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

Let $R$ be a normal noetherian domain. Write it as intersection of discrete valued domains $\bigcap_p R_p$. Assume I have schemes $X_p\rightarrow \operatorname{Spec}(R_p)$. Via the inclusion $B_{p,p^{\prime}}:=A_p\cap A_{p^{\prime}}\rightarrow A_p$, we can consider the structure sheaf $\mathcal{O}_{X_p}$ as $B_{p,p^{\prime}}$-algebra. Assume that for any pairs of such primes $p,p^{\prime}$ we have an isomorphism $\varphi_{p,p^{\prime}}:X_p\rightarrow X_{p^{\prime}}$ as $\operatorname{Spec}(B_{p,p^{\prime}})$-schemes, satisfying the usual cocycle condition. Under which conditions is it true that we can find a scheme $X\rightarrow \operatorname{Spec}(R)$ such that $X_p$ is the base change of $X$ via the morphism $\operatorname{Spec}(R_p)\rightarrow \operatorname{Spec}(R)$??

share|cite|improve this question

I think you may have slightly misstated your question. I think instead of $\phi_{p,p'}$, it is more natural to assume that there exists a scheme $X_{p,p'} \to \text{Spec}(B_{p,p'})$ and isomorphisms between $X_p$, resp. $X_{p'}$, with the corresponding base change of $X_{p,p'}$. With your current definition, even the collection of identity morphisms, i.e., $X_p = \text{Spec}(R_p)$, does not give a datum. In place of the cocycle condition, perhaps you want to insist that for every triple $p$, $p'$, $p''$, there exists a scheme $X_{p,p',p''}$ over $\text{Spec}(B_{p,p',p''})$ and isomorphisms of the base changes with $X_{p,p'}$, resp. $X_{p,p''}$, $X_{p',p''}$ that are compatible with the specified isomorphisms of the further base changes to $X_p$, $X_{p'}$ and $X_{p''}$. To me this seems like the natural condition to impose if you are trying to get a gluing result out of coproducts $\text{Spec}(R_p\cap R_{p'})$ rather than a descent result out of products $\text{Spec}(R_p\otimes_R R_{p'})$.

Since this is an "under what conditions" question, I cannot give a complete answer. However, I can give a counterexample. Let $k$ be $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}$, or any other countable, algebraically closed field. Let $R$ be $k[t]$. By Hilbert's Nullstellensatz, the set $M$ of maximal ideals $p$ of $k[t]$ is naturally bijective to the set $k$. For every subset $S\subset M$, form a datum, $$\mathcal{X}_S = ((X_{S,p})_{p\in M}, (X_{S,p,p'})_{p,p'\in M}),$$ as follows. Define $X_{S,p} \to \text{Spec}(R_p)$ to be the open subset $\text{Spec}(R_p) \setminus (\{p\}\cap S)$, i.e., either $\text{Spec}(R_p)$ if $p\not\in S$, or $\text{Spec}(R_p)\setminus \{p\}$ if $p\in S$. For any pair $p,p'$ of distinct primes, we similarly define $X_{S,p,p'}$ to be $\text{Spec}(B_{p,p'}) \setminus (\{p,p'\}\cap S)$. Then both $X_{S,p}$ and $X_{S,p'}$ are canonically isomorphic to the base change of $X_{S,p,p'}$.

If there were a scheme $X\to \text{Spec}(R)$ satisfying your condition, it would have to be $\text{Spec}(R)\setminus S$ with its natural monomorphism to $\text{Spec}(R)$. But for most choices of $S$, this is not a scheme. Indeed, there are only countably many locally closed subschemes of $\text{Spec}(R)$, but there are uncountably many choices of $S$.

There may be a result of the form you ask if you add the hypothesis that every $X_p\to \text{Spec}(R_p)$ is proper.

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.