2
$\begingroup$

I am looking for a definition of open and dense substack of a Deligne-Mumford stack $\mathcal X$. I have encountered this notion many times, but I am not able to find any references in which dense substacks are defined.

The only thing I have found is the one on nlab - dense subtopos, but, as I don't know much about topos theory, I am wondering whether there is a definition which does not use the characterisation of DM-stacks as ringed topoi locally equivalent to the étale spectrum of a commutative ring.

Furthermore, is this notion stable under 2-pullback in the 2-category of stacks?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Are you working with algebraic stacks? Let $X$ be an algebraic stack. Let $U$ be a substack of $X$. The stack-theoretic closure of $U$, denoted $\bar{U}$, is a closed substack of $X$ containing $U$ with the following universal property. If $Z$ is a closed substack of $X$ containing $U$, then $Z$ contains $\bar{U}$. Now, define $U$ to be dense if $\bar{U} =X$. $\endgroup$ – Ariyan Javanpeykar Apr 11 '17 at 9:41
  • $\begingroup$ To complement Ariyan: every "smooth local" property of morphisms has a well-defined extension to algebraic stacks. A property $P$ of a morphism $f:X'\to X$ is "smooth local" if for every quasi-compact, surjective, smooth morphism $Y\to X$, the property $P$ holds for $f$ if and only if the property holds for the base change $f':Y'\to Y$. In that case, for every algebraic stack $X$, since there exists a quasi-compact, surjective, smooth $1$-morphism $Y\to X$ with $Y$ a scheme, we define $P$ to hold for $f$ if and only if $P$ holds for $f'$. Now apply this to "open immersion with dense image". $\endgroup$ – Jason Starr Apr 11 '17 at 9:46
  • $\begingroup$ In the above, the $1$-morphism $f$ should be representable. If the property $P$ is simultaneously smooth local on the target and on the source, then we can extend $P$ to "not-necessarily-representable" $1$-morphisms between algebraic stacks. Anyway, every morphism that is smooth locally an open immersion is representable. $\endgroup$ – Jason Starr Apr 11 '17 at 9:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Regarding stability under pullback, that is not even true in the category of schemes. If $i:U\to X$ is a dense open immersion, then for the complementary closed subspace $j:C\to X$, the pullback of $i$ by $j$ is the empty scheme. However, this is stable under pullback by smooth morphisms to $X$, and even by flat morphisms to $X$, both in the category of schemes and in the $2$-category of algebraic stacks. $\endgroup$ – Jason Starr Apr 11 '17 at 10:50
  • $\begingroup$ @JasonStarr could you suggest any references in which stability under pull-back (by smooth morphism) is discussed? $\endgroup$ – Symòn Apr 17 '17 at 10:23
3
$\begingroup$

Given an algebraic stack $\mathcal{X}$ there is a canonically associated topological space $|\mathcal{X}|$ of points of $\mathcal{X}$. A point is an equivalence class of morphisms $\text{Spec}(k) \to \mathcal{X}$, where $k$ is a field. Two morphisms $\text{Spec}(k) \to \mathcal{X}$ and $\text{Spec}(k') \to \mathcal{X}$ are equivalent if $\text{Spec}(k) \times_\mathcal{X} \text{Spec}(k')$ is nonempty (as an algebraic stack, i.e., there is a point). Given a morphism $f : \mathcal{X} \to \mathcal{Y}$ of algebraic stacks, the obvious map $|\mathcal{X}| \to |\mathcal{Y}|$ is continuous and if $f$ is smooth then it is open. This together with the requirement that $|\mathcal{X}|$ should be the usual topological space when $\mathcal{X}$ is a scheme, uniquely determines the topology.

Definition: An open substack $\mathcal{U} \subset \mathcal{X}$ is dense if $|\mathcal{U}| \subset |\mathcal{X}|$ is dense.

IMHO opinion this is the correct definition. More generally, topological properties should be, as much as possible, defined in terms of $|\mathcal{X}|$. For example a morphism $f : \mathcal{X} \to \mathcal{Y}$ of algebraic stacks is universally closed if for all morphisms $\mathcal{Z} \to \mathcal{Y}$ the map $|\mathcal{Z} \times_\mathcal{Y} \mathcal{X}| \to |\mathcal{Z}|$ is closed.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ That sounds fine, but how are you going to define "schematically dense"? $\endgroup$ – Jason Starr Apr 11 '17 at 11:42
  • $\begingroup$ That wasn't the question? Of course I can give you the definition if you want, but that's ridiculous as you know the definition. $\endgroup$ – Darx Apr 12 '17 at 3:08
  • $\begingroup$ My question was, indeed, rhetorical. $\endgroup$ – Jason Starr Apr 12 '17 at 3:18

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.