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

The following question is related to "Remark 2.2" in Christophe Cazanave's paper "Algebraic homotopy classes of algebraic functions". I decided to add the arxiv article-id to the questions title to invite other people who like to study this article to do the same. My hope is that this will lead to a culture of discussing arxiv articles on the overflow.

Question: Let $F_n$ be the open subscheme of $\mathbb{A}^{2n}=\mathrm{Spec}(k[a_{0},\ldots,a_{n-1},b_{0},\ldots,b_{n-1}])$ complementary to the hypersurface of equation $res_{n,n}(X^{n}+a_{n-1}X^{n-1}+\ldots+a_{0},b_{n-1}X^{n-1}+\ldots+b_{0})$. Let $R$ be a ring. The claim is that an $R$-point of $F_{n}$ is a pair $(A,B)$ of polynomials of $R[X]$, where $A$ is monic of degree $n$, $B$ is of degree strictly less than $n$ and the scalar $res_{n,n}(A,B)$ is invertible. How can I see that a morphism $\mathrm{Spec}(R)\rightarrow F_n$ gives (and is the same as) a pair of polynomials in $R[X]$?

share|cite|improve this question
Isn't this more or less by definition? To say that F_n is complementary to the described hypersurface is precisely to say that F_n represents the described functor. – Qiaochu Yuan Jan 12 '10 at 21:11
Just a suggestion: maybe put something like [Cazanave, 0912.2227] in the title? I have no idea who Cazanave is, but I suspect that if I had read this paper I'd have a better chance of remembering the author's name than the arXiv number. – Michael Lugo Jan 12 '10 at 21:29
I think that the statement is true, so it should be more or less by definition. I might have the wrong definitions?! Could you make this a little more explicit, please? – user2146 Jan 13 '10 at 9:25
Michael, I think [Cazanave, 0912.2227] would be too long. If not for this paper/question, then for other papers with more authors. I wanted to make it possible to search the MO for a certain article-id and to find all discussions related to this article. – user2146 Jan 13 '10 at 9:29
up vote 3 down vote accepted

I'm not so good on the scheme-theoretic language, so let me embed $F_n$ as the affine variety $\text{res}\_{n,n}(X^n + ..., b_{n-1} X^{n-1} + ...) y = 1$ one dimension up. Then a morphism $k[a_0, ... a_{n-1}, b_0, ... b_{n-1}, y]/(\text{stuff}) \to R$ is precisely (assuming that Cazanava means either $k = \mathbb{Z}$ or $R$ a $k$-algebra) a choice, for each variable $a_i, b_i, y$, of an element of $R$ subject to the condition that the resultant times $y$ is equal to $1$, i.e. the resultant is invertible in $R$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Let me denote the resultant just by $f$ and let $R$ be a $k$-algebra. A morphism $\mathrm{spec}(R)\rightarrow F_{n}=\mathrm{spec}(k[...]_{f})$ is the same as a $k$-alg morphism $k[...]\rightarrow R$ such that the image of $f$ is invertible and this morphism gives (and is determined by) the values in $R$ for the variables $a_i,b_i$. I was stupidly fixed to a particular stupid idea and that made me unable to see this elementary statement works. Your post helped me to correct my idea, thanks. – user2146 Jan 14 '10 at 14:14

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.