3
$\begingroup$

For a flat morphism $f:X \rightarrow B$ and a sub scheme $Z$ of $B$ we know that the strict and total transforms of $X$ with respect to the blow up at $Z$ agree.

I want to know what happens when $f$ fails to be flat. Suppose that $f$ fails to be flat at some point $P$ and we blow up $P$, could the strict transform of $X$ agree with the total transform? It feels as if the non-flat locus of the total transform of $f$ should contain the entire exceptional divisor which in many cases would show that this is not the case. My first question is suppose we have $f:X \rightarrow B$ a morphism of varieties not flat at $P$ in $B$ and we blow up $P$ can the product $X \times_B Bl_P B$ be flat over $Bl_P B$?

In general suppose that we have a non flat morphism of varieties $f:X \rightarrow Y$ and a proper surjective morphism $p:Z \rightarrow Y$ could the product $Z\times_Y X$ ever be flat over $Z$?

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ What precisely is your question? Do you just want an example? Consider the case where $Y$ is $\text{Spec}\ k[u,v]/\langle u^2,uv \rangle$, where $X$ is the closed subscheme $\text{Spec}\ k[u,v]/\langle u \rangle$, and where you blow up the ideal $\mathfrak{m} =\langle \overline{u},\overline{v} \rangle$ in $Y$. $\endgroup$ Oct 4, 2017 at 12:03
  • $\begingroup$ Oh yes, I should include some sort of integrality constraints for the picture I had in mind to work. I'll edit the question appropriately. $\endgroup$ Oct 4, 2017 at 13:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If $Y$ is reduced, and if $X\to Y$ is not flat, then also $Z\times_Y X\to Z$ is not flat. This is local, but for simplicity, consider the case when $X\to Y$ is projective and $Y$ is connected. Then $X\to Y$ is flat if and only if the Hilbert polynomials of geometric fibers are constant, cf. Theorem 9.9, p. 261 of "Algebraic geometry" by Robin Hartshorne. If two geometric fibers of $X\to Y$ have distinct Hilbert polynomials, then the same holds for $Z\times_Y X \to Z$ for points of $Z$ mapping to the two points of $Y$. $\endgroup$ Oct 4, 2017 at 13:57
  • $\begingroup$ Is the general result in EGA or somewhere else? I'm looking for the general case, eg $X$ may very well not be proper over $Y$. $\endgroup$ Oct 4, 2017 at 17:32
  • $\begingroup$ It is Th'eor`eme 11.8.1, p. 159 of EGA IV_3. For $Y$ reduced and Noetherian, if $X\to Y$ is not flat, then there exists a closed point $y\in Y$ and a DVR $R$ in $\text{Frac}(Y)$ dominating the local ring $\mathcal{O}_{Y,y}$ such that the base change of $X$ by $i:\text{Spec}\ R \to Y$ is not flat over $R$. For every proper, birational morphism $f:Z\to Y$, by the valuative criterion of properness, the morphism $i$ factors through $f$, i.e., $i$ equals $f\circ g$. Since the further pullback by $g$ is not flat, the pullback of $X$ by $f$ is not flat. $\endgroup$ Oct 4, 2017 at 19:22

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

I am just posting my comments above as an answer. If $Y$ is allowed to be nonreduced, then there does exist a finitely presented, non-flat morphism $\pi:X\to Y$ and a proper, birational morphism $Z\to Y$ such that $Z\times_Y X \to Z$ is flat. One example is when $Y=\text{Spec}\ k[u,v]/\langle u^2,uv \rangle,$ when $X$ is the closed subscheme $\text{Spec}\ k[u,v]/\langle u \rangle,$ and when $Z$ is the blowing up of $Y$ at the ideal $\mathfrak{m}= \langle \overline{u},\overline{v} \rangle.$

If you assume that $Y$ is reduced, then the positive result follows from the "valuative criterion of flatness", Théorème 11.8.1 of EGA $IV_3.$ For simplicity, assume that $Y$ is integral. If $X\to Y$ is not flat, then there exists a point $y\in Y$ and a DVR $R$ with fraction field $\text{Frac}(Y)$ containing $\mathcal{O}_{Y,y}$ such that the base change of $\pi$ by $i:\text{Spec}\ R \to Y$ is not flat over $\text{Spec}\ R.$

For every proper, birational morphism $f:Z\to Y,$ by the valuative criterion of properness, there exists a morphism $g:\text{Spec}\ R \to Z$ such that $i$ equals $f\circ g.$ If the pullback of $\pi$ by $f$ is flat over $Z,$ then the further pullback along $g$ is flat over $\text{Spec}\ R.$ This contradicts that the pullback of $\pi$ by $i$ is not flat over $\text{Spec}\ R.$

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks Jason, that is exactly what I was hoping for. I'll accept it. $\endgroup$ Oct 5, 2017 at 16:13

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.