2 added 11 characters in body

First some simple observations in order to motivate the question:

The functor $Set^{op} \to Set, X \to \{\text{subsets of }X\}, f \to (U \to f^{-1}(U))$ is representable. The representing object is $\{0,1\}$ with the universal subset $\{0\}$. Also the functor $Top^{op} \to Set, X \to \{\text{open subsets of }X\}$ is representable: Endow $\{0,1\}$ with the topology such that $\{0\}$ is the unique nontrivial open subset (Sierpinski space), then it is again the representing object.

But what about schemes. Is the functor $Sch^{op} \to Set, X \to \{\text{open subschemes of }X\}$ representable? Of course, we could also talk about open subsets of $X$. My first idea was to endow the Sierpinski space above with a scheme structure, using DVR, but this does not work properly.

1

# Is the functor of open subschemes representable?

First some simple observations in order to motivate the question:

The functor $Set^{op} \to Set, X \to \{\text{subsets of }X\}, f \to (U \to f^{-1}(U))$ is representable. The representing object is $\{0,1\}$ with the universal subset $\{0\}$. Also the functor $Top^{op} \to Set, X \to \{\text{open subsets of }X\}$ is representable: Endow $\{0,1\}$ with the topology such that $\{0\}$ is the unique nontrivial open subset (Sierpinski space), then it is again the representing object.

But what about schemes. Is the functor $Sch^{op} \to Set, X \to \{\text{open subschemes of }X\}$ representable? Of course, we could also talk about open subsets of $X$. My first idea was to endow the Sierpinski space above with a scheme structure, but this does not work properly.