MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

It might be a not very specific problem. I just wanna know how much do we rely on the property of "base change closed". In the definition of Grothendieck pretopology, we require a collection of morphisms satisfied the "invariant under base change"

As far as I know, in noncommutative algebra. The flat morphism does not respect to base change in general. I heard from some guys in category theory telling me that the "topology" which satisfied the "base change closed" is called "square topology"(I am not sure whether I spell it in correct way).

My question is: if we do not have the property of "invariant under base change". How much algebraic geometry can we recover? Or Is there a big difference from classcial algebraic geometry?

In fact, I know some work of Kontsevich-Rosenberg on noncommutative algebraic geometry dealing with the topology which is lack of base change property. And they called "quasi-topology". I just wonder know if there are other people in category theory or in algebraic geometry ever considered this question.

Thanks in advance!

share|cite|improve this question

We want invariance under base change because we want to be able to pull back covering sieves. This is pretty much the entire point of a Grothendieck topology. Without the base-change axiom, we only have the local converse, if the pullback by every map of a covering sieve of a sieve S is a covering sieve, then S is a covering sieve. Base-change corresponds to the ability to pull back open covers of topological spaces by preimages of continuous maps.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.