4
$\begingroup$

Let $f:X\to Y$ be a universal homeomorphism of regular (excellent finite-dimensional) schemes, $Z\subset Y$ be a regular subscheme. Is $f^{-1}(Z)$ necessarily regular?

$\endgroup$

2 Answers 2

8
$\begingroup$

Well, $f^{-1}Z$ could easily be non-reduced (for example, take the relative Frobenius morphism $\mathbb A^1_k \to \mathbb A^1_k$, defined by the embedding $k[y] = k[x^p] \subseteq k[x]$, where $k$ is a field of characteristic $p > 0$, and let $Z \subseteq \mathbb A^1$ be defined by $y = 0$), so I would guess that the question should be interpreted as asking whether $f^{-1}Z$ with its reduced structure is regular. But the answer is negative even in this case. For example, take the morphism $\mathbb A^2_k \to \mathbb A^2_k$ defined by the embedding $k[y,t] = k[x^p, t] \subseteq k[x, t]$, and let $Z \subseteq \mathbb A^2_k $ be defined by $y + t^{p+1} = 0$.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Can't we base-change $f : X \to Y$ with $Z$ and obtain: $g : f^{-1}(Z) \to Z$? This also is a universal homeomorphism by construction, right? So now we have a universal homeomorphism to a regular scheme, but a regular scheme is weakly normal, see A. Andreotti and E. Bombieri, ``Sugli omeomorfismi delle varietà algebriche''.

Therefore $g$ is an isomorphism at least as long as $f^{-1}(Z)$ is reduced and the map $g$ is birational.

EDIT: My argument that $f^{-1}(Z)$ was reduced was junk. I shouldn't have tried to do math while on the run. But as long as $f^{-1}(Z)$ is reduced and $g$ is birational, then I think things are ok.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, why $f$ being a universal homeomorphism contradicts its generic inseparablity? $\endgroup$ Mar 20, 2011 at 13:09
  • $\begingroup$ I was being dumb. Nevermind. $\endgroup$ Mar 20, 2011 at 18:57

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.