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 $f:X\rightarrow S$ be a flat, surjective morphism of complex spaces with reduced fibers over $S$ reduced. Q1: Is $X$ reduced too?

Q2: Is the property " reduced fiber" preserved by base change given by the normalization?

Rk: 1) We have some result of this kind in [EGA4], Cor (3.3.5) p.44.

2) We can apply [Matsumara], Cor(ii) p.189 but with the additional asumptions: $S$ is normal and $X$ locally pure dimensional.


share|cite|improve this question
For algebraic varieties over an algebraically closed fields, Q1 follows from EGA IV, Théorème 9.7.7 (the set of $s\in S$ such that $X_s$ is geometrically reduced is locally constructible in $S$) and the Corollaire you cited (which is also the Theorem in Matsumura as pointed out by Angelo). For Q2, if you ask whether $X\times_S S'\to S'$ has reduced fibers for any morphism $S'\to S$, then the answer is clearly yes because the original fibers are geometrically reduced. – Qing Liu Jan 3 '11 at 21:12

Dear kaddar, here is a partial answer.

According to a theorem of Douady, a flat map $f:X\to S$ between complex analytic spaces is always open . So if you assume that the fibers of $f$ are reduced and that your reduced space $S$ is actually smooth (i.e. is a manifold), then $X$ is indeed reduced : this follows from the Proposition on page 158 of Gerd Fischer's Complex Analytic Geometry (Springer, LNM 538, 1976).

Edit $\;$ On the evoked relation between flat and open, let me add the following. It is not true that an open morphism $f:X\to S$ of complex spaces is flat: the simplest counter-example is the immersion of a simple point into a double point i.e. the morphism of schemes $Spec \;\mathbb C \to Spec \; \mathbb C[\epsilon ] \quad(\epsilon^2=0)$ seen analytically. However if $X$ and $S$ are complex manifolds then it is true that $f$ open implies $f$ flat (Fischer, same page 158) and so for morphisms between manifolds you have the easy to remember equivalence flat=open, which helps understand the notoriously unintuitive notion of flatness.

share|cite|improve this answer

This is a consequence of the following result: if $A \to B$ is a flat local homomorphism of local rings, $A$ and $B/\mathfrak{m}_AB$ are reduced, then $B$ is reduced. Keeping in mind that reduced is equivalent to $R_0$ and $S_1$, this follows from Theorem 23.9 in Matsumura's Commutative Ring Theory.

I don't know what the second question means.

[Edit] I just noticed that the hypotheses in the cited theorem are actually stronger, so that it would imply the result for schemes but not for analytic spaces, at least not immediately. I need to think about it some more.

share|cite|improve this answer
Dear Georges, Thank you for the partial answer (I found another reference for this (with smooth base) :satz 2.4 p.245 in "Deformation komplexer Raume "of Grauert-Kerner in Math.Ann 153). Can we deduce from the case of smooth base the general case by considering the base change given by the natural injection of the smooth part $Reg(S)$ in $S$ . We must then show that the fiber product of $X$ by $Reg(S)$ over $S$ is an open, dense and reduced subspace of $X$. I think that density is due to the flatness which preserve schematic density and reducedness is due to smooth base case.... – kaddar Jan 4 '11 at 7:58
Thanks to Liu and Angelo for the good reference in EGA and Matsumara commutative algebra. Dear Angelo, in the second question, i want to know if a morphism with reduced fibers stay with reduced fibers after any base change $S'\rightarrow S$ between reduced complex spaces ? Liu say that the answer is yes because the notion of "geometrically reduced " and "reduced" agree in complex analytic geometric. – kaddar Jan 4 '11 at 8:11
It seems to me that the result is valid for $f:X\rightarrow S$ assumed to be open (or universally open in AG). For see this, we can argue as above on $Reg(S)$ by base change... – kaddar Jan 4 '11 at 13:50
Is the result realy true for open morphism? – kaddar Jan 5 '11 at 10:55

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.