Skip to main content
added 125 characters in body
Source Link
Pulcinella
  • 5.7k
  • 1
  • 15
  • 55

You can define properness for (not necessarily DM) stacks, this is in Olsson's book and in terms of t3suji's answer is a "special definition".

Definition: (Olsson "Algebraic spaces and stacks", p.210) A map of schemes $f:\mathcal{X}\to\mathcal{Y}$ is proper if it is separated, of finite type and universally closed.

  • $f:\mathcal{X}\to\mathcal{Y}$ is separated if the diagonal $\Delta: \mathcal{X}\to\mathcal{X}\times_\mathcal{Y}\mathcal{X}$ is proper (as $\Delta$ is always representable, so you can define proper as in point two of t3suji's answer: it means that the pullback of $\Delta$ along $Z\to \mathcal{X}\times_\mathcal{Y}\mathcal{X}$ (for $Z$ a scheme) is a proper map).
  • A map $f:\mathcal{X}\to Y$ to a scheme is closed if the image of every closed substack $\mathcal{Z}\subseteq\mathcal{X}$ is closed.
  • A map $f:\mathcal{X}\to\mathcal{Y}$ is universally closed if its pullback by any map $Y\to \mathcal{Y}$ (for $Y$ a scheme) is closed.

So for instance, is $BG$ proper? The diagonal map is $BG\to BG\times_{\text{pt}}BG = B(G^2)$, and taking a pullback \begin{array}{ccc} G&\xrightarrow{}& \text{pt}\\ \downarrow&&\downarrow\\ BG& \xrightarrow{} & BG\times BG \end{array} we see that $BG$ is not proper unless $G$ is proper. I think conversely that $BG$ should probably be proper if $G$ is. More generally, this implies that if $\mathcal{X}$ is a proper Artin stack, the stabiliser groups of points are proper groups.

You can define properness for (not necessarily DM) stacks, this is in Olsson's book and in terms of t3suji's answer is a "special definition".

Definition: (Olsson "Algebraic spaces and stacks", p.210) A map of schemes $f:\mathcal{X}\to\mathcal{Y}$ is proper if it is separated, of finite type and universally closed.

  • $f:\mathcal{X}\to\mathcal{Y}$ is separated if the diagonal $\Delta: \mathcal{X}\to\mathcal{X}\times_\mathcal{Y}\mathcal{X}$ is proper (as $\Delta$ is always representable, so you can define proper as in point two of t3suji's answer: it means that the pullback of $\Delta$ along $Z\to \mathcal{X}\times_\mathcal{Y}\mathcal{X}$ (for $Z$ a scheme) is a proper map).
  • A map $f:\mathcal{X}\to Y$ to a scheme is closed if the image of every closed substack $\mathcal{Z}\subseteq\mathcal{X}$ is closed.
  • A map $f:\mathcal{X}\to\mathcal{Y}$ is universally closed if its pullback by any map $Y\to \mathcal{Y}$ (for $Y$ a scheme) is closed.

So for instance, is $BG$ proper? The diagonal map is $BG\to BG\times_{\text{pt}}BG = B(G^2)$, and taking a pullback \begin{array}{ccc} G&\xrightarrow{}& \text{pt}\\ \downarrow&&\downarrow\\ BG& \xrightarrow{} & BG\times BG \end{array} we see that $BG$ is not proper unless $G$ is proper. I think conversely that $BG$ should probably be proper if $G$ is.

You can define properness for (not necessarily DM) stacks, this is in Olsson's book and in terms of t3suji's answer is a "special definition".

Definition: (Olsson "Algebraic spaces and stacks", p.210) A map of schemes $f:\mathcal{X}\to\mathcal{Y}$ is proper if it is separated, of finite type and universally closed.

  • $f:\mathcal{X}\to\mathcal{Y}$ is separated if the diagonal $\Delta: \mathcal{X}\to\mathcal{X}\times_\mathcal{Y}\mathcal{X}$ is proper (as $\Delta$ is always representable, so you can define proper as in point two of t3suji's answer: it means that the pullback of $\Delta$ along $Z\to \mathcal{X}\times_\mathcal{Y}\mathcal{X}$ (for $Z$ a scheme) is a proper map).
  • A map $f:\mathcal{X}\to Y$ to a scheme is closed if the image of every closed substack $\mathcal{Z}\subseteq\mathcal{X}$ is closed.
  • A map $f:\mathcal{X}\to\mathcal{Y}$ is universally closed if its pullback by any map $Y\to \mathcal{Y}$ (for $Y$ a scheme) is closed.

So for instance, is $BG$ proper? The diagonal map is $BG\to BG\times_{\text{pt}}BG = B(G^2)$, and taking a pullback \begin{array}{ccc} G&\xrightarrow{}& \text{pt}\\ \downarrow&&\downarrow\\ BG& \xrightarrow{} & BG\times BG \end{array} we see that $BG$ is not proper unless $G$ is proper. I think conversely that $BG$ should probably be proper if $G$ is. More generally, this implies that if $\mathcal{X}$ is a proper Artin stack, the stabiliser groups of points are proper groups.

Source Link
Pulcinella
  • 5.7k
  • 1
  • 15
  • 55

You can define properness for (not necessarily DM) stacks, this is in Olsson's book and in terms of t3suji's answer is a "special definition".

Definition: (Olsson "Algebraic spaces and stacks", p.210) A map of schemes $f:\mathcal{X}\to\mathcal{Y}$ is proper if it is separated, of finite type and universally closed.

  • $f:\mathcal{X}\to\mathcal{Y}$ is separated if the diagonal $\Delta: \mathcal{X}\to\mathcal{X}\times_\mathcal{Y}\mathcal{X}$ is proper (as $\Delta$ is always representable, so you can define proper as in point two of t3suji's answer: it means that the pullback of $\Delta$ along $Z\to \mathcal{X}\times_\mathcal{Y}\mathcal{X}$ (for $Z$ a scheme) is a proper map).
  • A map $f:\mathcal{X}\to Y$ to a scheme is closed if the image of every closed substack $\mathcal{Z}\subseteq\mathcal{X}$ is closed.
  • A map $f:\mathcal{X}\to\mathcal{Y}$ is universally closed if its pullback by any map $Y\to \mathcal{Y}$ (for $Y$ a scheme) is closed.

So for instance, is $BG$ proper? The diagonal map is $BG\to BG\times_{\text{pt}}BG = B(G^2)$, and taking a pullback \begin{array}{ccc} G&\xrightarrow{}& \text{pt}\\ \downarrow&&\downarrow\\ BG& \xrightarrow{} & BG\times BG \end{array} we see that $BG$ is not proper unless $G$ is proper. I think conversely that $BG$ should probably be proper if $G$ is.