Skip to main content

Timeline for Why is this not an algebraic space?

Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5

8 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Dec 24, 2009 at 18:02 comment added Anton Geraschenko @James Borger: Can you provide a reference for "the quotient has representable diagonal iff the relation is a scheme"? I recall working through a proof of this once (based on the proof of 5.7.2 in Raynaud-Gruson), but I remember that it required a quasi-finiteness hypothesis to apply EGA IV 18.12.12, and I didn't see a way to eliminate the hypothesis. If I have a chance, I'll try to reconstruct the argument and see where it came up.
Dec 22, 2009 at 17:04 comment added S. Carnahan I think I see my confusion. SGA1 Exp 1 1.4 seems to suggest that finite type is necessary for a morphism to be etale, but EGA4.4 17.3.1 replaces this with locally of finite presentation.
Dec 22, 2009 at 12:26 comment added JBorger @C.S-P.: If you have an equivalence relation on a scheme, then the quotient should have representable diagonal if and only if the equivalence relation is a scheme. @S.C.: Yes, that's correct -- the projection isn't even quasi-compact
Dec 22, 2009 at 7:29 comment added S. Carnahan Perhaps I'm missing something, but I was under the impression that the projection from R to G_m is not of finite type.
Dec 16, 2009 at 3:15 comment added Chris Schommer-Pries Thanks for these remarks! So the definition of algebraic space that I was taught only requires that the diagonal is representable, not necessarily quasi-compact. I'm not an algebraic geometer so I'm a little rusty. Does this example have a representable diagonal? Is there an easy criteria that would guarantee this?
Dec 16, 2009 at 0:30 history edited JBorger CC BY-SA 2.5
deleted 4 characters in body
Dec 15, 2009 at 23:02 history edited JBorger CC BY-SA 2.5
deleted 4 characters in body
Dec 15, 2009 at 22:15 history answered JBorger CC BY-SA 2.5