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

In the book "The Geometry of Schemes" of Eisenbud and Harris, page 26, it is said that the scheme theoretic closure of a closed subscheme Z of an open subscheme U is the closed subscheme of X defined by the sheaf of ideals consisting of regular functions whose restrictions to U vanish on Z. I cannot verify this assertion when the open immersion of U in X is not quasi-compact (I mean I cannot prove that this sheaf of ideals is quasi-coherent). Am I missing something here ?

share|cite|improve this question
Have you compared with the counterexamples in the Stacks project concerning schematic closure? – Martin Brandenburg Oct 24 '10 at 22:30
Thanks for the tip & link. Will do it. – brunoh Oct 24 '10 at 23:03
up vote 2 down vote accepted

It seems indeed that example 2.10 in the Stacks project morphisms of schemes chapter provides a counter example, where the sheaf of ideals of regular functions whose restrictions to U vanish on Z is not quasi-coherent, because if it were part (3) of lemma 4.3 would be fulfilled. Thank you again for this hint, and if I am not mistaken, I have answered my own question, and an errata should be added for this book on page 26, where the open immersion of U in X should be supposed quasi-compact.

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.