2 fixed up the formatting in a hacky way, \newline doesn't seem to work?

Thinking of arbitrary tensor products of rings, $A=\otimes_i A_i$ ($i\in I$, an arbitrary index set), I have recently realized that $Spec(A)$ should be the product of the schemes $Spec(A_i)$, a priori in the category of affine schemes, but actually in the category of schemes, thanks to the string of equalities (where $X$ is a not necessarily affine scheme)

$$Hom_{Schemes} (X, Spec(A))= Hom_{Rings}(A,\Gamma(X,\mathcal O))=\prod_ {i\in I}Hom_{Rings}(A_i,\Gamma(X,\mathcal O))=\prod_ O))$$

$$=\prod_ {i\in I}Hom_{Schemes}(X,Spec(A_i))$$

Since this looks a little too easy, I was not quite convinced it was correct but a very reliable colleague of mine reassured me by explaining that the correct categorical interpretation of the more down to earth formula above is that the the category of affine schemes is a reflexive subcategory of the category of schemes. (Naturally the incredibly category-savvy readers here know that perfectly well, but I didn't at all.)

And now I am stumped: I had always assumed that infinite products of schemes don't exist and I realize I have no idea why I thought so!

Since I am neither a psychologist nor a sociologist, arguments like "it would be mentioned in EGA if they always existed " don't particularly appeal to me and I would be very grateful if some reader could explain to me what is known about these infinite products.

1

# Arbitrary products of schemes don't exist, do they?

Thinking of arbitrary tensor products of rings, $A=\otimes_i A_i$ ($i\in I$, an arbitrary index set), I have recently realized that $Spec(A)$ should be the product of the schemes $Spec(A_i)$, a priori in the category of affine schemes, but actually in the category of schemes, thanks to the string of equalities (where $X$ is a not necessarily affine scheme)

$$Hom_{Schemes} (X, Spec(A))= Hom_{Rings}(A,\Gamma(X,\mathcal O))=\prod_ {i\in I}Hom_{Rings}(A_i,\Gamma(X,\mathcal O))=\prod_ {i\in I}Hom_{Schemes}(X,Spec(A_i))$$

Since this looks a little too easy, I was not quite convinced it was correct but a very reliable colleague of mine reassured me by explaining that the correct categorical interpretation of the more down to earth formula above is that the the category of affine schemes is a reflexive subcategory of the category of schemes. (Naturally the incredibly category-savvy readers here know that perfectly well, but I didn't at all.)

And now I am stumped: I had always assumed that infinite products of schemes don't exist and I realize I have no idea why I thought so!

Since I am neither a psychologist nor a sociologist, arguments like "it would be mentioned in EGA if they always existed " don't particularly appeal to me and I would be very grateful if some reader could explain to me what is known about these infinite products.