Skip to main content
7 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jan 3, 2014 at 14:59 comment added S. Carnahan @CharlesSiegel I think you are correct that the map $(pt,A) \to (pt,\hat{A})$ of locally ringed spaces does not exist in general. On the other hand, the error with covariance versus contravariance is easy to fix.
Jan 23, 2010 at 20:32 comment added Harry Gindi This is of course why we need to impose the locality condition for covering functors of points.
Jan 23, 2010 at 20:25 history edited Martin Brandenburg CC BY-SA 2.5
added 305 characters in body; deleted 7 characters in body
Jan 7, 2010 at 16:08 comment added Charles Siegel Ahh, of course. Don't know what I was thinking. I'm withdrawing my objection.
Jan 7, 2010 at 15:46 comment added Emerton There's an additional restriction on morphisms of locally ringed spaces: the maps on stalks must be local maps. (This is not automatic; it must be imposed. Thus locally ringed spaces are not a full subcategory of ringed spaces.) This means that the map $A \to R$ must take the maximal ideal of $A$ into the nilradical of $R$, and hence if that maximal ideal is f.g. (e.g. principal), to a nilpotent ideal. Thus Martin's statement is correct (even for all Noetherian local rings).
Jan 7, 2010 at 14:50 comment added Charles Siegel There's something funny here in your set up, I think. A morphism of LRS is a continuous map and a map of sheaves in the other direction, so that natural map $A\to \hat{A}$ would give a map $|\hat{A}|\to|A|$ (using $|A|$ to denote the LRS you defined), so if it induces a bijection, then should be $Hom(Spec R,\hat{A})\to Hom(Spec R,A)$, but I still don't think I believe your statement. My proposed counterexample is in an answer below.
Dec 30, 2009 at 11:38 history asked Martin Brandenburg CC BY-SA 2.5