4
$\begingroup$

While working through a proof of this paper, at the end of page 46, the author seems to claim along the lines that the following is true:

Let $A\rightarrow B$ be an etale map of rings. Then the underlying map $$ \text{Spec}(B)\rightarrow \text{Spec}(A) $$ is open and the complement of the image is the vanishing locus of a finitely generated ideal in $A$.

The fact that the underlying map is open is well-known. Why does the part about the finite generation hold with no Noetherianity assumptions on $A$?

$\endgroup$
5
$\begingroup$

Let $U$ be the image of $\operatorname{Spec} B$ in $\operatorname{Spec} A$. Since the map $\operatorname{Spec} B \to \operatorname{Spec} A$ is open, $U$ is open. And since $\operatorname{Spec} B$ is quasi-compact, $U$ is quasi-compact. Therefore, $U$ is the union of finitely many basic opens in $\operatorname{Spec} A$, i.e. there exist $f_1, \ldots, f_n \in A$ such that $$ U = \bigcup_{i = 1}^n\operatorname{Spec} A[{1}/{f_i}]$$ as subsets of $\operatorname{Spec} A$. Then the complement of $U$ in $\operatorname{Spec} A$ is exactly the vanishing locus of the finitely generated ideal $I = (f_1, \ldots, f_n)$.

$\endgroup$

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.