1
$\begingroup$

Let $k$ be a field. Consider two affine lines $$U_1 = \text{Spec}\ k[s] \ \ \text{and} \ \ U_2 = \text{Spec}\ k[t]$$ over $k$. Let $p_1$ and $p_2$ be the origins on $U_1$ and $U_2$ respectively. Construct a scheme $X$ by gluing $U_1$ and $U_2$ along $$V_1 = U_1 - \{p_1\} \ \ \text{and} \ \ V_2 = U_2 - \{p_2\}$$ via the isomorphism $V_1 \to V_2$ induced by the ring map $$k[t,t^{-1}] \to k[s,s^{-1}], \quad t \mapsto s.$$ Then $X$ is a non-separated non-affine smooth scheme over $k$, and is known as an affine line with a double origin.

What is the Chow ring $A(X)$ of $X$?

PS1: To be precise, the Chow ring $A(Y)$ for a smooth scheme $Y$ over $k$ is the one defined in Chapter 8 in Fulton's Intersection Theory.

PS2: The description of the question above is made more explicit thanks to a comment of Evgeny Shinder.

$\endgroup$
6
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Probably you mean that $A_0(X) = 0$, and $A_1(X) = \mathbf{Z}$ (it's not a zero ring). For your $X$, you need to specify an isomorphism between $V_1$ and $V_2$; if $p_1$ and $p_2$ is the same closed point on both, the same argument as in the algebraically closed case should work. If $p_1$ and $p_2$ are different points (especially, with different residue fields) it's not clear what the gluing between $V_1$ and $V_2$ is. $\endgroup$ Jul 6, 2022 at 10:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I get something else. $\endgroup$
    – Johan
    Jul 6, 2022 at 13:48
  • $\begingroup$ @EvgenyShinder You are right. I edited the question. The two points $p_1$ and $p_2$ are both closed of degree one, but they are not the "same" point as they belong to two different affine lines. $\endgroup$ Jul 6, 2022 at 14:34
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I suppose by applying the automorphis $x \mapsto x + c$ we can assume that $p_1 = p_2 = 0$. Then it should be the same result as over algebraically closed field with the same proof. $\endgroup$ Jul 6, 2022 at 16:11
  • $\begingroup$ @Johan What do you get? To the OP, what definition of Chow ring do you use? Be aware: the definition in Fulton’s textbook is different than the definition that Grothendieck used (this is most evident for nonreduced schemes). $\endgroup$ Jul 6, 2022 at 17:40

2 Answers 2

1
$\begingroup$

I apologize for writing something wrong in my comment. Here is a quick amplification of the valid part of my comment. Let $X$ be a scheme that is finitely presented over $\text{Spec}\ k$ for a field $k$. Then Grothendieck's definition of $\text{CH}^1(X)$ as the first graded piece of the gamma filtration is equal to $\text{Pic}(X)$. This is explained, for instance, in Manin's "Lectures on the K-functor in algebraic geometry." However, Fulton's definition is insensitive to nonreduced structure on $X$ and to seminormalization. Thus, Fulton's definition equals $\text{CH}^1$ of the seminormalization of the reduced scheme of $X$.

However, as noted by others, the two definitions do appear to agree for the line with doubled origin. The Picard group is a free cyclic group. I do not know if the two definitions always agree for smooth, finitely presented, but possibly non-separated $k$-schemes. You might check SGA 6, since the seminar participants worked there in great generality (and later authors, such as Thomason, worked in even greater generality).

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ It's fine. I don't remember what you wrote. Thanks for the explanations on the different definitions of Chow ring. $\endgroup$ Jul 7, 2022 at 20:21
1
$\begingroup$

Let $q_i$ be the image of $p_i$ in $X$ for $i=1,2.$ Then the Chow ring $$A(X) = \mathbb{Z}[X] \oplus \mathbb{Z}[q_1] \cong \mathbb{Z}^2.$$

Since the scheme $X$ is one-dimensional, it suffices to compute two Chow groups: $A^0(X) = A_1(X)$ and $A^1(X) = A_0(X)$. Let $k[x]$ denote the ring $\mathcal{O}_X(X)$ of global sections on $X.$

First, we show $A_1(X) = \mathbb{Z}[X]$. Note that $X$ is a connected scheme. Let $X_1$ and $X_2$ be the images of $U_1$ and $U_2$ in $X$ respectively. Then $X_1$ and $X_2$ are open non-closed subschemes of $X.$ Thus the only closed one-dimensional subscheme of $X$ is itself, which implies that $X$ is irreducible and $A_1(X) = \mathbb{Z}[X]$.

Next, we show $A_0(X) = \mathbb{Z}[q_1]$. Take a closed point $q$ of $X.$ Suppose $q$ is not $q_1$ or $q_2.$ Then it is a closed point of $X_1 \cap X_2$, i.e., a maximal ideal $(f(x)) \neq (x)$ for some irreducible polynomial $f(x)$ in $k[x]$. Therefore, $q$ is rationally equivalent to zero as it is the divisor of the rational function $f(x)$ on $X.$ On the other hand, the zero-cycle $q_1+q_2$ is the divisor of the rational function $x$ on $X$, and hence is rationally equivalent to zero. But $q_1$ is not as it is not the divisor of any rational function on $X$. Therefore, $A_0(X) = \mathbb{Z}[q_1]$.

PS: The answer above corrects a previous incorrect computation $A_0(X) = 0$: the double origin cannot be separated and hence needs a special attention, thanks to naf's comment.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Your computation is not correct if $p$ is $p_1$ or $p_2$: one only gets that $[p_1] + [p_2]$ is $0$ in $A^1(X)$, so $A^1(X) \cong \mathbb{Z}$. $\endgroup$
    – naf
    Jul 7, 2022 at 5:02

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.