Working over a field $k$, Nagata's compactification theorem implies that any separated scheme $X$ of finite type over $k$ admits a compactification (a dense open immersion $i \colon X\hookrightarrow\bar{X}$ into a proper scheme $\bar{X}$ over $k$).

Let $\mathbf{V}/k$ be the category of separated schemes of finite type over $k$ (or any of its supercategories for which the answer of the below questions is known).

Is there known such $\mathbf{V}$ in which:

  • 'minimal' compactification always exists? minimal in terms of immersions, dimension of the complement (or its cardinality over finite fields),...

  • a functorial compactification is defined? I.e. an (idempotent) endofunctor $ C\colon \mathbf{V}/k\to \mathbf{V}/k $ whose image lies in the subcategory of proper 'schemes' in $\mathbf{V}/k$ and a natural morphism $\eta\colon id \Rightarrow C$ such that:

    • $\eta_X\colon X\to C(X)$ is an isomorphism for every proper $X\in \mathbf{V}/k$,
    • and (preferably) the component morphism $\eta_X\colon X\to C(X)$ is a (dense) open immersion for every $X\in \mathbf{V}/k$.

Any reference for the existence of such functorial compactification, closely related ones, or the obstruction to its existence, would be appreciated.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For dimension $1$: yes. Otherwise I would guess, no: take $X := \mathbb{C}^2$. The projective plane and each Hirzebruch surface is a minimal compactification of $X$ in some sense - so there are infinitely many candidates. $\endgroup$ – auniket May 23 '16 at 22:59

The following argument shows that the very best thing you could hope for does not work. I'm not sure whether I need all of my assumptions.

Claim: There does not exist a compactification functor $(C,\eta)$ such that $\eta_{\mathbb A^2}$ is a [dense] open immersion into a smooth proper [hence projective] surface.

Proof. Basically, $\mathbb A^2$ has too many automorphisms. We first prove that $C(\mathbb A^2) = \mathbb P^2$, and then derive a contradiction.

By functoriality, every automorphism of $X = \mathbb A^2$ should extend to $\bar X = C(\mathbb A^2)$. The only compactification to which the linear automorphisms \begin{align*} \phi \colon \mathbb A^2 &\to \mathbb A^2\\ (x,y) &\mapsto (ax+by+c,ex+fy+g) \end{align*} extend is $\mathbb P^2$. Indeed, there is a rational map $f \colon \mathbb P^2 \dashrightarrow \bar X$ defined away from finitely many points on the line at infinity. Consider the diagram $$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathbb P^2 & \dashrightarrow & \bar X \\ \downarrow & & \downarrow \\ \mathbb P^2 & \dashrightarrow &\ \bar X, \end{array}$$ where the vertical maps are given by the extensions of $\phi$. Then the diagram commutes wherever both compositions are defined, since the restrictions to $\mathbb A^2$ agree (and $\mathbb A^2$ is dense).

Now choose $\phi$ as above which moves a point of indeterminacy $p$ away from the indeterminacy locus (but fixes the line at infinity). Then we can use the diagram to extend $f$ across $p$. By induction, we get a regular map $f \colon \mathbb P^2 \to \bar X$. Such a map is always an isomorphism.

Hence, $\bar X = \mathbb P^2$. But the automorphisms \begin{align*} \phi \colon \mathbb A^2 &\to \mathbb A^2\\ (x,y) &\mapsto (x+y^n,y) \end{align*} do not extend to $\mathbb P^2$. $\square$


Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

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