2
$\begingroup$

Let $X$ be a scheme and let $\mathscr{I} \subset \mathscr{O}_X$ be a quasi-coherent sheaf of ideals. Suppose that for each $x \in X$, the stalk $\mathscr{I}_x$ is generated by an element $f_x \in \mathscr{O}_x$ that comes from a nonzero divisor $f \in \Gamma(U, \mathscr{O}_X)$ for some affine open neighborhood $U$ of $x$ (so $f_x$ is a nonzero divisor, too). Then each $\mathscr{I}_x$ is a free $\mathscr{O}_x$-module of rank $1$. Is $\mathscr{I}$ necessarily locally free of rank $1$?

The answer is surely 'yes' if $X$ is Noetherian (e.g., by http://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/0AG8), but a positive answer is claimed in general in the last paragraph on p. 212 of the book "Neron models". Is there a counterexample to this claim?

$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ The authors simply forgot to assume that $\mathscr{I}$ is of finite presentation as an $O_X$-module. What ultimately matters is Lemma 6 on p. 213, so don't take that claim on p. 212 too seriously as written. When you write a 300-page book on technically difficult mathematics, good luck making no harmless minor glitches like that. :) $\endgroup$ – user74230 Dec 29 '14 at 6:53
  • $\begingroup$ Bourbaki, Commutative Algebra, chap. II, § 5, exercise 7. As indicated in the previous comment, the answer is also 'yes' with no noetherian hypothesis if $\mathscr{I}$ is finitely presented (loc. cit., Proposition 2). $\endgroup$ – abx Dec 29 '14 at 6:58
  • $\begingroup$ @user74230: Is there an erratum for that book? I love that book, and I direct my advisees to read it. If there are mistakes (apparently quite a few, according to Question Mark), I would like to know what they are. $\endgroup$ – Jason Starr Dec 29 '14 at 14:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JasonStarr: I'm not aware of an erratum, but the rate of errors is no different than other books of comparable length/level and (as you know) its handling of technical issues is masterfully clean. I don't know why Q.M. posts so many questions about this book, since most of those "errors" do not affect anything of interest (e.g., the above incorrect "claim") and are easily bypassed. I noticed all of these when reading the book as a student and never found them to be a hindrance to understanding. $\endgroup$ – user74230 Dec 29 '14 at 14:26
  • $\begingroup$ @user74230: Thanks for the reply. I have also never had a student so confused by any point in the book that we could not work out the solution in a few minutes. However, students are often confused by small issues, and it would make sense to collect those. I also find Question Mark curious, but if the final result is a thorough erratum, what is the harm? $\endgroup$ – Jason Starr Dec 29 '14 at 14:33
3
$\begingroup$

CW answer to get this of the unanswered list. Answered in the comments:

user74230: The authors simply forgot to assume that I is of finite presentation as an OX-module. What ultimately matters is Lemma 6 on p. 213, so don't take that claim on p. 212 too seriously as written. When you write a 300-page book on technically difficult mathematics, good luck making no harmless minor glitches like that. :)

 

abx: Bourbaki, Commutative Algebra, chap. II, § 5, exercise 7. As indicated in the previous comment, the answer is also 'yes' with no noetherian hypothesis if I is finitely presented (loc. cit., Proposition 2).

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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