hookrightarrow X$ such that for every morphism $S(A)\to X$ the projection map from the (pointwise) fibre product $U\times_X S(A)$ to a subfunctor of the form $S(A)_I$ is an isomorphism for a suitable ideal $I\subseteq A$.
|
||||
\end{itemize}
|
||||
\end{definition}
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{bsp}
|
||||
For $p\neq q$ prime numbers we have $X=\Spec \Z=D(p)\cup D(q)$. But
|
||||
\[ X(\Z)\supsetneq D(p)(\Z)\cup D(q)(\Z) \,, \]
|
||||
since both sets on the right are empty.
|
||||
\end{bsp}
|
||||
|
||||
So this isn't quite right either. Maybe fields?
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{definition}
|
||||
\begin{itemize}
|
||||
\item A family $(U_i\hookrightarrow X)_{i\in I}$ of open immersions in $\Psh$ is an \emph{open covering}, if for every field $k$ we have
|
||||
\[X(k) = \bigcup_{i\in I} U_i(k) \,.\]
|
||||
(here we could replace "field" by "local ring". The idea is that "points" are specs of fields, and we shouldnt require these covering conditions for all objects, just for points)
|
||||
\item For ring $A$ a \emph{partition of unity} is given by a finite family $(f_i,x_i)$ with $f_i,x_i\in A$ such that
|
||||
\[ \sum_i f_i x_i = 1 \,.\]
|
||||
In this case $(S(A)_{(f_i)})_{i\in I}$ is an open covering of $S(A)$.
|
||||
\item A presheaf $X\in\Psh$ is \emph{local} (ie. it is a \emph{sheaf}) if for all $A\in \operatorname{CRing}$ and all partitions of unity in $A$ the induced diagram
|
||||
\[\begin{tikzcd}
|
||||
X(A) \to \prod_i X(A_{f_i}) \,\substack{\to\\[-1em]\to}\, \prod_{i,j} X(A{f_if_j})
|
||||
\end{tikzcd}\]
|
||||
is a limit-diagram.
|
||||
\item A \emph{scheme} is a local presheaf that allows an open covering by affine schemes.
|
||||
\end{itemize}
|
||||
\end{definition}
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{bem}
|
||||
An open subfunctor of a scheme is a scheme.
|
||||
\end{bem}
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{bem}
|
||||
\begin{itemize}
|
||||
\item Let $X=(|X|,\OO_X)$ be an locally ringed space. Obtain $S(X)\in\Psh$ with $S(X)(R)=\Hom_{\LRS}(\Spec(R),X)$
|
||||
\item For $U\subseteq X$ open $S(U)\subseteq S(X)$ open subfunctor.
|
||||
\item A covering $X=\bigcup_{i\in I} U_I$ yields an open covering $(S(U_i))_i$ of $S(X)$.
|
||||
\end{itemize}
|
||||
\end{bem}
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{satz}
|
||||
A locally ringed space $X$ is a scheme iff $S(X)$ is a scheme.
|
||||
\end{satz}
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{bem}
|
||||
The Vorschrift $X\mapsto S(X)$ defines a functor $\LRS\to\Psh$ that has a left adjoint.
|
||||
\end{bem}
|
||||
\end{document}
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user