The Zariski Riemann space, while an abandoned approach, has lead to later developments and generalizations, including $\text{Spv}$ (the space of valuations) and Huber's work. In studying it, I would like to know what fails if we erase the assumption that points are valuation rings, and instead make a topological space on the local subrings.

Suppose we wanted to make a topological space on the local subrings of a field. Which desirable properties of the Zariski Riemann space $\text{Zar}(K)$ fail when we try to make a topological space on the local rings contained in a field instead of the valuation rings contained in a field Specifically, suppose we let $\text{Loc}(K)$ of a field $K$ be the topological space whose points are local rings, and whose open sets are unions of sets of the form $V(f_1, ..., f_n) = \{ R \subset K \text{ a local ring } : f_1, ..., f_n \in R \}$. This is completely analogous to the construction of the Zariski Riemann space. Also, the Zariski Riemann space will be a subspace of this one.

One approach here would be the historical one: Zariski had Riemann surfaces in mind when creating the Riemann-Zariski space, and using local rings does not generalize this situation, while the Zariski-Riemann space does. Nevertheless, there is perhaps something more to say here about why it is better to use the Zariski-Riemann space instead of $\text{Loc}$. One might wonder if there is an intrinsic motivation of the Zariski-Riemann space.

We can make $\text{Zar}(K)$ into a sheaf whose stalks at each point are the corresponding valuation rings. To do this, we create an étale topology on $\amalg_R R$, where the disjoint union is taken over the valuation subrings of $K$, and let the sheaf $\mathcal{O}_{\text{Zar}(K)}$ be its sheaf of sections.

So we might try to make $\text{Loc}(K)$ into a sheaf whose stalks at each point are the corresponding local rings. To do this, define for each $a \in K$ a function $f_a : V(a) \rightarrow \amalg_{R} R$, where the disjoint union is taken over local subrings of $K$, sending $R \in V(a)$ to $(a, R) \in \amalg_{R} R$. We put a topology on $\amalg_{R} R$ where a sub-basis consists of images of functions of the form $f_{a}$ for $a \in K$. Then define $\mathcal{O}_{\text{Loc}(K)}$ to be the sheaf of sections of this étale cover.

We can then identify $\mathcal{O}_{X} (U)$, where $X = \text{Loc}(K)$, with the intersection of local rings in $U$. The stalk of $X$ at $R$ is just $R$.

Does something go wrong here? What makes the Zariski-Riemann space more desirable topological space (or sheaf) to work with than $\text{Loc}(K)$?

Some observations:

  1. The global sections of $\text{Zar}(K)$ is the integral closure of the prime subfield in $\text{Zar}(K)$. For $\text{Loc}$ it is the prime subring of $K$. So we can recover $K$ from the global sections as the fraction field, while the same is not true of $\text{Loc}(K)$.

  2. $\text{Zar}(K)$ is a spectral space. I have my doubts that $\text{Loc}(K)$ is a spectral space.

  3. The valuation rings are the maximal local rings under the relation of dominance. Maybe this means that $\text{Zar}(K)$ is universal in some sense?


Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.