Let $X$ be a quasi-compact scheme and let $\mathcal{A}$ be a quasi-coherent sheaf of $\mathcal{O}_X$-algebras on $X$. $X$ being quasi-compact, we can write $X = U_1 \cup \dots \cup U_n$ with each $U_i$ affine, say $U_i =\textrm{Spec}R_i$, and such that $\mathcal{A}\mid_{U_i} \simeq \widetilde{A_i}$ for some finitely generated $R_i$ algebras $A_i$. Suppose we know that each $A_i$ is the union of its subalgebras which are module finite over $R_i$. Can we say that $\mathcal{A}$ is globally the union of it's subsheaves which are coherent sheaves of $\mathcal{O}_X$-algebras?

It seems that the obvious thing to do would be to glue together coherent algebras over each of the $R_i$'s, but it's not clear to me how this can be done. This question arose from Milne's proof of 'Zariski's Main Theorem' from the beginning of his etale cohomology book.


1 Answer 1


Under some slightly stronger hypothesis (Noetherian is certainly enough) we may write $\mathcal A$ as the union of its coherent subsheaves. If $\mathcal E$ is a coherent subsheaf, then the subalgebra of $\mathcal A$ that it generates will also be coherent, because this can be tested locally, where it then follows from your assumptions. Thus in this case, $\mathcal A$ is the union of coherent $\mathcal O_X$-algebras.

I'm not sure how good a notion coherent is outside of the Noetherian context. If no-one gives an answer in the non-Noetherian context, then you might want to look at the stacks project, which discusses this kind of "coherent approximation to quasi-coherent sheaves" in some generality, if I remember correctly.

  • $\begingroup$ Although my question as stated is more general, all schemes in Milne's book are locally Noetherian so I am more than happy with this answer. $\endgroup$
    – Joel Dodge
    Commented Apr 11, 2010 at 5:13
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ This works for any qcqs scheme, replacing "coherent" with "qcoh of finite type". It is in EGA I, around 9.1.6 or so, in qc septd case and in noetherian case; generalization to qcqs given in erratum in later EGA (probably IV_1). As for assuming "all schemes are locally noetherian", this is not always such a good idea; rules out natural tensor product operations with non-finite-type maps, such as henselization or completion tensored against itself over base ring (and much more); the henselian example comes up in proof of smooth base change thm, and something like it arises in Milne's book too. $\endgroup$
    – BCnrd
    Commented Apr 11, 2010 at 12:23

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.