I have been reading "The Geometry of Schemes" by Eisenbud and Harris and have a question about Exercise III-43. There, one should show that there is a bijection between the sets

$\{(n+1)\mbox{-tuples of elements of }A\mbox{ that generate the unit ideal }\}$ and $\{ \mbox{maps} \mbox{ Spec} A \to \mathbb{P}^n_A$ such that the composite $\mbox{Spec} A \to \mathbb{P}^n_A\to \mbox{Spec}A=id\} $, i.e. $A$-valued points of $\mathbb{P}^n_A$.

Now, of course, $(n+1)$-tuples of elements of $A$ give $A$-valued points, but if $A$ is not a ring such that every invertible $A$-module is free of rank one, I don't see why the converse should work:

Let us take, e.g. a number field $K$ such that $A=\mathcal{O}_K$ is not a PID. Then, up to multiplication by a unit, an $A$-valued point corresponds to an invertible $A$-module $P$ and an epimorphism $A^{n+1}\to P$ by the characterization of morphisms from $\mbox{Spec}A$ to $\mathbb{P}^n_{\mathbb{Z}}$ (Corollary III/42 in Eisenbud+Harris).

Starting with an $(n+1)$-tuple generating $A$, I clearly get an epimorphism $A^{n+1}\to A$ and $A$ is a projective $A$-module, so I get an $A$-valued point.

However, if I start with an $A$-valued point corresponding to an epimorphism $A^{n+1}\to P$ and the invertible module $P$ is not free, how can I choose an $(n+1)$-tuple of points of $A$ which generate the unit ideal? Moreover, don't these $A$-valued points give "additional" points, which do not come from $(n+1)$-tuples of elements of $A$?

Most books just consider the case when $A$ is a field, there everything works just fine.


  • 10
    $\begingroup$ Yes, non-trivial line bundles on Spec($A$) which admit $n+1$ generators provide "additional" Spec($A$)-valued points of projective $n$-space $\mathbf{P}^n_{\mathbf{Z}}$. The same issue comes up when describing $C^{\infty}$-maps from smooth manifolds to real projective $n$-space (using $C^{\infty}$-line bundles), holomorphic maps from complex manifolds to complex projective $n$-space (using holomorphic line bundles), and continuous maps from topological spaces to real (resp. complex) projective $n$-space (using real (resp. complex) topological line bundles), so it's not specific to schemes. $\endgroup$ – BCnrd Nov 15 '10 at 15:01
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ A warning tangentially relevant to the question: around the same part of that book, they attempt to define Proj(F) for a coherent sheaf F in terms of "prime ideal sheaves." There's some fishy stuff going on there, and I think the lesson is that one should not try to define things that way: read Hartshorne (or EGA) for this instead. $\endgroup$ – Dave Anderson Nov 15 '10 at 19:05
  • $\begingroup$ Exercise 3.19 in Görtz–Wedhorn (suitably modified as indicated in this erratum) requires the ring $A$ to be local, at least. $\endgroup$ – Watson Oct 30 '18 at 18:53

Yes, you (and BCnrd) are absolutely correct and the quoted statement is wrong.

Over any scheme $S$, the $S$-points of $\mathbb P^n$ are the surjections $\mathcal O_S^{\oplus n+1} \to F$ with invertible $\mathcal O_S$-module $F$. More generally, the $S$-points of the grassmannian $Gr(m,k)$ are the surjections $\mathcal O_S^{\oplus m}\to F$ with $F$ locally free of rank $k$.

Note: no Noetherian assumptions on $S$ are necessary. This is the first step for Grothendieck's construction of Hilbert schemes, without Noetherian assumption.

So, for a ring $A$, the $A$-points of $\mathbb P^n$ are the surjections $A^{n+1}\to P$ with $P$ locally free (equivalently, projective) $A$-modules of rank 1.


Indeed, the functor from commutative rings to sets: $A\mapsto \{(n+1)\mbox{-tuples of elements of }A\mbox{ that generate the unit ideal }\}$ is the scheme $\mathbb{A}_\mathbb{Z}^{n+1}\backslash \{0\}$.

The exercise is not even true over field -- after all you have to impose an equivalence relation on the $(n+1)$-tuples; for general rings we have:

The quotient of $\mathbb{A}_\mathbb{Z}^{n+1}\backslash \{0\}$ by the obvious action of $\mathbb{G}_m$ is $\mathbb{P}^n_\mathbb{Z}$

This is what the exercise should have asked.

  • $\begingroup$ Yes, of course you are right. In the case of a PID I automatically meant the set of $(n+1)$-tuples of $A$ that generate the unit ideal modulo equivalence -- multiplication by a unit. I was particularly concerned about the "generate the unit ideal" part. $\endgroup$ – C S Nov 16 '10 at 13:56

Thanks for your answers!!

If you take $A=\mathcal{O}_K$, the invertible $A$-modules are exactly the non-zero fractional ideals of $A$, so I guess we can reformulate the exercise to be

There is a bijection of sets $\{(n+1)$-tuples of elements of A such that $\exists i: a_i\neq 0 \}$ modulo equivalence, where equivalence is multiplication by a non-zero element of $K$


$\{A$-valued points of $\mathbb{P}^n_A\}$

Thus, for $\mathcal{O}_K$, the "classical" definition of points of projective $n$-space coincides with the definition of $\mathcal{O}_K$-valued points of $\mathbb{P}^n_{\mathcal{O}_K}$.

  • $\begingroup$ ... $\mathcal O_K$, the ring of integers in a number field $K$. $\endgroup$ – VA. Nov 16 '10 at 14:07
  • $\begingroup$ ... and "multiplication by a nonzero element"? For $A=\mathbb Z$, (1,1)=(2,2) in $\mathbb P^1$. $\endgroup$ – VA. Nov 16 '10 at 15:04
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, thank you. I also forgot "fractional" in the above. I editted it, I hope it is correct now. $\endgroup$ – C S Nov 16 '10 at 17:42

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.