Skip to main content
added 179 characters in body
Source Link
Joel Kamnitzer
  • 4.6k
  • 27
  • 40

What I had in mind was something like the following:

X is separated/proper iff for all curves C and all maps f : C \ c -> X, f extends to C in at most/exactly one way.

Is there a good reason why this cannot possibly be true?

Here X denotes a reduced scheme of finite type of a field k (I guess people usually call this prevariety). I am mostly interested in the case where k is algebraically closed.

What I had in mind was something like the following:

X is separated/proper iff for all curves C and all maps f : C \ c -> X, f extends to C in at most/exactly one way.

Is there a good reason why this cannot possibly be true?

What I had in mind was something like the following:

X is separated/proper iff for all curves C and all maps f : C \ c -> X, f extends to C in at most/exactly one way.

Is there a good reason why this cannot possibly be true?

Here X denotes a reduced scheme of finite type of a field k (I guess people usually call this prevariety). I am mostly interested in the case where k is algebraically closed.

Source Link
Joel Kamnitzer
  • 4.6k
  • 27
  • 40

Is there a version of the valuative criteria for separateness/properness for varieties?

What I had in mind was something like the following:

X is separated/proper iff for all curves C and all maps f : C \ c -> X, f extends to C in at most/exactly one way.

Is there a good reason why this cannot possibly be true?