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 $f:X\to Y$ be a morphism of complex analytic spaces. Assume $f$ is flat (or, more generally, that there is a coherent sheaf on $X$ with support $X$ which is $f$-flat). Is $f$ an open map?

The rigid-analytic analogue is true (via Raynaud's formal models): see Corollary 7.2 in S. Bosch, Pure Appl. Math. Q., 5(4) :1435–1467, 2009. I don't know about the Berkovich side.

In the algebraic case it's also true (that's what led me to the question, see Specifically, if $K$ is an algebraically closed field with an absolute value, and $f:X\to Y$ is a universally open morphism of $K$-schemes of finite type, the the induced map on $K$-points is open (for the strong topology).

Note that in the complex analytic case, I don't know any reasonable substitute for "universally open". If I believe in the analogy, the result ($f$ is open) should be true assuming for instance that $Y$ is locally irreducible and $f$ is "equidimensional" in some sense (e.g. surjective, $X$ irreducible and the fiber dimension is constant). In this setting the case of fiber dimension 0 is known.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 13 down vote accepted

The answer is yes.

In fact, there is the following result, see Banica-Stanasila, Algebraic methods in the global theory of Complex Spaces, Theorem 2.12 p. 180.

Theorem. Let $f \colon X \to Y$ be a morphism of complex spaces and let $\mathscr{F}$ be a coherent analytic sheaf on $X$, which is flat with respect to $f$. Then the restriction of $f$ to supp($\mathscr{F}$) is an open map.

In particular, every flat morphism is open.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks! In fact the proof gives something stronger, in the "equidimensional" style. – Laurent Moret-Bailly Oct 5 '10 at 15:43
As V. Berkovich points out to me, the result seems due to Douady: see the final corollary in "Flatness and privilege", Ens. Math. 2, (14) fasc. 1 (1968), 47--74. But the proof in Banica-Stanasila appears more elementary. – Laurent Moret-Bailly Oct 6 '10 at 13:11
About the non-archimedean analytic case (from Berkovich again, unpublished): Let $f:X\to Y$ be a morphism of non-Archimedean analytic spaces, and $F$ a coherent $\mathcal{O}_X$-module. Suppose that $F$ is $f$-flat and $f$ has no boundary. Then the restriction of $f$ to the support of $F$ is an open map. – Laurent Moret-Bailly Oct 6 '10 at 13:18
I did not know Douady's reference. Thank you for pointing it out! – Francesco Polizzi Oct 6 '10 at 13:44
It seems to me that the notion of " universally open" agree with the notion of "open" in the complex analytic case but it is no true for universally equidimensional and equidimensional unless the base space is locally irreducible... – kaddar Oct 7 '10 at 17:05

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.