Skip to main content
MathOverflow

Return to Question

added AG tag
Link
Yemon Choi
Yemon Choi
  • 25.8k
  • 9
  • 69
  • 156
added 68 characters in body
Source Link
brunoh
brunoh
  • 1.1k
  • 1
  • 12
  • 29

In the book "The Geometry of Schemes" of Eisenbud and Harris, page 26, it is said that the scheme theoretic closure of a closed subscheme Z of an open subscheme U is the closed subscheme of X defined by the sheaf of ideals consisting of regular functions whose restrictions to U vanish on Z. I cannot verify this assertion when the open immersion of U in X is not quasi-compact (I mean I cannot prove that this sheaf of ideals is quasi-coherent). Am I missing something here ?

In the book "The Geometry of Schemes" of Eisenbud and Harris, page 26, it is said that the scheme theoretic closure of a closed subscheme Z of an open subscheme U is the closed subscheme of X defined by the sheaf of ideals consisting of regular functions whose restrictions to U vanish on Z. I cannot verify this assertion when the open immersion of U in X is not quasi-compact. Am I missing something here ?

In the book "The Geometry of Schemes" of Eisenbud and Harris, page 26, it is said that the scheme theoretic closure of a closed subscheme Z of an open subscheme U is the closed subscheme of X defined by the sheaf of ideals consisting of regular functions whose restrictions to U vanish on Z. I cannot verify this assertion when the open immersion of U in X is not quasi-compact (I mean I cannot prove that this sheaf of ideals is quasi-coherent). Am I missing something here ?

Source Link
brunoh
brunoh
  • 1.1k
  • 1
  • 12
  • 29

Scheme theoretic closure of a locallly closed subscheme

In the book "The Geometry of Schemes" of Eisenbud and Harris, page 26, it is said that the scheme theoretic closure of a closed subscheme Z of an open subscheme U is the closed subscheme of X defined by the sheaf of ideals consisting of regular functions whose restrictions to U vanish on Z. I cannot verify this assertion when the open immersion of U in X is not quasi-compact. Am I missing something here ?