Hello, I'm looking for someone who can help me to understand Zariski's theory of valuations.

First I outline the theory: we take a field $K$ which is a finitely generated transcendent extension of another field $k$. We only consider the case $k=\mathbb{Q}$ or $\mathbb{C}$. By definition, A model of $K$ is a variety $V\subset \mathbb{CP}^n$ defined over $k$, such that the rational function field of $V$ over $k$ is isomorphic to $K$. We define the underlying topological space of $V$ to be a space, whose points are irreducible subvarieties of $V$, endowed with Zariski topology.

Now comes the interesting thing: Zariski gave an homeomorphism between the space of valuations on $K/k$ and the inverse limit of underlying topological spaces of all models of $K$.

Question: Plz give me some concret examples of the above correspondence.

The only example I know is that, given an irreducible hypersurface of a model $V$, one can count the order of rational functions on $V$ over the hypersurface. This gives a discret rank one valuation.

Is there some other easily-described points in the inverse limit, whose corresponding valuations are non-discret, or of higher rank?

Other comments are welcome!

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Easiest example: a complex curve. Every valuation is discrete of rank one, the Zariski-Riemann space is homeomorphic to the smooth model of C. This is the motivating example (no inverse limit needed, and well known before Zariski). First "interesting" case: surfaces. As an example, if p is a point of the curve C on S, a rank 2 valuation of K(S) counts order on C and intersection with C at p. The corresponding point in the Zariski-Riemann space is the limit of all points on C infinitely near to p. References: Zariski-Samuel "Commutative Algebra", Casas-Alvero "Singularities of plane curves". $\endgroup$ – quim Sep 20 '11 at 9:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'll put several remarks in separate comments. First, the definition of that valuation: assume C is defined near p by x=0 for some $x\in {\mathcal O}_{S,p}$. Every $f\in {\mathcal O}_{S,p}$ can be written uniquely as $x^v⋅\tilde f$ with $v$ a nonnegative integer and $\tilde f$ not divisible by $x$ ($v$ is the order of $f$ over $C$). Now the map $f\mapsto (v,I_p(C,\tilde f))$ is a rank 2 valuation. $\endgroup$ – quim Sep 20 '11 at 14:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Second, the intersection index $I_p(C,\tilde f)$ can be defined in various ways. One often found is as $\dim {\mathcal O}_{S,p}/(f,x)$. $\endgroup$ – quim Sep 20 '11 at 14:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ But, third! $C$ can be parameterized locally (analytically) by Puiseux series. That is, if $y,z\in {\mathcal O}_{S,p}$ are local coordinates at $p$ (equivalently, $y,z$ generate the maximal ideal at $p$) then there exist an integer $n$ and a series $h(t)$ such that $t\mapsto (t^n, h(t))$ is a parameterization of $C$ (i.e., the kernel of the map ${\mathcal O}_{S,p}\rightarrow {\mathbb C}[[t]]$ given by $y\mapsto t^n$, $z\mapsto h(t)$ is the ideal generated by $x$. Then, $I_p(C,\tilde f)$ can also be defined as the order (in t) of the image of $\tilde f$ in ${\mathbb C}[[t]]$. $\endgroup$ – quim Sep 20 '11 at 14:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Fourth, seen this way, the rank 2 valuation defined above is a particular case of Zariski-Samuel, "Commutative Algebra II", VI.15, example 2, second paragraph. $\endgroup$ – quim Sep 20 '11 at 14:13

Simply put (more or less already said above). Let $K=C(x,y)$ and let $xi(t)$ be a generalized power series (a power series with well-ordered exponents) where the exponents are non-negative real numbers. Assume (this is important) that $P(t,\xi(t))\neq 0$ for any $P\in K$. Then the map: $\nu(P(x,y))=ord_{t}(t,\xi(t))$ is a valuation (the "order of contact of P with $(t,\xi(t))$").

Notice that if $\xi(t)=t^{\pi}$, for example, the valuation has rational rank $2$. If $\xi(t)$ corresponds to an analytic branch of a curve (non-algebraic), the valuation has rational rank $1$, etc.

By the way, here you may find something useful. That book may be of help.

You should read something about point blowing-ups and then you understand the projective limit thing. But without it, it gets somewhat too algebraic.


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.