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


I want to consider a module $P$ on a product $X \times Y$ of varieties over a field of characteristic zero, such that $P$ is flat over $X$. Furthermore I want to consider for each closed point $x$ on $X$ the natural map

$i_x:Y\rightarrow X\times Y$,

which comes from the cartesian diagram induced by the inclusion of $x$ in $X$, so naively it is just: sending a point $y$ on $Y$ to $(x,y)$ for that fixed $x$. With $P_x$ I want to denote the pullback of $P$ via $i_x$.

Assume that for every closed $x$ you have that $P_x$ is the skyscraper $k(y)$ for a closed point $y$ on $Y$. Then I can define a map of sets

$f:Cl(X)\rightarrow Cl(Y)$

between the closed points $Cl(X)$ and $Cl(Y)$ on $X$ and $Y$. My question: can you use this $f$ to define a real morphism between $X$ and $Y$ as varieties?

Remark: in the case I am interested in the f is bijective. Does this then imply that, if the extension exists, it is automatically an iso?


share|cite|improve this question

I will assume that $X$ is normal. Let $Z$ be the support of $P$ on $X\times Y$. Then by your assumption $Z$ projects bijectively onto $X$. Since we are in characteristic $0$, this map is separable, so by Zariski's main theorem, this is an isomorphism. Then composing the inverse with this isomorphism with the projection to $Y$ you get a morphism $X\to Y$.

share|cite|improve this answer

I saw this question while trying to understand the proof of Cor. 5.23 of Huybrecht's Furier-Mukai transform. With exactly the same assumptions, there is a conclusion that using local sections of the module one can define a morphism. This cannot be difficult, but I am in the middle of understanding it. There is also an answer to the second question: if varieties are smooth then it is an iso. If not Huybrechts uses the assumption that derived categories are equivalent.

share|cite|improve this answer
Just to my prev. note that is not good: 1. In Cor. 5.23 one works with smooth varieties (but not nec. in char 0) 2. For isomorphism there are two cases distinguished: in char 0 (as an easy consequence) or not in char 0, where an inverse in constructed (using other assumptions) 3. "Choosing local sections of P shows that it indeed defines the morphism f:X->Y" (P is the sheaf on XxY, flat over X). This should be easy and characteristic free. Piotr can you see it? Definitely support of P is a graph, but I would much appreciate a (preferably algebraic) proof :) Best – user26473 Sep 13 '12 at 9:33

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.