3
$\begingroup$

In SGA 1 Expose XIII, $\S2.1$, they give a definition of a "normal crossings divisor relative to $S$" which is a bit difficult to parse (and has some typos).

My first question is: Is the following a correct interpretation of their definition? (If not, what is the right definition?)

Let $f : X\rightarrow S$ be a morphism of schemes, and let $D$ be an effective cartier divisor on $X$. We say that it is a strict normal crossings divisor relative to $S$ if for every $x\in\text{Supp }D$,

  1. $X$ is smooth over $S$ at $x$,

  2. there exist $f_1,\ldots,f_r\in \mathcal{O}_{X,x}$ such that the ideal $I_{D,x}$ of $\mathcal{O}_{X,x}$ corresponding to $D$ is generated by $\prod_{i=1}^r f_i$ and such that the ideal $(f_1,f_2,\ldots,f_r)$ has height $r$ (ie, the closed subscheme given by $(f_1,f_2,\ldots,f_r)$ is pure codimension $r$ in $\text{Spec }\mathcal{O}_{X,x}$), and

  3. letting $s := f(x)$, and $Y := \text{Spec }\mathcal{O}_{X,x}/(f_1,\ldots,f_r)$, then $Y$ is flat over $\mathcal{O}_{S,s}$ and $Y_s$ is a smooth $\kappa(s)$-algebra.

A normal crossings divisor relative to $S$ is then just an effective cartier divisor which etale locally on $X$ (or should it be local on $S$?) is strict NCD over $S$.

Later, in Proposition 5.1, they seem to give a definition of a normal crossings divisor which is compatible with the definition given in the stacks project:

If $X$ is a locally noetherian scheme, then a strict normal crossings divisor on $X$ is an effective Cartier divisor $D\subset X$ such that for every $p\in D$, the local ring $\mathcal{O}_{X,p}$ is regular and there exists a regular system of parameters $f_1,\ldots,f_d\in\mathfrak{m}_p$ and $1\le r\le d$ such that $D$ is cut out by $f_1,\ldots,f_r$ in $\mathcal{O}_{X,p}$. A normal crossings divisor is then an effective Cartier divisor which etale locally is a strict NCD.

I'm fairly confident this definition of (non-relative) NCD's is correct.

My second question is: Consider $X = \text{Spec }\mathbb{Z}[t]$, and let $D$ be the divisor $t(t-2)$. Am I correct in saying that this is a strict normal crossings divisor, but is not a strict NCD relative to $\text{Spec }\mathbb{Z}$? (it fails the flatness part of condition (3)). This seems slightly weird to me. For example, $D$ is certainly a relative effective Cartier divisor (relative to $\text{Spec }\mathbb{Z}$) since it is flat over $\mathbb{Z}$, and $D$ is also a strict NCD, but is not a strict NCD relative to $\mathbb{Z}$. Would it be accurate to say that the "relative" part of being a relative NCD is that the "crossings should also be relative?" (ie, flat over $S$)?

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ 1) I think the aim of introducing "strictly of normal crossings" is just to have a model for the local behaviour of "normal crossings"; so it is perfectly correct. 2) In the case $|I|=1$, the definition tells us that $D$ has normal crossings over $S$ if and only if it is smooth over $S$; what's the problem? $\endgroup$
    – abx
    Aug 1, 2014 at 12:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The model for "relative ncd" is a union of coordinate hyperplanes in an affine space over $S$. It must etale-local at each $x\in D$ since only for the etale topology do smooth $S$-schemes look like affine spaces. But irreducibility is not etale-local! A nodal plane curve over a field $k$ is a relative ncd over $k$ since etale-locally at the non-smooth point $z$ it becomes two $k$-smooth curves crossing transversally, but that description cannot be attained Zariski-locally. Note that $I(z)$ of size 2 is determined only etale-locally at $z$! The interest lies in non-smooth part. $\endgroup$
    – user27920
    Aug 1, 2014 at 13:18
  • $\begingroup$ So am I correct in saying that a section of a smooth curve $X/S$ determines a NCD relative to S? $\endgroup$
    – Will Chen
    Aug 1, 2014 at 14:19
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @oxeimon: The whole setup is relative over $S$, so most definitely $S$ can be arbitrarily "bad"; this is the entire purpose of Grothendieck's relative approach to algebraic geometry. Anyway, the business about the affine spaces refers to the local structure theorem for smooth morphisms: if $f:X \rightarrow S$ is smooth then every $x \in X$ admits a Zariski-open neighborhood $U$ for which there is an etale $S$-morphism $U \rightarrow \mathbf{A}^n_S$. This is explained very nicely in section 17 of EGA IV$_4$, and more accessibly in Chapter 2 of the book "Neron models". $\endgroup$
    – user27920
    Aug 1, 2014 at 15:13
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ For your first question: yes, a section of a smooth curve is NCD relative to the base, no matter how bad the base is. For the second, have a look at EGA IV 17.15.3. $\endgroup$
    – abx
    Aug 1, 2014 at 15:13

0

Your Answer

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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.