8
$\begingroup$

I would like to see a clear, rigorous and elementary proof of the following statement:

Let X be a (not necessary quasi-projective, separated) algebraic variety over the complex numbers, and let U,V be two affine open subsets of X. Then the intersection of U and V is affine.

Does the proof change if one substitutes "scheme" for "variety"?

$\endgroup$
9
  • 10
    $\begingroup$ This is homework $\endgroup$ Mar 18, 2010 at 19:33
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Duh! I was confused... For schemes, this property is the most important consequence of separatedness. For non-separated schemes, it'll be wildly unture (there is a weaker notion of quasiseparatedness which means that intersections of open affines are finite unions of open affines, but there are schemes that don't even have this property.) $\endgroup$ Mar 18, 2010 at 19:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @llya: this is true and it is equivalent to say any algebraic variety is semi-separated. $\endgroup$ Mar 18, 2010 at 19:50
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Muthiah was right, it's easy: just take the diagonal inside the product of the two open affines etc. $\endgroup$
    – Qfwfq
    Mar 18, 2010 at 20:22
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The asnwer is in textbooks as quoted. But some comments. Thomason and Trobaugh have introduced a notion of semi-separatedness, which means that this scheme has an affine cover with affine double intersections. Of course, this is weaker than separatedness. In noncommutative geometry almost all interesting schemes are not semi-separated (principal example: quantum flag varieties). $\endgroup$ Mar 24, 2010 at 19:53

0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.