Hartogs Theorem says every function whose undefined locus is of codim 2 can be extend to the whole domain. I saw people saying this corresponds to the (S2) property of a ring. But I can't see why this is true. Can anybody explain this or give a heuristic argument?

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It would probably be useful to give a definition of the (S2) property. $\endgroup$ Nov 11 '10 at 7:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Shawn: I do. Just didn't log in for several days. $\endgroup$ Nov 13 '10 at 6:15
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ (i) If F is a coherent sheaf on a scheme X and Z ⊂ X is a closed subset, then local sections of F extend uniquely across Z if and only if F has depth ≥ 2 along Z , [Groth, LNM 41, Prop. 1.11, pp. 11-12, Thm. 3.8, p. 44. (ii) If X is an irreducible noetherian Cohen Macaulay scheme, and Z ⊂ X a closed subset, then O(X) has depth ≥ k along Z if and only if every irreducible component of Z has codimension ≥ k in X [Harts, p. 184]. $\endgroup$
    – roy smith
    Nov 4 '11 at 20:40

Let $\mathscr F$ be a coherent sheaf on a noetherian scheme $X$ and assume that ${\rm supp}\mathscr F=X$. Let $Z\subset X$ be a subscheme of codimension at least $2$ and $U=X\setminus Z$. Let $\iota:U\hookrightarrow X$ denote the natural embedding and assume that $\mathcal F_x$ is $S_2$ for every $x\in Z$. Now the $S_2$ assumption implies that $$ \mathscr H^0_Z(X,\mathscr F)= \mathscr H^1_Z(X,\mathscr F)=0 $$ and the Hartogs type extension is equivalent to $$ \iota_*\iota^*\mathscr F\simeq \mathscr F. $$ Finally one has the exact sequence $$ \mathscr H^0_Z(X,\mathscr F) \to \mathscr F\to \iota_*\iota^*\mathscr F \to \mathscr H^1_Z(X,\mathscr F).$$

[See also this MO answer]

  • $\begingroup$ The last term in your last equation should be $H^1$, right? $\endgroup$ Nov 8 '10 at 20:21
  • $\begingroup$ @David: yes, of course. The pitfalls of copy-paste... :) $\endgroup$ Nov 8 '10 at 20:26
  • $\begingroup$ Sandor, is it really true that $H^1_Z(X, F) = 0$ by the S2 hypothesis? When Hartshorne proved this kind of thing, the argument is MUCH more involved. If $Z$ is a point, then you are right, but if $Z$ is not a point, I don't think you get the vanishing you claim. $\endgroup$ Nov 9 '10 at 19:20
  • $\begingroup$ Also, here is one of the places where which definition of $S_2$ one uses may matter, if I am not mistaken. $\endgroup$ Nov 9 '10 at 20:26
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Karl, I included an argument for this vanishing as a separate answer (it needs more space then a few comments). Also, I want to also comment on your saying "When Hartshorne proved this kind of thing, the argument is MUCH more involved". -- I agree. I did not claim this was easy or obvious. Since the question seemed to ask for a heuristic argument, I didn't bother explaining the details. $\endgroup$ Nov 10 '10 at 23:02

This is an answer to a question of Karl in the comments to my first answer to this question.

[EDIT: The following is a minimally simplified version of Proposition 3.3 of Hasett-Kovács04.]

Theorem. Let $X$ be a noetherian scheme, $r\in\mathbb N$, $Z\subseteq X$ a subscheme such that ${\rm codim}_XZ\geq r$, and $\mathscr F$ a coherent $\mathscr O_X$-module such that ${\rm supp}\,\mathscr F=X$ and $\mathscr F_x$ is $S_r$ for every $x\in Z$. Then $$ \mathscr H^i_Z(X,\mathscr F)=0\quad\text{for $i=0,\ldots,r-1$}. $$

Proof. Let $x\in Z$ and notice that we have the following equality of functors: $$ H^0_x = H^0_x\circ \mathscr H^0_Z $$ which induces a Grothendieck spectral sequence $$ E^{p,q}_2= H^p_x \circ \mathscr H^q_Z \Rightarrow H^{p+q}_x. $$ Now prove the statement using induction on $i$.

Suppose $\exists\,\sigma\in\mathscr H^0_Z(X,\mathcal F)$, $\sigma\neq 0$. Let $x\in Z$ be the general point of an irreducible component of ${\rm supp}\,\sigma$. Then $H^0_x(X, \mathscr H^0_Z(X,\mathscr F))\neq 0$ and hence $H^0_x(X,\mathscr F)\neq 0$. But this contradicts the assumption that $\mathscr F_x$ is $S_r$.

