Let $f:\mathcal{X}\to \mathcal{Y}$ be a separated quasi-finite map of qcqs Deligne-Mumford stacks. Is there a version of Zariski's main theorem that makes sense in this context? Rydh proved a version of this in the case where the map $f$ is also assumed to be representable, in which case we recover a stacky version of the classical factorization of $f$ as the inclusion of an open substack into a finite stack over $\mathcal{Y}$.

Obviously we can't hope for exactly such a factorization, since this would make $f$ automatically quasi-affine (and therefore representable). But I was wondering if maybe there is a factorization of $f$ into something like a (locally constant?) gerbe over an open substack of a finite stack over $\mathcal{Y}$.


You can take the relative coarse map to get a factorization of $f$ into $\mathcal{X} \to X \to \mathcal{Y}$ where $g : X \to \mathcal{Y}$ is representable and $\pi : \mathcal{X} \to X$ is proper + quasi-finite with $\mathcal{O}_X \to \pi_*\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{X}}$ an isomorphism. Then you can apply the representable case of ZMT to $g$ to obtain a factorization $$ X \hookrightarrow \overline{X} \to \mathcal{Y} $$ where $X \hookrightarrow \overline{X}$ is an open immersion and $\overline{g} : \overline{X} \to \mathcal{Y}$ is finite.

Putting this together, we get that any such $f$ factors into $$ \mathcal{X} \xrightarrow{\rho} \overline{X} \xrightarrow{\overline{g}} \mathcal{Y} $$ where

  1. $\overline{g}$ is finite and in particular representable,
  2. $\mathcal{X}$ is proper + quasi-finite over an open substack $i : X \subset \overline{X}$, and
  3. $\rho_*\mathcal{O}_\mathcal{X} = i_*\mathcal{O}_X$.

I think conditions $2 + 3$ can be replaced by something like $\mathcal{O}_\overline{X} \to \rho_*\mathcal{O}_\mathcal{X}$ is injective and integrally closed.

The existence of the relative coarse space is guaranteed under your assumptions by Theorem 3.1 here. Indeed the relative inertia stack is proper over $\mathcal{X}$ by the separated assumption and quasi-finite by the DM assumption.

I think by universality of the relative coarse map this is essentially the best you can do. In general the kernel of the map on inertia can jump so I don't think you can expect the first map to be a gerbe over an open substack, e.g., if $f$ itself the coarse space of a separated DM stack that is not a gerbe.

  • $\begingroup$ This is great! If I had assumed that the map was finite presentation étale rather than quasi-finite, would I get a factorization such that the relative coarse map $\mathcal{X}\to X$ is proper and étale? $\endgroup$ – Harry Gindi Oct 26 '20 at 19:01
  • $\begingroup$ I think both questions are local on $\mathcal{Y}$ because taking coarse space commutes with flat base change and "separated" and "étale" are both étale (and in fact fpqc) local on the target, so we can assume that $\mathcal{Y} = \mathrm{Spec} A$ is affine in which case relative coarse space = usual coarse space. Now separatedness of the coarse space is one of the conclusions of the Keel-Mori theorem. $\endgroup$ – Dori Bejleri Oct 28 '20 at 3:40
  • $\begingroup$ The étale question seems more subtle. I think the coarse map $\mathcal{X} \to X$ is étale if and only if $\mathcal{X}$ is a gerbe. So the question is essentially if you have a DM stack which is étale over a scheme, is it a gerbe? This feels true but I'm not totally sure. $\endgroup$ – Dori Bejleri Oct 28 '20 at 3:56
  • $\begingroup$ The composition of an etale gerbe and a finite etale cover of a scheme is not necessarily a gerbe, right? $\endgroup$ – Ariyan Javanpeykar Oct 28 '20 at 12:54
  • $\begingroup$ There's a comment in one of Rydh's papers that a proper étale map $\mathcal{X}\to \mathcal{Y}$ factors canonically as a proper étale gerbe $\mathcal{X}\to X$ over a finite étale map $X\to \mathcal{Y}$. The thing I wanted to know is if a separated finite presentation étale map factors as a proper étale gerbe over a separated representable finite presentation étale map (and if this corresponds to the Keel-Mori factorization). $\endgroup$ – Harry Gindi Oct 28 '20 at 13:53

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.