The following lemma is in Bosch's book "Lectures on Formal and rigid geometry" p198.

Lemma Let $K$ be a non-archimedean field and $R$ its valuation ring. Let $X= \mathrm{Spf}A$ be an affine admissible formal $R$ scheme. Then there are canonical bijections between (1) the set of non-open prime ideals $\mathfrak{p}\subset A$ with $\dim A/\mathfrak p =1$ and (2) the set of maximal ideals in $A\otimes_RK$.

Now let's look at a easy case: $A=R\langle \zeta_1,\dots,\zeta_n\rangle$. Then $A\otimes_RK$ is simply the Tate algebra $T_n:=T_n(K)$. Then we know the set of maximal ideals in $T_n$ can be described by the points of the unit ball $\mathbb B^n(K)$(assume $K$ is algebraically closed): $\mathfrak{m}_x=\{f\in T_n\mid f(x)=0\}$ The question is that what the prime ideal does $\mathfrak m_x$ correspond by the above lemma?


Using your notation: it corresponds, like in the "classic" case of polynomials over a field, to the ideal generated by $\zeta_1-x_1,\dots,\zeta_n-x_n$, where $x=(x_1,\dots,x_n)\in \mathbb B^n(K)$. In another terms, it is as before the kernel of the evaluation map $A\to R$ given sending $f$ to $f(x)$ (which converges and it is an element of the valuation ring $R$).

  • $\begingroup$ But I feel confused still. It doesn't make sense if $x_i\in K - R$, right? Maybe we should take a fraction$ x_i=y_i/z_i$ and consider $z_i\zeta_i -x_i$. $\endgroup$ – Hang Jul 16 '18 at 18:00
  • $\begingroup$ But $x_i\in R$ for all $i$. This is what it means to be in $\mathbb B^1(K)$. $\endgroup$ – Xarles Jul 17 '18 at 22:52

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.