Now suppose that we already know that $$ \mathcal H^i_Z(X,\mathscr F)=0\quad\text{for $i=0,\ldots,k-1$} $$ for some $k<r$ and assume that $\mathscr H^k_Z(X,\mathscr F)\neq 0$. By the same argument as above we find a point such that $E^{0,k}_2=H^0_x(X,\mathscr H^k_Z(X,\mathscr F))\neq 0$. Since it is an $E^{0,k}$ term there are no differentials (including later pages of the spectral sequence) mapping to this term and all subsequent differentials mapping from this term map to something of the form $E^{p,q}$ with $0\leq q\leq k-1$. However those latter kind are zero by the inductive hypothesis. Therefore this implies that then $H^k_x(X,\mathscr F)\neq 0$ which is again a contradiction to the assumption that $\mathscr F_x$ is $S_r$. Q.E.D.

See also this MO answer


Here's a somewhat more elementary argument that (S2) implies the Hartogs condition. More precisely, I will show that if $X$ is an (S2) noetherian scheme, then any rational function defined outside a closed subset of codimension two can be extended to the whole domain. (This extension is unique by definition of a rational function.)

Assume, by way of contradiction, that $X$ is an (S2) noetherian scheme and $f$ is a rational function on $X$ that is defined outside a closed set of codimension at least two, but cannot be extended to the whole domain. Let $\mathscr{I}$ be the ideal of denominators of $f$; in other words, over an open affine $\operatorname{Spec} A$, $$I = \{g \in A \mid g f \in A\}.$$ This is well-defined as a sheaf since the ideal of denominators is preserved under flat pullback (and in particular, localization); see this mathoverflow question.

If $g \in A$ is a nonzerodivisor, then $g \in I$ if and only if $f = a / g$ for some $a \in A$, hence the name "ideal of denominators." One can check that the closed subscheme $Z \subset X$ corresponding to $\mathscr{I}$ is, set-theoretically, the "indeterminacy locus of $f$": the smallest closed subset such that $f$ is defined over $X \smallsetminus Z$. By hypothesis, $f$ can be defined outside a closed subset of codimension two, so $\operatorname{codim} Z \geq 2$. Equivalently, whenever $W$ is an irreducible component of $Z$, then the local ring $\mathscr{O}_{X,W}$ has dimension at least two. Since $X$ is assumed to be (S2), every maximal regular sequence in $\mathscr{O}_{X,W}$ has length at least two.

Since $W$ is an irreducible component of the subscheme corresponding to $\mathscr{I}$, it follows that the radical of $\mathscr{I}_W \subset \mathscr{O}_{X,W}$ is precisely the maximal ideal $\mathfrak{p}$. (Algebraically, $\mathfrak{p}$ is a minimal prime over $I$, and corresponds to the generic point of $W$.) Let $g,h \in \mathfrak{p}$ form a regular sequence (which exists since $X$ is (S2)). Replacing $g$ and $h$ by appropriate powers, we may assume that they are both contained in $\mathscr{I}_W$. By definition of regular sequence, $g$ is a nonzerodivisor. Since $h,g$ is a also a regular sequence, $h$ is a nonzerodivisor. Thus, $g$ and $h$, being nonzerodivisors that lie in the ideal of denominators, are in fact denominators of $f$: there exist $a, b \in \mathscr{O}_X,W$ such that $$\frac{a}{g} = \frac{b}{h} = f$$ $$ah = bg.$$ Since $g,h$ is a regular sequence, $h$ is a nonzerodivisor mod $g$. When we mod out by $g$, the equation above becomes $ah \equiv 0$, which would imply $a \equiv 0 \pmod{g}$. In other words, $a \in (g)$. But since $f = a/g$, this would imply that $f \in \mathscr{O}_{X,W}$, a contradiction since $f$ cannot be extended over $W$.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Charles, nice proof. Since you get the contradiction from extending $f$ to $W$ and you don't seem to use the contradictory assumption elsewhere, you could even make it a positive statement (avoid the contradictory setup). $\endgroup$ Feb 17 '12 at 5:40
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Sándor: Thanks. Morally, I agree with your suggestion, but as the proof is currently written, the definition of $W$ as an irreducible component of the indeterminacy locus requires that $f$ have a nonempty indeterminacy locus. Thus, the proof has the form (more or less) "let's assume that $f$ cannot be extended, and use this assumption to extend $f$." I find such setups vaguely displeasing, so if you can see a way around this, I'd love to hear it. $\endgroup$ Feb 17 '12 at 19:22

Look at the exercises of Hartshorne, III.3.



MR1291023 (95k:14008), Hartshorne, "Generalized divisors on Gorenstein schemes"

Proposition 1.11.


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.