1. (Naive formulation:) Let $X$ be an (irreducible) affine variety (over an algebraically closed field $k$) and $I$ be an ideal of the coordinate ring $R$ of $X$. Assume $Y = V(I)$ is equidimensional. The question is, can we detect if $Y$ is reduced as a subscheme on generic points of $Y$? More precisely, assume there is a (proper) closed subvariety $Z$ of $Y$ such that for all $y \in Y \setminus Z$, the localization of $I$ at the maximal ideal of $y$ is a radical ideal. Then is it true that $I$ is a radical ideal?

The answer to the naive question is false, even in the simplest case that $I$ is principal, e.g. take $X = Spec~ k[x,xy,y^2]$ and $I$ to be the ideal generated by $x$. Then $I$ is radical on $X\setminus\{O\}$, where $O$ is the "origin". A perhaps more natural set of counter-example can be constructed as follows: Take a subvariety $Y'$ of $X$ which is not a complete intersection, take a minimal collection of generators $g_1, \ldots, g_k$ of the ideal of $Y'$, and set $I$ to be the ideal generated by $g_1, \ldots, g_{k-1}, g_k^2$. So the `real question', which is perhaps too broad, is:

  1. Are there 'natural' conditions on $X$ and $I$ under which the reducedness of $V(I)$ can be detected at generic (closed) points on $Y$?

A 'natural' situation that I have in mind (and that disallows both counter-examples above) is the following:

  1. Is the answer to Question 2 affirmative when $X$ is normal and $I$ is generated by a regular sequence, i.e. $Y$ is a set-theoretic complete intersection? (The answer is affirmative in the simplest case, i.e. when $I$ is principal.)

2 Answers 2


I don't think normal is quite enough, but something similar should work. So,

  • normal is equivalent to $S_2$ and $R_1$
  • reduced is equivalent to $S_1$ and $R_0$

If $Y$ is a regular hypersurface in something normal and it is not entirely singular which follows from you generically reduced assumption, then $Y$ is reduced. (This is just restating what you are saying in #3).

A simple sufficient condition is to assume that $X$ is at least $S_{t+1}$ where $t=\mathrm{codim}_X Y$. That way $Y$ will be $S_1$ and your generically reduced assumption implies that it is $R_0$.

Here is an example that the question in #3 only holds if the codimension of $Y$ is $1$:

Let $X_0 = \mathrm{Spec}\ k[x,y,z,t,w]/(xz,xt,yz,yt)$. This is a threefold in $\mathbb A^5$. Near any point with any of $x,y,z,t$ non-zero, this is locally isomorphic to $\mathbb A^3$, hence smooth. When $x=y=z=t=0$, that's a line in $\mathbb A^5$, so $X_0$ is smooth away from that line, so it is $R_1$. We will see below that it is also $S_2$. In case you would like your $X$ be integral, then do this: This $X_0$ is really just two copies of $\mathbb A^3$ intersecting in a line. So, take two skew lines in $\mathbb A^3$ and glue them together using the local structure of $X_0$ near its singular line. That way you get an irreducible $X$ which is locally like $X_0$.

Next let $Z = Z(w)\subset X_0$. This is the union of two planes meeting in a single point, the famous example of something not normal, not Cohen-Macaulay, etc.. It is easily seen to be $S_1$: For instance $x+z$ is a regular element, but modding out by that we get $Y=\mathrm{Spec} k[x,y,z,t]/(x^2,xy,xt,yt)$ which is two lines intersecting in a fat point, which is $R_0$, but not reduced at the fat point and hence non-reduced and cannot be $S_1$.

Now in order to work on the irreducible $X$, take the $Z$ and $Y$ to be what you get while gluing the two lines of $\mathbb A^3$ together. Both $Z$ and $Y$ are linear away from the origin, so we can do the same gluing on them as on $X$.

So, naming the new "glued" objects $X$, $Y$, and $Z$, we have that

  • $Y$ is $S_0$ and $R_0$, in particular non-reduced,
  • $Z$ is $S_1$ and $R_1$, in particular reduced, but not normal
  • $X$ is $S_2$ and $R_1$, in particular normal.

So, $Y$ is the complete intersection of a regular sequence, $w, x+z$ in the normal $X$, it is generically reduced, but not everywhere reduced.

I think you can adapt this example to show that if $X$ is not $S_{t+1}$, then there is a codimension $t$ complete intersection which is generically reduced but not everywhere reduced.

Otherwise there is still taking general hypersurface sections, those retain even normality.

  • $\begingroup$ Dear Sándor, not sure I get the example: your $Y$ is nowhere reduced, so it does not satisfy the assumption of being generically reduced. $\endgroup$
    – pinaki
    Jan 19, 2015 at 23:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You're right. My original answer was different, then I forgot half of the assumptions and made an edit (actually several) and ended up with this. I have a new example which looks much better now. Cheers! $\endgroup$ Jan 20, 2015 at 2:34

There's an exercise in [Eisenbud] that says that reducedness is R0 + S1, i.e. generic reducedness plus Serre's condition S1, which says that there are no embedded primes. This is analogous to normality being R1+S2, where R1 is regularity in codimension 1.

So the cheap way to get what you want is to take a Cartier divisor in a normal scheme. That'll be S1. Then check generic reducedness on each component.

A more expensive way is for your scheme to be Cohen-Macaulay, e.g. a complete intersection inside something regular. That'll be S1 too, so again, check generic reducedness.

I used this latter trick to show that the space of pairs (X,Y) of matrices, such that XY, YX are upper triangular, is reduced.

  • $\begingroup$ Hi Allen, I'm interested in your last result: the space of pairs (X,Y) of matrices, such that XY, YX are upper triangular, is reduced. Could you be precise where can I find it? $\endgroup$
    – Lao-tzu
    Feb 18 at 16:20
  • $\begingroup$ It's here arxiv.org/abs/math/0306275 $\endgroup$ Feb 19 at 18:55
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks a lot! I will read your beautiful results. $\endgroup$
    – Lao-tzu
    Feb 19 at 21:12

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.