0
$\begingroup$

Hi,

I have a general question concerning the closed points $X^{0}$ of a variety $X$ over a field $k$: one always hears that the properties of $X^{0}$ are "equivalent" to those of $X$, because it is dense in $X$.

Can you give me some hint what is meant with that rough statement?

For example, I have the following problem:

if I have two morphisms $f,g$ from $X$ to $Y$ ($Y$ another variety) which coincide on $X^0$ (as maps of sets or as morphisms?), then they are equal. How would you formally prove this? The problem for me is that $X^0$ is not open in $X$, so a number of theorems about equality of morphisms dont work here.

Thanks!

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
6
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The formal statement is that the category of varieties in the scheme-sense is equivalent to the category of varieties in the classical sense (where each point is closed). You can find this everywhere, e.g. in Hartshorne chapter II. $\endgroup$
    – Martin Brandenburg
    Commented Aug 22, 2011 at 8:01
  • $\begingroup$ It's important that the maps $X^0 \rightarrow Y^0$ agree as morphisms, not just as maps of sets. $\endgroup$
    – A. Pascal
    Commented Aug 22, 2011 at 9:05
  • $\begingroup$ @A.Pascal: but $X$ and $Y$ being reduced, isn't it the same even if they coincide just as maps of sets? $\endgroup$
    – Qfwfq
    Commented Aug 22, 2011 at 11:12
  • $\begingroup$ Good question... $\endgroup$
    – Descartes
    Commented Aug 22, 2011 at 11:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If $X=Y=\mathbb{A}^{1}$ over $k=\mathbb{F}_{2}$, then the identity map $x \mapsto x$ and the the squaring map $x \mapsto x^{2}$ have the same values on $k$-points, but are different as maps of schemes. Of course, you can distinguish them by looking at maps on points over field extensions of $k$. Such points do correspond to closed points of the underlying scheme, but it seems to me a little strange to talk about old-fashioned non-schemey varieties unless you are over an algebraically closed field. I believe Hartshorne presumes his ground field is algebraically closed for classical case. $\endgroup$
    – A. Pascal
    Commented Aug 22, 2011 at 13:34

0

Reset to default

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .