Akhil Mathew
January 18, 2011
Abstract
We give an exposition of the various forms of Zariskiās Main Theorem, following
EGA. Most of the basic machinery (e.g. properties of fpqc morphisms, locally con
structible sets) is developed from the beginning. In addition, several applications to
the theory of Ā“etale and unramiļ¬ed morphisms are included.
1 Introduction
What Zariskiās main theorem states is succint: a quasiļ¬nite morphism of ļ¬nite presenta
tion between separated noetherian schemes factors as a composite of an open immersion
and a ļ¬nite morphism. This is a fairly big deal, as the condition of quasiļ¬niteness is
seemingly rather weakāit is a condition on the ļ¬bersāwhile open immersions and ļ¬nite
morphisms are very nice. For instance, Zariskiās Main Theorem is used to prove the local
structure theory for Ā“etale and unramiļ¬ed morphisms of rings. It also immediately implies
the theorem of Chevalley that a proper quasiļ¬nite morphism is ļ¬nite.
In this note, we will give Grothendieckās argument for ZMT. The argument proceeds
by reducing the case of a general ļ¬nitely presented quasiļ¬nite morphism f : X ā Y
to the case where Y is a complete local noetherian ring(!). This reduction, which uses
a general method developed by Grothendieck of reducing results about ļ¬nitely presented
morphisms to ļ¬nite type morphisms between noetherian schemes, has many other ap
plications, and ļ¬lls an entire section of EGA IV. The argument thereafter uses a clever
induction on the dimension of the ground scheme Y . In addition to this, we include various
applications, such as the theory of unramiļ¬ed and Ā“etale morphisms and various functorial
characterizations of open and closed immersions.
While it is easy to state, the general form of ZMT is fairly diļ¬cult; it is in EGA IV3.
We are going to start with the ābabyā version of Zariskiās main theorem (in EGA III4 or
Hartshorne), which runs as follows.
Theorem 1.1 (Zariski). Let f : X ā Y be a birational proper morphism of noetherian
integral schemes, where Y is normal. Then the ļ¬bers f
ā1
(y) = X
y
, y ā Y are all connected.
A priori, we know that for any open subset U ā Y , the inverse image f
ā1
(U) ā X is
open and thus connected. As the Uās shrink towards y ā Y , we might expect the ālimitā
of the f
ā1
(U) to be connected. However, this does not work. The Uās that contain y are
actually rather large, since we are working with the Zariski topology.
1
The problem is that Zariski neighborhoods are rather large, and so, intuitively, one
might think to consider completions. In fact, this is what we are going to do: we will
deduce the result from the socalled āformal function theorem.ā
2 The formal function theorem
The formal function theorem gives a basic comparison result between the operations of
taking cohomology and taking completions.
2.1 Motivation
Let X be a noetherian scheme and Z ā X a closed subset, deļ¬ned by a coherent sheaf
of ideals J. (So Z = supp(O
X
/J).) Given a coherent sheaf T on X, we can consider the
sheaves
T
k
= T/J
k
T,
each of which is supported on the closed set Z. We can thus consider their cohomologies
H
n
(X, T
k
) = H
n
(Z, T
k
); these form an inverse system over k because the T
k
do.
The question arises: what might this inverse system look like when we take the pro
jective limit over k? In particular, can we get it directly from T?
First of all, the morphisms of sheaves T ā T
k
induce natural maps
H
n
(X, T) ā H
n
(X, T
k
)
for each k, which commute with the maps of the projective system. There is thus a map
H
n
(X, T) ā lim
āā
k
H
n
(X, T
k
).
Now, we cannot expect this map to be an isomorphism. The T
k
are all supported on Z,
while T probably is not.
So let I ā Ī(X, J) be an ideal. We know that I ā Ī(X, O
X
) and I acts by multipli
cation on the cohomology groups H
n
(X, T). Furthermore, the kth element in the Iadic
ļ¬ltration, that is I
k
H
n
(X, T), maps to zero in H
n
(X, T
k
) because it factors
I
k
H
n
(X, T) ā H
n
(X, J
k
T)
0
ā H
n
(X, T
k
).
In particular, for each k, we have maps
H
n
(X, T)/I
k
H
n
(X, T) ā H
n
(X, T
k
)
which induces a map on the inverse limits
H
n
(X, T) = lim
āā
H
n
(X, T)/I
k
H
n
(X, T) ā lim
āā
H
n
(X, T
k
)
where the ļ¬rst is the completion with respect to the Iadic topology. This seems much
more reasonable because, intuitively, completing at the Iadic topology is like taking a
very small neighborhood of the subset Z.
2
So we ask, when is this an isomorphism? First of all, completion is only really well
behaved for ļ¬nitely generated modules. So we should have some condition that the coho
mology groups are ļ¬nitely generated. This we can do if there is a noetherian ring A and
a morphism X ā SpecA which is proper. In this case, it is aānontrivialātheorem that
the cohomology groups of any coherent sheaf on X are ļ¬nitely generated Amodules.
In addition, the ideal I should somehow determine the ideal J, since many diļ¬erent
Jās could hypothetically have the same I. We could take J = f
ā
(I). It turns out that this
is what we need.
2.2 The formal function theorem
So, motivated by the previous section, we state:
Let X be a proper scheme over SpecA, for A noetherian. Let I ā A be an ideal whose
pullback J is a sheaf of ideals on X. Fix a coherent sheaf T on X and deļ¬ne as before
the sheaves T
k
= T/J
k
T.
Theorem 2.1 (Formal function theorem). Hypotheses as above, the natural morphism
H
n
(X, T) ā lim
āā
H
n
(X, T
k
)
is an isomorphism of Amodules, for each n.
Proof. We shall now prove the formal function theorem. Let us ļ¬x A, T, X, and n.
Let k ā Z
ā„0
. Then we have an exact sequence of sheaves
0 ā J
k
T ā T ā T
k
ā 0,
and in fact, for k ā¤ k
, we can draw a commutative diagram of exact sequences
0
//
J
k
T
//
T
//
T
k
//
0
0
//
J
k
T
//
T
//
T
k
//
0
.
From this, we can draw a commutative diagram of long exact sequences in cohomology:
H
n
(X, J
k
T)
//
H
n
(X, T)
//
H
n
(X, T
k
)
//
H
n+1
(X, J
k
T)
H
n
(X, J
k
T)
//
H
n
(X, T)
//
H
n
(X, T
k
)
//
H
n+1
(X, J
k
T)
.
This is a good thing. By a careful analysis of this diagram, we will be able to deduce
the formal function theorem. The point is that we are going to take an inverse limit of
this system of exact sequences. The ļ¬rst thing we need to do, however, is to make the
sequence short exact. To do that, we introduce some notation.
Since n is ļ¬xed throughout this discussion, we write
H = H
n
(X, T), H
k
= H
n
(X, T
k
)
3
and
R
k
= im(H
n
(X, J
k
T) ā H
n
(X, T)).
Finally, we write Q
k
for the image
Q
k
= im(H
n
(X, T
k
) ā H
n+1
(X, J
k
T));
this is equivalently a kernel:
Q
k
= ker(H
n+1
(X, J
k
T) ā H
n+1
(X, T)).
Given this notation, it is clear that we have a family of semishort exact sequences,
which forms an inverse system:
0 ā R
k
ā H ā H
k
ā Q
k
ā 0.
The goal is to take the inverse limit of this and somehow get the formal function
theorem.
We are going to show two things. One is that the R
k
ā H form essentially the I
adic ļ¬ltration on H. Precisely, the point is that they induce the Iadic topology. This is
reasonable, since the R
k
ās are deļ¬ned via H
n
(X, J
k
T) and this ālooks likeā multiplication
by J
k
, although it is in the wrong spot. Second, we are going to show that the morphisms
between the Q
k
ās are eventually zero, so that lim
āā
Q
k
= 0.
After this, when we take the inverse limit
1
of the system of exact sequences
0 ā H/R
k
ā H
k
ā Q
k
ā 0
it will follow (since lim
āā
Q
k
= 0) that lim
āā
H/R
k
= lim
āā
H
k
. Since the R
k
form the Iadic
topology on H, we will have derived the formal function theorem.
2.2.1 Step one: the R
k
Let us begin by analyzing the R
k
= im(H
n
(X, J
k
T) ā H
n
(X, T)). We are going to show
that the R
k
form a ļ¬ltration on H that is equivalent to the Iadic one. On the one hand,
it is clear that I
k
H ā R
k
because if x ā I
k
, the map
x : H ā H
factors as
H
n
(X, T)
x
ā H
n
(X, J
k
T) ā H
n
(X, T).
So the R
k
are at least as large as the Iadic ļ¬ltration. For the other inclusion, namely
that the R
k
are small, we shall need to invoke a big result.
1
Inverse limits are leftexact, by general categorical nonsense.
4
2.2.2 Some tools from algebraic geometry
We shall now quote two important coherence theorems in algebraic geometry.
Theorem 2.2 (EGA III.3.2.1). Let f : X ā Y be a morphism of proper noetherian
schemes. Then if T is a coherent sheaf on X, the higher direct images R
i
f
ā
(T) are
coherent on Y .
This is a relative and schemetheoretic version of the fact that on a complete (e.g.
projective) variety over a ļ¬eld, the cohomology groups are always ļ¬nitedimensional. We
shall not give the proof.
Actually, however, we need a stronger variant of the above direct image theorem:
Theorem 2.3 (EGA III.3.3.1). Let f : X ā Y be a morphism of proper noetherian
schemes and let o be a quasicoherent, ļ¬nitely generated graded algebra over O
Y
. Then if
T is a quasicoherent sheaf on X which is a ļ¬nitely generated graded f
ā
(o)module, the
higher direct images R
i
f
ā
(T) are ļ¬nitely generated omodules.
This is a strengthening of the usual proper mapping theorem, but it is in fact not
terribly diļ¬cult to deduce from it by simply forming the relative Spec of o and invoking
Theorem 2.2. We refer the reader to EGA for the argument.
2.2.3 The ļ¬ltration of the R
k
Now we are going to return to the case of interest in the formal function theorem. Namely,
we have a proper morphism f : X ā SpecA for A noetherian, I ā A an ideal, f
ā
(I) = J
an ideal of O
X
, and T a coherent sheaf on X. We have deļ¬ned H = H
n
(X, T) and
R
k
= im(H
n
(X, J
k
T) ā H
n
(X, T)); we shall now show that the topology induced by the
R
k
on H is equivalent to the Iadic topology.
Consider the blowup algebra AāI āI
2
ā. . . , which is a ļ¬nitely generated Aalgebra;
it can be considered as a quasicoherent sheaf o of ļ¬nitely generated graded O
SpecA
algebras
on SpecA and pulled back to X, when it becomes the O
X
algebra
f
ā
(o) = O
X
āJ āJ
2
ā. . . .
Now the quasicoherent sheaf
T āJT ā. . .
is a ļ¬nitely generated graded sheaf of modules on X over the quasicoherent, ļ¬nitely gen
erated graded algebra f
ā
(o). It follows by Theorem 2.3 that the cohomology
H
n
(X, T) āH
n
(X, JT) ā. . .
is a ļ¬nitely generated module over the blowup algebra AāI āI
2
ā. . . .
By ļ¬nite generation, it follows that the map
I ā
R
H
n
(X, J
k
T) ā H
n
(X, J
k+1
T)
5
is surjective for large k; this is a familiar argument as in the proof of the ArtinRees
lemma. Let us draw a commutative diagram
I ā
R
H
n
(X, J
k
T)
//
H
n
(X, J
k+1
T)
I ā
R
H
n
(X, T)
//
H
n
(X, T)
.
If k is large, then the top horizontal map is surjective, and consequently the image
of I ā
R
H
n
(X, J
k
T) in H
n
(X, T) (namely, IR
k
) is the same as that of H
n
(X, J
k+1
T)
(namely, R
k+1
). This implies that the Ā¦R
k
Ā¦ form a ļ¬ltration equivalent to the Iadic one.
This is precisely what we wanted to see.
So one step is done. We have analyzed the R
k
.
2.3 Step two: the Q
k
Now, we need to analyze the Q
k
. Namely, we need to show that the maps Q
k
ā Q
k
between them are basically zero, for k
Āø k.
Recall the deļ¬nition
Q
k
= ker(H
n+1
(X, J
k
T)) ā H
n+1
(X, T))
or
Q
k
= Im(H
n
(X, T
k
) ā H
n+1
(X, J
k
T)).
We will play both oļ¬ against each other together with the proper coherence theorem.
First, we note that since each Q
k
is an Amodule, and by the ļ¬rst deļ¬nition there are
canonical maps Q
k
I ā Q
k+1
given by multiplication, we ļ¬nd that
Q =
Q
k
is a module over the blowup algebra A ā I ā . . . , as before. In fact, we ļ¬nd that Q is
a submodule of
H
n
(X, J
k+1
T). Since we know that the module
H
n
(X, J
k+1
T) is
ļ¬nitely generated by Theorem 2.3, we ļ¬nd that Q is ļ¬nitely generated over the blowup
algebra, which is noetherian.
However, it is also true, in view of the second deļ¬nition, that the Amodule Q
k
is
annihilated by I
k
, because T
k
is. It follows by ļ¬nite generation of Q that there is a high
power N such that the ideal I
N
āI
N+1
ā. . . in the blowup algebra annihilates the entire
module Q.
There are maps Q
k+r
ā Q
k
, which are induced by the usual maps H
n
(X, J
k+r
T) ā
H
n
(X, J
k
T), We have a sequence
Q
k
āI
r
ā Q
k+r
ā Q
k
where the ļ¬rst comes from the blowup multiplication and the second is the canonical map
just described. The composite is the Amodule multiplication in Q
k
. The ļ¬rst map is
surjective for r by ļ¬nite generation over the blowup algebra, and the composite is zero for
r ā„ N by the above reasoning. It follows that
Q
k+r
ā Q
k
is zero if r Āø 0.
6
2.3.1 Completion of the proof
So we have established two things. One, that the R
k
form basically an Iadic ļ¬ltration on
H = H
n
(X, T). Second, that the maps Q
k
ā Q
k
are zero for k
Āø k, and in particular,
the inverse limit lim
āā
Q
k
is zero.
Now we have an exact sequence for each k,
0 ā H/R
k
ā H
k
ā Q
k
ā 0,
and we can take the inverse limit, which is a leftexact functor. We ļ¬nd an exact sequence
0 ā
Ā“
H ā lim
āā
H
k
ā 0,
which is precisely the isomorphism that the formal function theorem states.
2.4 A fancier version of the formal function theorem
We shall now restate what we proved earlier in a slightly fancier form (i.e. using the
derived functors R
n
f
ā
instead of cohomology).
Previously, we said that if X was a proper scheme over SpecA with structure morphism
f : X ā SpecA, and J = f
ā
(I) for some ideal I ā A, then there were two constructions
one could do on a coherent sheaf T on X that were in fact the same. Namely, we could
complete the cohomology H
n
(X, T) with respect to I, and we could take the inverse limit
lim
āā
H
n
(X, T/J
k
T). The claim was that the natural map
H
n
(X, T) ā lim
āā
H
n
(X, T/J
k
T)
was in fact an isomorphism. This is a very nontrivial statement, but in fact we saw that
a reasonably straightforward proof could be given via diagramchasing if one appeals to a
strong form of the proper mapping theorem.
Now, however, we want to jazz this up a little by replacing cohomology groups with
higher direct images. Slightly more is done in EGA, where the two quantities in question
are identiļ¬ed with the derived functors of the pushforward on formal schemes, but we
shall not discuss formal schemes here.
First, however, we need to introduce a notion. Let Z
ā Z be a closed subscheme
of the scheme Z, deļ¬ned by a sheaf of ideals Āø. Given a sheaf T on Z, we can deļ¬ne
the completion along Z
, denoted
Ė
T, to be the inverse limit lim
āā
T/Āø
k
T; this is a sheaf
supported on the underlying set of Z
. If one is working with noetherian schemes, this
depends only on the underlying set of Z
, since any two such ideals will have comparable
powers.
Now we can state the general formal function theorem:
Theorem 2.4. Let f : X ā Y be a proper morphism of noetherian schemes. Let Y
ā Y
be a closed subscheme whose pullback to X is deļ¬ned by the sheaf J of ideals. If T is a
coherent sheaf on X, then there is a canonical isomorphism
R
n
f
ā
(T) Ā· lim
āā
R
n
f
ā
(T/J
k
T). (1)
7
Now one wants to say further that this is isomorphic to R
n
Ā“
f
ā
(
Ā“
T), where
Ā“
f denotes the
morphism on the formal completions. This is also true, but requires a close analysis of
exactly how cohomology behaves with respect to projective limits.
Proof. We have essentially already proved this jazzedup version of the formal function
theorem. Indeed, to compute the higher direct images, one just takes ordinary cohomology
over inverse images and sheaļ¬ļ¬es. If one restricts to open aļ¬nes, one does not even have
to sheaļ¬fy.
So let U = SpecA ā Y be an aļ¬ne over which Y
is given by an ideal I ā A. Then
we can evaluate both sides of the above equation at U. On the left, we get the Iadic
completion
lim
āā
H
n
(f
ā1
(U), T)/I
k
H
n
(f
ā1
(U), T);
on the right, we get
lim
āā
Ī(U, R
n
f
ā
(T/J
k
T)) = lim
āā
H
n
(f
ā1
(U), T/J
k
T).
Note that taking sections commutes with taking inverse limits of sheaves. We know
that these two are canonically isomorphic by the formal function theorem though, as
f
ā1
(U) ā U is proper.
2.5 An example of the ļ¬t
As an example, let f : X ā Y be a proper morphism of noetherian schemes, and let T
be a coherent sheaf on X. Suppose furthermore that y ā Y . We will show that there is a
canonical isomorphism
(R
n
f
ā
(T))
y
Ā· lim
āā
H
n
(f
ā1
(y), T/m
k
y
T).
This is to be interpreted as follows. The ļ¬rst term is the completion of the stalk (R
n
f
ā
(T))
y
at the maximal ideal m
y
ā O
y
. The second is the inverse limit of the cohomologies of the
pullbacks of T to āinļ¬nitesimal neighborhoodsā of the ļ¬ber.
This is, incidentally, the version in which Hartshorne states the formal function theo
rem.
We can prove this as follows. First, let us make the ļ¬at base change SpecO
y
ā Y . The
formation of higher direct images commutes with ļ¬at base change for separated morphisms,
and consequently we can reduce to the case where Y = SpecO
y
. As a result, y can be
assumed to be a closed point. In this case, the result is a direct restatement of the formal
function theorem. The only thing to note is that H
n
(f
ā1
(y), T/m
k
y
T) = H
n
(X, T/m
k
y
T)
because Ā¦yĀ¦, and consequently f
ā1
(y), is closed.
Corollary 2.5. Let f : X ā Y be a proper morphism of noetherian schemes whose ļ¬bers
are of dimension ā¤ r. Then R
n
f
ā
(T) = 0 for any coherent T if n > r.
Proof. Indeed, if T, n are as above, we know that
H
n
(f
ā1
(y), T/m
k
y
T) = 0
8
for all k because sheaf cohomology is trivial in dimension higher than the combinatorial
dimension, by a theorem of Grothendieck. The above version of the formal function
theorem implies that the coherent sheaf the R
n
f
ā
(T) has trivial stalks at each y (since
completion is faithful for ļ¬nite modules), and consequently is trivial.
Example 2.6 (Hartshorne exercise). Let f : X ā Y be a proper morphism of noethe
rian schemes. Let T be a coherent sheaf on X, ļ¬at over Y . Let us suppose that, for some
y ā Y , we have H
n
(X
y
, T āk(y)) = 0; that is, the cohomology is trivial over the ļ¬ber at
y. We will show more generally that R
n
f
ā
(T) is trivial in a neighborhood of y.
To do this, it is suļ¬cient to show that the completion of the stalk (R
n
f
ā
(T))
y
vanishes.
By the formal function theorem, it is suļ¬cient to see that
H
n
(X
y
, T āO
y
/m
k
y
) = 0, , āk.
It will suļ¬ce by the long exact sequence and induction to show that
H
n
(X
y
, T ām
k
y
/m
k+1
y
) = 0, , āk,
since T is ļ¬at. But m
y
/m
k+1
y
is isomorphic to a direct sum of copies of O
y
/m
y
, so we are
done.
3 Zariskiās main theorem: preliminary versions
3.1 The connectedness theorem
The baby version of Zariskiās main theorem is a connectedness theorem about the ļ¬bers
of a certain type of morphism.
Theorem 3.1. Let f : X ā Y be a proper morphism of noetherian schemes. Suppose
that the map O
Y
ā f
ā
(O
X
) is an isomorphism. Then the ļ¬bers of f are connected.
Proof. In order to prove this, we will apply the formal function theorem in the simplest
case: when T = O
X
and n = 0! Namely, by (1), we have that
(f
ā
(O
X
))
y
= lim
āā
Ī(f
ā1
(y), O
X
/m
n
y
O
X
).
Now the ļ¬rst term is just the completion
Ā“
O
y
by the assumptions. Consequently, it is a
complete local ring.
The second term is also a ring, and the isomorphism is clearly one of rings, but if
f
ā1
(y) is disconnected into pieces X
1
āŖX
2
, then the latter splits into two nontrivial pieces
(the ļ¬rst piece generated by the section 1 on X
1
and 0 on X
2
, and the reversal for the
second). But a local ring is never decomposable as a module over itself. If it were, there
would proper ideals I
1
, I
2
ā
Ā“
O
y
that summed to the entire ring, which is a contradiction.
From this the version of Zariskiās Main Theorem stated in [Har77], for instance, can
be easily deduced.
9
Corollary 3.2 (Baby Zariski). Let f : X ā Y be a proper birational morphism between
noetherian schemes. Suppose Y is normal. Then the ļ¬bers f
ā1
(y) are connected.
Proof. Indeed, the claim is that in this case, f
ā
(O
X
) = O
Y
. But f
ā
(O
X
) is a ļ¬nite O
Y

algebra (ļ¬nite as a module, in view of Theorem 2.2) and by birationality both have the
same quotient ļ¬eld at each point, so normality implies that we have equality f
ā
(O
X
) = O
Y
.
Now the above theorem gives the result.
3.2 Stein factorization
Let f : X ā Y be a proper morphism of noetherian schemes. We are going to deļ¬ne a
factorization of f into the composite of a map which always has connected ļ¬bers, and a
ļ¬nite morphism.
To do this, note that f
ā
(O
X
) is a ļ¬nite O
Y
algebra, by Theorem 2.2. By the universal
property of the relative Spec,
2
there is a factorization of f:
X
f
ā Specf
ā
(O
X
)
g
ā Y,
where the second morphism is ļ¬nite because f
ā
(O
X
) is coherent.
Consider now the morphism f
: X ā Z = Specf
ā
(O
X
). It is easy to check that
f
ā
(O
X
) = O
Z
since the pushforwards to Y are the same (namely, f
ā
(O
X
)) and Z ā Y is
ļ¬nite. In particular, the ļ¬bers of f
are connected by Theorem 3.1.
We have now proved:
Theorem 3.3 (Stein factorization). Hypotheses as above, there is a factorization f =
g ā¦ f
where g : Z ā Y is ļ¬nite and f
: X ā Z has connected ļ¬bers. Further g
ā
(O
Z
) is
isomorphic to f
ā
(O
X
), and f
ā
(O
X
) is isomorphic to O
Z
.
3.3 The connected components of the ļ¬ber
Via Stein factorization, we can now get a good picture of the connected components of
the ļ¬ber of f, only assuming f is proper and all schemes are noetherian.
Corollary 3.4. The connected components of f
ā1
(y) are in bijection with the maximal
ideals of (f
ā
(O
X
))
y
.
Proof. Write f = g ā¦ f
as above, where g is ļ¬nite and f
has connected ļ¬bers with
g
ā
(O
Z
) = f
ā
(O
X
). We know that the connected components of f
ā1
(y) are in bijection
with the points in the ļ¬ber g
ā1
(y), because the ļ¬bers of f
are connected, and those of g
are discrete, and we have f
ā1
(y) = f
ā1
(g
ā1
(y)).
But the points of Z lying above y under g are in bijection with the maximal ideals of
(g
ā
(O
Z
))
y
= (f
ā
(O
X
))
y
. This follows from the next lemma, since Z is a relative Spec.
Lemma 3.5. Let X be a scheme, ( a ļ¬nite O
X
algebra. Then the ļ¬ber over x ā X of
the natural map Spec( ā X consists of the maximal ideals in (
x
.
2
Cf. EGA II.1.
10
Proof. Indeed, by deļ¬nition the ļ¬ber is Spec(
X
k(x) = Spec(
x
ā k(x) for k(x) the
residue ļ¬eld of x; the points of this are in bijection with the prime ideals of Spec, which
are all maximal by ļ¬niteness. By Nakayamaās lemma, the maximal ideals of (
x
āk(x) are
the same as those of (
x
.
3
In view of the above corollary, we can generalize the inital version of Zariskiās Mian
Theorem to give an upper bound on the number of connected components in the ļ¬ber of
a proper map.
Corollary 3.6. Let f : X ā Y be a dominant proper morphism of integral noetherian
schemes. Then k(Y ) is naturally a subļ¬eld of k(X). If y ā Y , the number of connected
components of f
ā1
(y) is at most the number of maximal ideals of the integral closure of
O
y
in k(X).
As a result of this corollary, we can in fact strengthen the baby form of Zariskiās main
theorem. In fact, let us say that a local domain is unibranch if its integral closure is
also local. We can say that a point of a scheme is unibranch if its local ring is. Then, the
above corollary implies that if f : X ā Y is a birational proper morphism of noetherian
schemes, for any unibranch y ā Y , the ļ¬ber f
ā1
(y) is connected.
Proof. As before, we saw that the connected components of the ļ¬ber are in bijection with
the maximal ideals of (f
ā
(O
X
))
y
. However, this is a ļ¬nite O
y
module because f
ā
(O
X
) is
coherent. In particular, it is contained in the integral closure R
y
of O
y
in k(Y ). Now
every maximal ideal in the ring (f
ā
(O
X
))
y
lifts to a diļ¬erent maximal ideal in R
y
by the
lying over theorem. So the number of maximal ideals in (f
ā
(O
X
))
y
is at most the number
of maximal ideals in R
y
. This is what we wanted to prove.
There is another version of Zariskiās main theorem, intermediate between the baby one
and the hard quasiļ¬nite one. It basically is the big Zariski theorem but for quasiļ¬nite
and quasiprojective morphisms. In the next few subsections, we shall explain this.
3.4 Points isolated in their ļ¬bers
As before, let f : X ā Y be a proper morphism of noetherian schemes. We are now
interested in the question of when some x ā X is isolated in the ļ¬ber f
ā1
(f(x)) ā X.
Proposition 3.7. If f is proper, then the set of x ā X isolated in their ļ¬ber f
ā1
(f(x))
is open.
Proof. To see this, we shall use the Stein factorization. As before, we can write
f = g ā¦ f
: X
f
ā Z
g
ā Y
where g is ļ¬nite and f
has connected ļ¬bers. The ļ¬bers of g are discrete, and f
ā1
(f(x)) =
f
ā1
(g
ā1
(f(x))). The connected component of x in f
ā1
(f(x)) is thus f
ā1
(f
(x)).
3
Any maximal ideal I of Cx must contain mxCx if mx is the maximal ideal of the local ring Ox, or one
could add mxCx to it. Note that if I = Cx, then I + mxCx = Cx by Nakayama.
11
We thus ļ¬nd that x is isolated in its ļ¬ber if and only if f
ā1
(f
(x)) = x. So we may
look at the corresponding set for f
; it suļ¬ces to prove the theorem for f
. That is, we
may prove the proposition under the assumption that the ļ¬bers are all connected, and
furthermore that the pushforward of the structure sheaf is the structure sheaf (since that
is true of f
).
Let us now drop the notation f
, and assume that f : X ā Y itself has connected ļ¬bers
and satisļ¬es f
ā
(O
X
) = O
Y
. We need to show that the set of x such that f
ā1
(f(x)) = Ā¦xĀ¦
is open.
We shall prove more generally:
Proposition 3.8. Let f be a proper morphism of noetherian schemes satisfying f
ā
(O
X
) =
O
Y
. If T is the set of x ā X which are isolated in their ļ¬bers (or equivalently such
that f
ā1
(f(x)) = x by the connectedness principle), then T is open and f[
T
is an open
immersion.
Proof. Let us ļ¬rst check that T is open. (This is all we need for Proposition 3.7.)
If x ā T, we claim that (f
ā
(O
X
))
f(x)
= O
f(x)
. This follows because as U becomes a
small neighborhood of f(x), then f
ā1
(U) becomes a small neighborhood of x = f
ā1
(f(x))
as f is closed. Thus, since f
ā
(O
X
) = O
Y
, we ļ¬nd that the natural map
O
X,x
Ā· O
Y,f(x)
is an isomorphism. However, since f is of ļ¬nite type, this means that there are small
neighborhoods U, V of x, f(x) which are isomorphic under f. By choosing V small, we
can just take U = f
ā1
(V ). It follows then that every point in U is isolated in its ļ¬ber.
This proves that T is open.
Now let us check that f[
T
is an open immersion. If x ā T, then we have seen that
there are neighborhoods U of x and V of f(x), with U = f
ā1
(V ), such that f[
U
: U ā V
is an isomorphism. If we take the inverse g
V
: V ā U, and do the same for every such
pair U, V that occurs around any x ā U, then the various inverses g
V
have to glue, as f[
T
is onetoone. It follows that that g[
T
is an isomorphism onto an open subset of Y .
3.5 A useful corollary
The following special case is frequently used.
Corollary 3.9. Let f : X ā Y be a birational, bijective, proper morphism of noetherian
integral schemes. Suppose Y is normal. Then f is an isomorphism.
Proof. Indeed, as before we ļ¬nd that f
ā
(O
X
) = O
Y
. Since every point of x is isolated in
its ļ¬ber f
ā1
(f(x)) by assumption, we ļ¬nd by Proposition 3.8 that f is an open immersion.
But f is proper and must have closed image, which must be all of Y as Y is irreducible.
12
3.6 The Zariski theorem
Finally, we can state the intermediate version of the Zariski theorem.
Theorem 3.10 (Zariskiās Main Theorem). Let f : X ā Y be a quasiprojective mor
phism of noetherian schemes. Let U be the subset of X consisting of points which are
isolated in their ļ¬bers. Then f[
U
factors as a composite of an open immersion and a
ļ¬nite morphism.
Proof. To see this, ļ¬rst note that by deļ¬nition of quasiprojective, f factors as a composite
of an open immersion and a projective morphism. Consequently we can just assume f is
projective. In this case, we have the Stein factorization f = g ā¦ f
where g is ļ¬nite. But
on the set of points which are isolated in their ļ¬bers, we know that f
is actually an open
immersion by Proposition 3.8. So we ļ¬nd
f[
U
= g ā¦ f
[
U
is the requisite factorization.
The harder form of Zariskiās Main Theorem deals with the structure of quasiļ¬nite
morphisms. Recall that a morphism of schemes is quasiļ¬nite if it is of ļ¬nite type and the
ļ¬bers are ļ¬nite. If we knew that every quasiļ¬nite morphism was quasiprojective (which
turns out to be true, but we shall only prove it later, in Theorem 8.4), or more generally
factored as an open immersion and a proper morphism, then we could argue similarly as
above to prove the quasiļ¬nite version of ZMT. However, we have not shown that.
Nonetheless, we can prove:
Theorem 3.11 (Chevalley). A proper, quasiļ¬nite morphism f : X ā Y of noetherian
schemes is ļ¬nite.
Proof. We can appeal to the Stein factorization theorem to get f = g ā¦ f
where g is ļ¬nite
and f
is an open immersion, since every point is isolated in its ļ¬ber. However, f is proper,
and g is separated, so by the cancellation property, we ļ¬nd that f
is itself proper. This
means that it must be a closed immersion as well, and consequently ļ¬nite. It follows that
f is ļ¬nite.
3.7 Application: a functorial characterization of closed immersions
Many characterizations of morphisms in algebraic geometry have purely functorial char
acterizations. We use the above machinery to give one for closed immersions. Later, we
shall give one for open immersions (Theorem 4.31, in view of the characterization of Ā“etale
morphisms in Theorem 4.35).
Theorem 3.12. Let f : X ā Y be morphism of ļ¬nite type between locally noetherian
schemes. Then f is a closed immersion if and only if it is a proper monomorphism.
The condition of being a monomorphism is obviously a purely functorial one. Moreover,
by the valuative criterion for properness, so is that of being a proper morphism. In [GD],
this is extended to morphisms of ļ¬nite presentation, where the noetherian hypothesis is
dropped.
13
Proof. It is easy to see that a closed immersion is a proper monomorphism.
Conversely, suppose f is a proper monomorphism. Then f is radicial, so it is clearly
quasiļ¬nite; by Theorem 3.11, it is ļ¬nite.
Now for each y ā Y , the basechange X
y
ā Speck(y) is a monomorphism. Since X
y
is
a onepoint scheme (f being radicial), it is aļ¬ne, say X
y
= SpecA
y
. Since X
y
ā Speck(y)
is a monomorphism, the diagonal embedding
X
y
ā X
y
k(y)
X
y
(2)
is an isomorphism.
4
So, in view of (2), the associated multiplication morphism
A
y
ā
k(y)
A
y
ā A
y
is an isomorphism of algebras. As A
y
is ļ¬nite over k(y), this implies that A
y
= k(y) or
A
y
is the zero ring (in which case the ļ¬ber is empty).
Thus f is a ļ¬nite morphism such that each ļ¬ber X
y
is either empty or isomorphic to
Speck(y). The claim is that this implies that f is a closed immersion. Indeed, there is a
coherent sheaf / of O
Y
algebras such that X = Spec/ and f can be represented as the
natural projection Spec/ ā Y . The associated morphism O
X
ā / is surjective on the
ļ¬bers by the above argument, which means that / is O
X
/J for some quasicoherent sheaf
of ideals; in particular, f is a closed immersion.
3.8 The algebraic form of ZMT
We can now state a purely algebraic result, which is a form of Zariskiās Main theorem. In
fact, it is a direct restatement of what we have already argued, though it is slightly less
elegant in the language of commutative rings (rather than schemes).
Theorem 3.13 (Zariskiās Main Theorem). Let A be a noetherian ring, B a ļ¬nitely
generated Aalgebra. Suppose q ā SpecB lies over the prime ideal p ā SpecA and q is
isolated in its ļ¬ber: that is, it is simultaneously minimal and maximal for primes lying
above q.
Then there is g / ā q, a ļ¬nite
5
Aalgebra C with q
ā SpecC mapping to p, h ā C ā q
such that
B
g
Ā· C
h
as Aalgebras.
Proof. Indeed, the morphism SpecB ā SpecA is quasiprojective (it is aļ¬ne of ļ¬nite
type), and it is quasiļ¬nite at q. In particular, by Theorem 3.10, it is quasiļ¬nite in some
neighborhood of q; in fact, there is g / ā q such that the morphism
SpecB
g
ā SpecA
4
In a category with ļ¬bered products, a morphism X āY is a monomorphism if and only if the diagonal
X āX ĆY X is an isomorphism. This is easy to check by considering the associated hom functors.
5
Finite as in a ļ¬nitely generated module.
14
is quasiļ¬nite, and furthermore factors as an open immersion SpecB
g
ā Z
and a ļ¬nite
morphism Z
ā SpecA. Here Z
is necessarily aļ¬ne, say Z
= SpecC for C a ļ¬nite
Amodule.
Let q
be the image of q ā SpecB
g
in SpecC. Then B
g
near q and C near q
are locally
isomorphic because SpecB
g
ā SpecC is an open immersion. This is the meaning of the
theorem.
4 Application: unramiļ¬ed and Ā“etale morphisms
As an application of the algebraic version of ZMT, we shall prove the basic results, in
particular the local structure theorem, about unramiļ¬ed and Ā“etale morphisms of rings.
Throughout this section, we shall assume that all rings are noetherian.
6
4.1 Unramiļ¬ed morphisms
The notion of an unramiļ¬ed extension generalizes the familiar notion from algebraic num
ber theory, though it is not immediately obvious how.
Deļ¬nition 4.1. A morphism Ļ : R ā S of rings is unramiļ¬ed if it is of ļ¬nite type and
ā¦
S/R
= 0.
It is in fact possible to reformulate the ļ¬nal condition in the above deļ¬nition in terms
of an inļ¬nitesimal lifting property. Namely, a morphism R ā S of ļ¬nite type is unramiļ¬ed
if and only if for every Ralgebra T and ideal I ā T satisfying I
2
= 0, the natural map
hom
R
(S, T) ā hom
R
(S, T/I)
is injective. In other words, in a diagram of Ralgebras
T
S
>>




//
T/I
, (3)
there is at most one dotted arrow making the diagram commute. If one does not assume
the ļ¬nite type hypothesis, the morphism is called formally unramiļ¬ed. In fact, we can
state this precisely:
Proposition 4.2. The following are equivalent for a Ralgebra S:
1. ā¦
S/R
= 0.
2. In every diagram (3), there is at most one lifting S ā T.
Proof. Suppose ļ¬rst ā¦
S/R
= 0. This is equivalent to the statement that any Rderivation
of S into an Smodule is trivial. If given an Ralgebra T with an ideal I ā T of square
zero and a morphism
S ā T/I,
6
This should be ļ¬xed at some point.
15
and two liftings f, g : S ā T, then we ļ¬nd that f āg maps S into I. Since T/I is naturally
an Salgebra, it is easy to see (since I has square zero) that I is naturally an Smodule
and f āg is an Rderivation S ā I. Thus f āg ā” 0 and f = g.
Conversely, suppose S has the property that liftings in (3) are unique. Consider the
Smodule T = Sāā¦
S/R
with the multiplicative structure (a, a
)(b, b
) = (ab, ab
+a
b) that
makes it into an algebra. (This is a general construction one can do with an Smodule
M: S āM is an algebra where M becomes an ideal of square zero.)
Consider the ideal ā¦
S/R
ā T, which has square zero; the quotient is S. We will ļ¬nd
two liftings of the identity S ā S. For the ļ¬rst, deļ¬ne S ā T sending s ā (s, 0). For the
second, deļ¬ne S ā T sending s ā (s, ds); the derivation property of b shows that this is
a morphism of algebras.
By the lifting property, the two morphisms S ā T are equal. In particular, the map
S ā ā¦
S/R
sending s ā ds is trivial. This implies that ā¦
S/R
= 0.
We shall now give the typical list of properties (āle soriteā) of unramiļ¬ed morphisms.
Proposition 4.3. Any map R ā R
f
for f ā R is unramiļ¬ed.
More generally, a map from a ring to any localization is formally unramiļ¬ed, but not
necessarily unramiļ¬ed.
Proof. Indeed, we know that ā¦
R/R
= 0 and ā¦
R
f
/R
= (ā¦
R/R
)
f
= 0, and the amp is clearly
of ļ¬nite type.
Proposition 4.4. A surjection of rings is unramiļ¬ed.
Proof. Obvious.
In the language of schemes, one can deļ¬ne the notion of an unramiļ¬ed morphism, and
it then follows that any immersion is unramiļ¬ed.
Proposition 4.5. If R ā S and S ā T are unramiļ¬ed, so is R ā T.
Proof. It is clear that R ā T is of ļ¬nite type. We need to check that ā¦
T/R
= 0. However,
we have a standard exact sequence (cf. [Eis95])
ā¦
S/R
ā
S
T ā ā¦
T/R
ā ā¦
T/S
ā 0,
and since ā¦
S/R
= 0, ā¦
T/S
= 0, we ļ¬nd that ā¦
T/R
= 0.
Proposition 4.6. If R ā S is unramiļ¬ed, so is R
ā S
= S ā
R
R
for any Ralgebra
R
.
Proof. This follows from the fact that ā¦
S
/R
= ā¦
S/R
ā
S
S
. Alternatively, it can be
checked easily using the lifting criterion.
In fact, the question of what unramiļ¬ed morphisms look like can be reduced to the
case where the ground ring is a ļ¬eld in view of the previous and the following result.
Given p ā SpecR, we let k(p) to be the residue ļ¬eld of R
p
.
16
Corollary 4.7. Let Ļ : R ā S be a morphism of ļ¬nite type. Then Ļ is unramiļ¬ed if and
only if for every p ā SpecR, we have
k(p) ā S ā
R
k(p)
unramiļ¬ed.
Proof. One direction is clear by Proposition 4.6. For the other, suppose k(p) ā S ā
R
k(p)
unramiļ¬ed for all p ā R. We then know that
ā¦
S/R
ā
R
k(p) = ā¦
Sā
R
k(p)/k(p)
= 0
for all such p. By localization, it follows that
pā¦
Sq/Rp
= ā¦
Sq/Rp
= ā¦
Sq/R
(4)
for any q ā SpecS lying over p.
Let q ā SpecS. We will now show that (ā¦
S/R
)
q
= 0. Given this, we will ļ¬nd that
ā¦
S/R
= 0, which will prove the assertion of the corollary.
Indeed, let p ā SpecR be the image of q, so that there is a local homomorphism
R
p
ā S
q
. By Eq. (4), we ļ¬nd that
qā¦
Sq/R
= ā¦
Sq/R
.
and since ā¦
Sq/R
is a ļ¬nite S
q
module, Nakayamaās lemma now implies that ā¦
Sq/R
= 0,
proving what we wanted.
4.2 Unramiļ¬ed morphisms and the diagonal
We shall now obtain a succint criterion for unramiļ¬edness: the diagonal morphism of
associated schemes is an open immersion. This will be useful in classifying unramiļ¬ed
morphisms out of a ļ¬eld.
Lemma 4.8. Let A be a ring, I ā A a ļ¬nitely generated nonzero ideal such that I = I
2
.
Then A has nontrivial idempotents, and in fact A contains A/I as a direct factor. In fact,
the morphism
SpecA/I ā SpecA
is an open immersion.
Proof. Consider the imbedding SpecA/I ā SpecA. We are going to show that it is an
open immersion. Let J be the sheaf of ideals deļ¬ned by the closed subscheme; then we see
that J
p
= J
2
p
for each prime p, By Nakayamaās lemma, we ļ¬nd that I
p
= I
p
= 0 for every
prime containing I. So the sheaf of ideals is zero on each point in the image of SpecA/I
in SpecA. It follows that the map
SpecA/I ā SpecA
is an open immersion, whose image must thus be a union of components of SpecA. The
result is now clear.
17
Corollary 4.9. Suppose A ā B is an unramiļ¬ed morphism of rings. Let X = SpecB, Y =
SpecA. Then the diagonal map
X ā X
Y
X
is an open immersion, and conversely (if A ā B is of ļ¬nite type).
Proof. This is straightforward from the basic properties of KĀØahler diļ¬erentials. We know
that ā¦
B/A
can be described in an alternative way. Namely, consider the surjection B ā
A
B ā B given by multiplication, and let I ā B ā
A
B be the kernel. Then we have
ā¦
B/A
Ā· I/I
2
, so if A ā B is unramiļ¬ed we must have I = I
2
. However, X is a closed
subscheme of X
Y
X under the diagonal embedding, and I is the ideal cutting it out.
By Lemma 4.8, it follows that the diagonal embedding is an open immersion.
Now suppose X ā X
Y
X is an open immersion. It is a closed immersion in any case,
so it embeds X as a union of components of X
Y
X. If I is the kernel of B ā
A
B ā B,
as before, then I is the ideal deļ¬ning the image of X. But the image of X is a union of
components. It follows that for each p ā SpecA, we have (I/I
2
)
p
= 0, as the stalk of the
sheaf of ideals cutting out the image of X is either the full ring or zero. Hence I/I
2
= 0
is true globally, and B/A is an unramiļ¬ed extension of rings.
4.3 Unramiļ¬ed extensions of ļ¬elds
Motivated by Corollary 4.7, we classify unramiļ¬ed morphisms out of a ļ¬eld. Let us ļ¬rst
consider the case when the ļ¬eld is algebraically closed.
Proposition 4.10. Suppose k is algebraically closed. If A is an unramiļ¬ed kalgebra,
then A is a product of copies of k.
Proof. Let us show ļ¬rst that A is necessarily ļ¬nitedimensional. Let X = SpecA. We
have a morphism
X ā X
k
X,
which we know from Corollary 4.9 to be an open immersion (and also a closed one). Call
its image ā. Let x ā X be a kvalued point; there is then a morphism (id, x) from
X ā X
k
X, such that the inverse image of ā is Ā¦xĀ¦.
But since ā is open, this means that Ā¦xĀ¦ is open. In particular, every kvalued
point in X (that is, every closed point) is also open, and consequently has no nontrivial
generization. But any point in X has a specialization which is closed. We ļ¬nd in total
that every point in X is closed. This implies that A is ļ¬nitedimensional.
So let us now assume that A is ļ¬nitedimensional over k, hence artinian. Then A is a
direct product of artinian local kalgebras. Each of these is unramiļ¬ed over k. So we need
to study what local, artinian, unramiļ¬ed extensions of k look like; we shall show that any
such is isomorphic to k with:
Lemma 4.11. A ļ¬nitedimensional, local kalgebra which is unramiļ¬ed over k (for k
algebraically closed) is isomorphic to k.
Proof. First, if m ā A is the maximal ideal, then m is nilpotent, and A/m Ā· k by the
Hilbert Nullstellensatz. Thus the ideal M = m ā A + A ā m ā A ā
k
A is nilpotent and
18
(A ā
k
A)/M = k ā
k
k = k. In particular, M is maximal and A ā
k
A is also local. (We
could see this as follows: A is associated to a onepoint variety, so the ļ¬bered product
SpecA
k
SpecA is also associated to a onepoint variety. It really does matter that we
are working over an algebraically closed ļ¬eld here!)
By assumption, ā¦
A/k
= 0. So if I = ker(A ā
k
A ā A), then I = I
2
. But from
Lemma 4.8, we ļ¬nd that if we had I ,= 0, then SpecA ā
k
A would be disconnected. This
is clearly false (a local ring has no nontrivial idempotents), so I = 0 and A ā
k
A Ā· A.
Since A is ļ¬nitedimensional over k, necessarily A Ā· k.
Now let us drop the assumption of algebraic closedness to get:
Theorem 4.12. An unramiļ¬ed kalgebra for k any ļ¬eld is isomorphic to a product
k
i
of ļ¬nite separable extensions k
i
of k.
Proof. Let k be a ļ¬eld, and k its algebraic closure. Let A be an unramiļ¬ed kalgebra.
Then Aā
k
k is an unramiļ¬ed kalgebra by Proposition 4.6, so is a ļ¬nite product of copies
of k. It is thus natural that we need to study tensor products of ļ¬elds to understand this
problem.
Lemma 4.13. Let E/k be a ļ¬nite extension, and L/k any extension. If E/k is separable,
then L ā
k
E is isomorphic (as a Lalgebra) to a product of copies of separable extensions
of L.
Proof. By the primitive element theorem, we have E = k(Ī±) for some Ī± ā E satisfying a
separable irreducible polynomial P ā k[X]. Thus
E = k[X]/(P),
so
E ā
k
L = L[X]/(P).
But P splits into several irreducible factors Ā¦P
i
Ā¦ in L[X], no two of which are the same
by separability. Thus by the Chinese remainder theorem,
E ā
k
L = L(X)/(
P
i
) =
L[X]/(P
i
),
and each L[X]/(P
i
) is a ļ¬nite separable extension of L.
As a result of this, we can easily deduce that any kalgebra of the form A =
k
i
for
the k
i
separable over k is unramiļ¬ed. Indeed, we have
ā¦
A/k
ā
k
k = ā¦
Aā
k
k/k
,
so it suļ¬ces to prove that A ā
k
k is unramiļ¬ed over k. However, from Lemma 4.13,
Aā
k
k is isomorphic as a kalgebra to a product of copies of k. Thus Aā
k
k is obviously
unramiļ¬ed over k.
On the other hand, suppose A/k is unramiļ¬ed. We shall show it is of the form given
as in the theorem. Then A ā
k
k is unramiļ¬ed over k, so it follows by Proposition 4.10
19
that A is ļ¬nitedimensional over k. In particular, A is artinian, and thus decomposes as
a product of ļ¬nitedimensional unramiļ¬ed kalgebras.
We are thus reduced to showing that a local, ļ¬nitedimensional kalgebra that is un
ramiļ¬ed is a separable extension of k. Let A be one such. Then A can have no nilpotents
because then Aā
k
k would have nilpotents, and could not be isomorphic to a product of
copies of k. Thus the unique maximal ideal of A is zero, and A is a ļ¬eld. We need only
show that A is separable over k. This is accomplished by:
Lemma 4.14. Let E/k be a ļ¬nite inseparable extension. Then E ā
k
k contains nonzero
nilpotents.
Proof. There exists an Ī± ā E which is inseparable over k, i.e. whose minimal polynomial
has multiple roots. Let E
= k(Ī±). We will show that E
ā
k
k has nonzero nilpotents;
since the map E
ā
k
k ā E ā
k
k is an injection, we will be done. Let P be the minimal
polynomial of Ī±, so that E
= k[X]/(P). Let P =
P
e
i
i
be the factorization of P in k for
the P
i
ā k[X] irreducible (i.e. linear). By assumption, one of the e
i
is greater than one.
It follows that
E
ā
k
k = k[X]/(P) =
k[X]/(P
e
i
i
)
has nilpotents corresponding to the e
i
ās that are greater than one.
We now come to the result that explains why the present theory is connected with
Zariskiās Main Theorem.
Corollary 4.15. An unramiļ¬ed morphism A ā B is quasiļ¬nite.
Proof. Recall that a morphism of rings is quasiļ¬nite if the associated map on spectra
is. Equivalently, the morphism must be of ļ¬nite type and have ļ¬nite ļ¬bers. But by
assumption A ā B is of ļ¬nite type. Moreover, if p ā SpecA and k(p) is the residue ļ¬eld,
then k(p) ā B ā
A
k(p) is ļ¬nite by the above results, so the ļ¬bers are ļ¬nite.
Corollary 4.16. Let (A, m) be a local ring with residue ļ¬eld k and B an Aalgebra of
ļ¬nite type. Then A ā B is unramiļ¬ed if and only if B/mB is a ļ¬nite product of separable
extensions of k
Proof. If A ā B is unramiļ¬ed, then k ā B/mB is too, so by the previous results B/mB
is a ļ¬nite product of separable extensions.
Suppose conversely that B/mB is unramiļ¬ed over k. IDK if this is actually true
4.4
Ā“
Etale morphisms
An Ā“etale morphism is one that is supposed to look like an isomorphism on the tangent
spaces, if one is working with smooth varieties over an algebraically closed ļ¬eld.
Deļ¬nition 4.17. A morphism of rings R ā S is Ā“etale if it is ļ¬at and unramiļ¬ed, and
of ļ¬nite presentation.
We give two important examples.
20
Example 4.18. The map R ā R
f
is always Ā“etale, as it is of ļ¬nite presentation (as
R
f
= R[X]/(fX ā1)), ļ¬at (as localization is exact), and unramiļ¬ed by Proposition 4.3.
Example 4.19. Let R be a ring, P ā R[X] a polynomial. Suppose Q ā R[X]/P is such
that in the localization (R[X]/P)
Q
, the image of the derivative P
ā R[X] is a unit. Then
the map
R ā (R[X]/P)
Q
is called a standard Ā“etale morphism.
The name is justiļ¬ed by:
Proposition 4.20. A standard Ā“etale morphism is Ā“etale.
Proof. It is suļ¬cient to check the condition on the KĀØahler diļ¬erentials, since a standard
Ā“etale morphism is evidently ļ¬at and of ļ¬nite presentation. Indeed, we have that
ā¦
(R[X]/P)
Q
/R
= Q
ā1
ā¦
(R[X]/P)/R
= Q
ā1
R[X]
(P
(X), P(X))R[X]
by basic properties of KĀØahler diļ¬erentials. Since P
is a unit after localization at Q, this
last object is clearly zero.
Proposition 4.21.
Ā“
Etale morphisms are preserved under composites and base change.
Proof. This is true individually for unramiļ¬ed morphisms, ļ¬at morphisms, and morphisms
of ļ¬nite presentation.
4.5 The local structure theory for unramiļ¬ed morphisms
We know two easy ways of getting an unramiļ¬ed morphism out of a ring R. First, we
can take a standard Ā“etale morphism, which is necessarily unramiļ¬ed; next we can take a
quotient of that. The local structure theory states that this is all we can have, locally.
For this we introduce a deļ¬nition.
Deļ¬nition 4.22. Let R be a commutative ring, S an Ralgebra of ļ¬nite type. Let q ā
SpecS and p ā SpecR be the image. Then S is called unramiļ¬ed at q (resp. Ā“etale at
p) if ā¦
Sq/Rp
= 0 (resp. that and S
q
is R
p
ļ¬at).
Now when works with ļ¬nitely generated algebras, the module of KĀØahler diļ¬erentials is
always ļ¬nitely generated over the top ring. In particular, if ā¦
Sq/Rp
= (ā¦
S/R
)
q
= 0, then
there is f ā S āq with ā¦
S
f
/R
= 0. So being unramiļ¬ed at q is equivalent to the existence
of f ā S āq such that S
f
is unramiļ¬ed over R. Clearly if S is unramiļ¬ed over R, then it
is unramiļ¬ed at all primes, and conversely.
Theorem 4.23. Let Ļ : R ā S be morphism of ļ¬nite type, and q ā S prime with
p = Ļ
ā1
(q). Suppose Ļ is unramiļ¬ed at q. Then there is f ā Rāp and g ā Sāq (divisible
by Ļ(f)) such that the morphism
R
f
ā S
g
21
factors as a composite
R
f
ā (R
f
[x]/P)
h
S
g
where the ļ¬rst is a standard Ā“etale morphism and the second is a surjection. Moreover, we
can arrange things such that the ļ¬bers above p are isomorphic.j
Proof. We shall assume that R is local with maximal ideal p. Then the question reduces
to ļ¬nding g ā S such that S
g
is a quotient of an algebra standard Ā“etale over R. This
reduction is justiļ¬ed by the following argument: if R is not necessarily local, then the
morphism R
p
ā S
p
is still unramiļ¬ed. If we can show that there is g ā S
p
āqS
p
such that
(S
p
)
g
is a quotient of a standard Ā“etale R
p
algebra, it will follow that there is f / ā p such
that the same works with R
f
ā S
gf
.
We shall now reduce to the case where S is a ļ¬nite Ralgebra. Let R be local, and
let R ā S be unramiļ¬ed at q. By assumption, S is ļ¬nitely generated over R. We have
seen by Corollary 4.15 that S is quasiļ¬nite over R at q. By Zariskiās Main Theorem
(Theorem 3.13), there is a ļ¬nite Ralgebra S
and q
ā SpecS
such that S near q and S
near q
are isomorphic (in the sense that there are g ā S ā q, h ā S
ā q
with S
g
Ā· S
h
).
Since S
must be unramiļ¬ed at q
, we can assume at the outset, by replacing S by S
, that
R ā S is ļ¬nite and unramiļ¬ed at q.
We shall now reduce to the case where S is generated by one element as Ralgebra.
This will occupy us for a few paragraphs.
We have assumed that R is a local ring with maximal ideal p ā R; the maximal ideals
of S are ļ¬nite, say, q, q
1
, . . . , q
r
because S is ļ¬nite over R; these all contain p by Nakayama.
These are no inclusion relations among q and the q
i
as S/pS is an artinian ring.
Now S/q is a ļ¬nite separable ļ¬eld extension of R/p by Theorem 4.12; indeed, the mor
phism R/p ā S/pS ā S/q is a composite of unramiļ¬ed extensions and is thus unramiļ¬ed.
In particular, by the primitive element theorem, there is x ā S such that x is a generator
of the ļ¬eld extension R/p ā S/q. We can also choose x to lie in the other q
i
by the
Chinese remainder theorem. Consider the subring C = R[x] ā S. It has a maximal ideal
s which is the intersection of q with C. We are going to show that locally, C and S look
the same.
Lemma 4.24. Let (R, p) be a local ring and S a ļ¬nite Ralgebra. Let q, q
1
, . . . , q
r
ā SpecS
be the prime ideals lying above p. Suppose S is unramiļ¬ed at q.
Then there is x ā S such that the rings R[x] ā S and S are isomorphic near q: more
precisely, there is g ā R[x] āq with R[x]
g
= S
g
.
Proof. Choose x as in the paragraph preceding the statement of the lemma. We have
morphisms
R ā C
s
ā S
s
where S
s
denotes S localized at C ā s, as usual. The second morphism here is ļ¬nite.
However, we claim that S
s
is in fact a local ring with maximal ideal qS
s
; in particular,
S
s
= S
q
. Indeed, S can have no maximal ideals other than q lying above s; for, if q
i
lay
over s for some i, then x ā q
i
ā© C = s. But x / ā s because x is not zero in S/q.
It thus follows that S
s
is a local ring with maximal ideal qS
s
. In particular, it is equal
to S
q
, which is a localization of S
s
at the maximal ideal. In particular, the morphism
C
s
ā S
s
= S
q
22
is ļ¬nite. Moreover, we have sS
q
= qS
q
by unramiļ¬edness of R ā S. So since the residue
ļ¬elds are the same by choice of x, we have sS
q
+C
s
= S
q
. Thus by Nakyamaās lemma, we
ļ¬nd that S
s
= S
q
= C
s
.
There is thus an element g ā C ā r such that S
g
= C
g
. In particular, S and C are
isomorphic near q.
We can thus replace S by C and assume that C has one generator.
With this reduction now made, we proceed. We are now considering the case where S
is generated by one element, so a quotient S = R[X] for some monic polynomial P. Now
S = S/pS is thus a quotient of k[X], where k = R/p is the residue ļ¬eld. It thus follows
that
S = k[X]/(P)
for P a monic polynomial, as S is a ļ¬nite kvector space.
Suppose P has degree n. Let x ā S be a generator of S/R. We know that 1, x, . . . , x
nā1
has reductions that form a kbasis for S ā
R
k, so by Nakayama they generate S as an R
module. In particular, we can ļ¬nd a monic polynomial P of degree n such that P(x) = 0.
It follows that the reduction of P is necessarily P. So we have a surjection
R[X]/(P) S
which induces an isomorphism modulo p (i.e. on the ļ¬ber).
Finally, we claim that we can modify R[X]/P to make a standard Ā“etale algebra. Now,
if we let q
be the preimage of q in R[X]/P, then we have morphisms of local rings
R ā (R[X]/P)
q
ā S
q
.
The claim is that R[X]/(P) is unramiļ¬ed over R at q
.
To see this, let T = (R[X]/P)
q
. Then, since the ļ¬bers of T and S
q
are the same at p,
we have that
ā¦
T/R
ā
R
k(p) = ā¦
Tā
R
k(p)/k(p)
= ā¦
(Sq/pSq)/k(p)
= 0
as S is Runramiļ¬ed at q. It follows that ā¦
T/R
= pā¦
T/R
, so a fortiori ā¦
T/R
= qā¦
T/R
;
since this is a ļ¬nitely generated Tmodule, Nakayamaās lemma implies that is zero. We
conclude that R[X]/P is unramiļ¬ed at q
; in particular, by the KĀØahler diļ¬erential criterion,
the image of the derivative P
is not in q
. If we localize at the image of P
, we then get
what we wanted in the theorem.
4.6 Local structure theory for Ā“etale morphisms
We now want to deduce a corresponding (stronger) result for Ā“etale morphisms. Indeed,
we prove:
Theorem 4.25. If R ā S is Ā“etale at q ā SpecS (lying over p ā SpecR), then there are
f ā R āp, g ā S āq such that the morphism R
f
ā S
g
is a standard Ā“etale morphism.
Proof. By localizing suitably, we can assume that (R, p) is local, and (in view of ??),
R ā S is a quotient of a standard Ā“etale morphism
(R[X]/P)
h
S
23
with the kernel some ideal I. We may assume that the surjection is an isomorphism
modulo p, moreover. By localizing S enough
7
we may suppose that S is a ļ¬at Rmodule
as well.
Consider the exact sequence of (R[X]/P)
h
modules
0 ā I ā (R[X]/P)
h
/I ā S ā 0.
Let q
be the image of q in Spec(R[X]/P)
h
. We are going to show that the ļ¬rst term
vanishes upon localization at q
. Since everything here is ļ¬nitely generated, it will follow
that after further localization by some element in (R[X]/P)
h
āq
, the ļ¬rst term will vanish.
In particular, we will then be done.
Everything here is a module over (R[X]/P)
h
, and certainly a module over R. Let us
tensor everything over R with R/p; we ļ¬nd an exact sequence
I ā S/pS ā S/pS ā 0;
we have used the fact that the morphism (R[X]/P)
h
ā S was assumed to induce an
isomorphism modulo p.
However, by Ā“etaleness we assumed that S was Rļ¬at, so we ļ¬nd that exactness holds
at the left too. It follows that
I = pI,
so a fortiori
I = q
I,
which implies by Nakayama that I
q
= 0. Localizing at a further element of (R[X]/P)
h
āq
,
we can assume that I = 0; after this localization, we ļ¬nd that S looks precisely a standard
Ā“etale algebra.
4.7 Morphisms of schemes
We now globalize the earlier theory to schemes.
Deļ¬nition 4.26. A morphism f : X ā Y of schemes of ļ¬nite type is unramiļ¬ed if
there is a pair of aļ¬ne open coverings Ā¦U
Ī±
= SpecB
Ī±
Ā¦ , Ā¦V
Ī±
= SpecA
Ī±
Ā¦ of X and Y such
that f(U
Ī±
) ā V
Ī±
and such that the induced morphism
A
Ī±
ā B
Ī±
is unramiļ¬ed.
We have a very simple global criterion:
Proposition 4.27. The following are equivalent for a morphism f : X ā Y of ļ¬nite
type:
1. f is unramiļ¬ed.
2. The sheaf ā¦
X/Y
of relative KĀØahler diļ¬erentials vanishes.
7
We are not assuming S ļ¬nite over R here,
24
3. The diagonal map ā : X ā X
Y
X is an open immersion.
Proof. The equivalence of 1 and 2 is basically the deļ¬nition, as ā¦
X/Y
can be computed
locally (i.e. it requires no global data). Now the rest is just a globalization of Corol
lary 4.9.
Proposition 4.28 (Le sorite). An immersion is unramiļ¬ed. Unramiļ¬ed morphisms are
closed under base change and composition.
Deļ¬nition 4.29. A morphism of schemes of ļ¬nite type is Ā“etale if it is ļ¬at and unramiļ¬ed.
Proposition 4.30 (Le sorite). An open immersion is Ā“etale.
Ā“
Etale morphisms are closed
under base change and composition.
4.8 The fundamental property of Ā“etale morphisms
Theorem 4.31. An Ā“etale, radicial morphism is an open immersion.
Grothendieck calls this the āfundamental propertyā of Ā“etale morphisms, and we follow
him in [Gro71] in the proof.
Proof. Let f : X ā Y be Ā“etale and radicial. Then f, being ļ¬at and of ļ¬nite presentation,
is open (??), so let us replace Y by the image of f and assume f surjective. In this case,
we shall prove f is even an isomorphism.
So suppose f Ā“etale, radicial, and surjective. Since f is open and bijective (by radi
cialness), it is a homeomorphism. Since any base change of f is also Ā“etale, radicial, and
surjective, any base change of f is a homeomorphism. Then f is universally closed, hence
proper because any radicial morphism is separated.
8
It is also quasiļ¬nite (being Ā“etale,
hence unramiļ¬ed), so f is ļ¬nite by Theorem 3.11.
In particular, the morphismf : X ā Y can be represented as the projection Spec(B) ā
Y for a coherent sheaf of algebras B on Y . Since f is ļ¬at, it follows that B must be ļ¬at,
hence locally free. However, since the ļ¬bers are of cardinality one, B is locally free of rank
one as a O
Y
algebra. In particular, the morphism O
Y
ā B is an isomorphism (since it is
an isomorphism on the ļ¬bers), and thus B = O
Y
, so f is an isomorphism.
4.9 The inļ¬nitesimal lifting property
We begin with a standard cancellation argument.
Proposition 4.32. Let f : X ā Y , g : Y ā Z be morphisms of ļ¬nite type. If g ā¦ f is
Ā“etale and g is unramiļ¬ed, then f is Ā“etale.
Proof. Since the diagonal of an unramiļ¬ed morphism is an open immersion (which is
Ā“etale), this follows from standard arguments.
8
A radicial morphism has the property that the diagonal morphism is surjective. This is actually a
characterization. See EGA I.
25
Let S be a scheme, and X an unramiļ¬ed Sscheme. Then any Ssection S ā X is,
by Proposition 4.32, Ā“etale. Moreover, since the composite S ā X ā S is the identity and
thus radicial, it follows that S ā X itself is radicial.
9
If, furthermore, X is separated over
S, then the same cancellation argument shows that the section is proper. By Theorem 4.31,
S is an open immersionāthus an isomorphism of S onto a union of components of X.
We conclude:
Proposition 4.33. If X ā S is a separated and unramiļ¬ed morphism for S connected,
then the sections S ā X are naturally in bijection with the set of components of X such
that the projection to S is an isomorphism.
In fact, it is possible to prove the aforementioned fact, that a section of an unramiļ¬ed
morphism is an open immersion in a much more elementary manner. Consider the class
P of open immersions of schemes; this is stable under composition and basechange. An
unramiļ¬ed morphism is in diag(P); thus in a composition
X ā Y ā Z
with the composite an open immersion and Y ā Z unramiļ¬ed, we can conclude that
X ā Y is unramiļ¬ed. We thus deduce a simpler proof of Proposition 4.33.
We are now able to enunciate the inļ¬nitesimal lifting property. Let S be a scheme,
X, Y Sschemes. Let S
0
be a subscheme of S, and let X
0
= X
S
S
0
and Y = Y
S
S
0
.
Given a morphism X ā Y , ārestrictionā (that is, taking products) gives a morphism
X
0
ā Y
0
. In general, the associated map
hom
S
(X, Y ) ā hom
S
(X
0
, Y
0
) (5)
is neither injective nor surjective.
Theorem 4.34. Suppose Y is Ā“etale over S and the immersion S
0
ā S is surjective. Then
(5) is an isomorphism.
Proof. The Smorphisms X ā Y (or X
0
ā Y
0
) are in bijection with the sections of
X
S
Y ā X (resp. X
0
S
0
Y
0
ā Y
0
). Since these morphisms are Ā“etale by base change,
we ļ¬nd that it is suļ¬cient to prove the theorem in the case where X = S, in particular,
when X is separated and the question boils down to ļ¬nding Ssections. So let us take
X = S. Furthermore, we may assume S, and thus S
0
, connected, as S
0
and S have the
same topological space.
Let S
0
ā X
0
be a section, or equivalent a Smorphism S
0
ā X. Then S
0
ā X
0
is
by ?? an isomorphism onto a connected component X
0
of X
0
, which corresponds to a
connected component X
ā X. The map X
ā S is such that the basechange to S
0
is
an isomorphism (i.e. X
0
ā S
0
). The claim is that X
ā S is itself an isomorphism, so
that we can get a section S ā X. But X
ā S is clearly Ā“etale and surjective; since the
9
There is a general principle, which one may enunciate as follows. Let C be a category with ļ¬bered
products. Suppose P is a class of morphisms in C closed under composition and basechange. Say that a
map X āY is in diagP if X āX ĆY X is in P. Then if X āY āZ is a composite with X āZ in P
and Y ā Z in diagP, then one can ācancelā and conclude that X ā Y is in P. See [?]. This applies in
the present case because any diagonal morphism of schemes is an immersion, thus radicial.
26
basechange to S
0
is a universal homeomorphism, X
ā S is a universal homeomorphism
as well, and in particular radicial. Theorem 4.31 shows that X
ā S is an isomorphism.
Conversely, we have to show that any section S
0
ā X
0
can be lifted to X in at most
one way. But this is clear from the ātopologicalā description of sections. If two maps
S āX lift a section S
0
ā X
0
, then the corresponding connected components of X must
be the same, so the two maps S āX are the same.
In fact, we can characterize Ā“etale morphisms of schemes by such a lifting property. We
thus get a purely functorial description of Ā“etale morphisms.
Theorem 4.35. Let f : X ā S be a morphism of ļ¬nite presentation. Then f is Ā“etale if
and only if it has the following property. For all Sschemes T, and subschemes T
0
whose
underlying space is all of T, the morphism
hom
S
(T, X) ā hom
S
(T
0
, X)
is bijective.
In other words, given a diagram
T
0
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
T
// _ _ _
X
a dotted arrow can be found, and found uniquely. It suļ¬ces to check this on aļ¬ne schemes.
Proof. Let us ļ¬rst suppose X Ā“etale over S. Then the Smorphisms T ā X are in bijection
with the Tmorphisms T ā T
S
X; similarly the Smorphisms T
0
ā X are in bijection
with the T
0
morphisms T
0
ā T
0
S
X.
In other words, we are comparing sections T ā T
S
X and sections T
0
ā T
0
S
X.
Since T
S
X is Ā“etale over T, we ļ¬nd the required bijection by Theorem 4.34.
Now let us suppose the lifting property holds. (to be added)
4.10 Another functorial characterization of closed immersions
Theorem 4.36. A morphism f : X ā Y of ļ¬nite type between locally noetherian schemes
is a closed immersion if and only if it is proper, unramiļ¬ed, and radicial.
This is a legitimate functorial characterization, because properness can be checked via
the valuative criterion, radicialness of f is equivalent to the statement that hom(SpecK, X) ā
hom(SpecK, Y ) is injective (as a map of sets) for K a ļ¬eld, and unramiļ¬edness is equiva
lent to a lifting property (by ??ānot added yet!).
Proof. Clearly a closed immersion has those three properties.
Suppose f is proper, unramiļ¬ed, and radicial. Then f is quasiļ¬nite (being radicial),
so by Theorem 3.11 is ļ¬nite. In particular, f can be represented as the natural projection
Spec/ ā Y
27
for / a coherent sheaf of O
Y
algebras. We need to show that the natural map O
Y
ā /
is a surjection. To do this, it suļ¬ces by Nakayama to check on the ļ¬bers.
But each ļ¬ber X
y
is unramiļ¬ed and radicial over Speck(y) (for y ā Y ). The second
means that X
y
= SpecK for K a purely inseparable extension of k(y); by the ļ¬rst, it
follows that K = k(y). Consequently each ļ¬ber X
y
is either Speck(y) or empty. It thus
follows that the map O
Y
ā / is a surjection, so we are thus done.
5 The generalized Chevalley theorem
5.1 Preliminary remarks
In classical algebraic geometry, one deļ¬nes a subset of a variety over an algebraically closed
ļ¬eld to be constructible if it is a union of locally closed subsets (in the Zariski topology).
One of the basic results that one proves, which can be called āelimination theoryā and
is due to Chevalley, states that constructible sets are preserved under taking images: if
f : X ā Y is a regular map and C ā X is constructible, then so is f(C). In general, this
is the best one can say: even very nice subsets of X (e.g. X itself) need not have open or
closed (or even locally closed) images.
In the theory of schemes, one can formulate a similar result. A morphism of ļ¬nite type
between noetherian schemes sends constructible sets into constructibles. One proves this
result by making a sequence of reductions to considering the case of two integral aļ¬ne
schemes, and then using a general fact from commutative algebra.
It turns out, however, that there is a more general form of the Chevalley theorem:
Theorem 5.1. Let f : X ā Y be a ļ¬nitely presented morphism of schemes. Then if
C ā X is locally constructible, so is f(C).
We will explain how one deduces this more general fact from the speciļ¬c case of
noetherian schemes. This will highlight a useful fact: oftentimes, general facts in alge
braic geometry can be reduced to the noetherian case since, for instance, every ring is an
inductive limit of noetherian rings. This can be developed systematically, as is done in
EGA IV8, but we shall wait until Section ?? to see that.
5.2 Constructible sets
Nonetheless, there are several caveats. The ļ¬rst is that the notion of constructibility
needs to be modiļ¬ed for general (nonnoetherian) schemes. Also, we have to explain what
ālocally constructibleā means.
So, ļ¬rst, let us give the modiļ¬ed deļ¬nition of constructibility.
Deļ¬nition 5.2. If X is a topological space and U ā X an open subset, then U is called
retrocompact if the inclusion U ā X is a quasicompact morphism. That is, U is
retrocompact if whenever V ā X is a quasicompact open set, so is U ā© V .
Classically, the algebra of constructible sets is deļ¬ned to be that generated by the open
sets. In general, we just work with retrocompact open sets.
28
Deļ¬nition 5.3. Let X be a topological space. The algebra of constructible sets is that
generated by the retrocompact open sets. So a set is constructible if and only if it is
expressible as
n
_
i=1
(U
i
āV
i
)
for the U
i
, V
i
retrocompact in X.
If X is noetherian, then every open set is retrocompact, so this notion agrees with the
usual one for noetherian spaces.
Naturally, we can deļ¬ne what locally constructible means: a subset T is locally
constructible if there is an open covering by open sets U such that T ā© U is constructible
in U.
5.3 First properties of constructible sets
We want to show that constructible sets behave well under morphisms of schemes. To do
this, let us ļ¬rst show that always, they are closed under taking inverse images.
Proposition 5.4. If f : X ā Y is a morphism of schemes, and T ā Y is constructible,
so is f
ā1
(T).
Proof. It is suļ¬cient to show that retrocompact open sets pull back to retrocompact ones,
because constructible sets are obtained from them by taking ļ¬nite unions and diļ¬erences.
So let U ā Y be retrocompact. This is equivalent to saying that the morphism of
schemes U ā Y is quasicompact. But the morphism f
ā1
(U) ā X is the pullback of
U ā Y via X ā Y , so it is also quasicompact. Thus f
ā1
(U) is retrocompact in X, and
we have proved the claim.
The result now implies that the same is true for local constructibility:
Corollary 5.5. If f : X ā Y is a morphism of schemes, and T ā Y is locally con
structible, so is f
ā1
(T).
We are interested in when the image of a constructible set is constructible. To start
with, we will handle the case of a quasicompact open immersion.
Proposition 5.6. Let U ā X be a quasicompact open immersion. Then the image of a
constructible C ā U is constructible in X.
Proof. This will follow at once if we show that if V ā U is retrocompact open, then V is
constructible in X. Note that any constructible set is a ļ¬nite union of diļ¬erences of sets
of this form, so it is suļ¬cient to handle the case of a retrocompact open.
If V ā U is retrocompact, then V ā U is quasicompact. But by assumption U ā X
is quasicompact, so the composite V ā X is quasicompact as well. This means that V is
constructible in X.
29
Quasicompact and quasiseparated schemes are nice. In there, every quasicompact open
set is retrocompact, and conversely. This is the deļ¬nition of quasiseparatedness: that the
intersection of two quasicompacts be quasicompact. So, motivated by this, we ļ¬nally
include a result that gives a characterization of what it means to be locally constructible.
Proposition 5.7. If X is a quasicompact, quasiseparated scheme and T ā X is locally
constructible, it is globally constructible.
Proof. By deļ¬nition, there is a ļ¬nite cover of X by small neighborhoods U
i
ā X, which by
shrinking we may take aļ¬ne (since shrinking preserves constructibility thanks to Proposi
tion 5.4), such that T ā©U
i
ā U
i
is constructible for each i. However, the inclusion U
i
ā X
is quasicompact by quasiseparatedness. Consequently, in view of Proposition 5.6, the
image T ā© U
i
is constructible in X. It follows that the union
T =
_
T ā© U
i
is constructible in X.
In particular, since any aļ¬ne is quasicompact and quasiseparated, we ļ¬nd:
Corollary 5.8. Let X be a scheme. Then T ā X is locally constructible if and only if
T ā© U is constructible in U for any open aļ¬ne U.
5.4 A converse to the Chevalley theorem
Now we are interested in proving the Chevalley theorem. First, however, to make things
clear, we prove a type of converse, which will also be useful in proving the theorem.
Proposition 5.9. If X is a quasicompact and quasiseparated scheme and T ā X a con
structible subset, there is an aļ¬ne scheme X
and a morphism X
ā X, quasicompact
and of ļ¬nite presentation, whose image is T.
Recall that a morphism of schemes is of ļ¬nite presentation if it is quasicompact,
quasiseparated, and locally of ļ¬nite presentation.
Proof. To do this, we start by covering X by open aļ¬ne subsets X
i
, 1 ā¤ i ā¤ n. Since X
is quasicompact, we only need ļ¬nitely many of them. The morphism
.X
i
ā X
is quasicompact because X is quasiseparated, and it is also surjective. Thus it is of ļ¬nite
presentation. Now the inverse image of T is constructible in .X
i
(by Proposition 5.4). As
a result, by reducing to the case of the inverse image of T in .X
i
, we may suppose that
X itself is aļ¬ne.
T is constructible, so we can write T as a ļ¬nite union
j
(U
j
ā V
j
) for U
j
, V
j
ā X
quasicompact.
10
By taking ļ¬nite coproducts, we see that it is enough to handle the case
10
The retrocompact open sets in a quasicompact, quasiseparated scheme are precisely the quasicompact
ones.
30
of T = U āV for U, V quasicompact, and to show that such a T arises as the image of an
aļ¬ne scheme by a morphism of ļ¬nite presentation.
By assumption, each of U, V is a ļ¬nite union of basic open sets X
ga
for each g
a
ā
Ī(X, O
X
). By taking ļ¬nite unions, as earlier, we can reduce to the case
U = X
g
, V = X
f
1
āŖ āŖ X
fr
.
The claim is that U āV arises as the image of an aļ¬ne scheme, of ļ¬nite presentation over
X.
Suppose X = SpecR. Then we can take the natural map SpecR
g
/(f
1
, . . . , f
r
) ā SpecR
whose image is U ā V ; moreover, it is immediate that this is of ļ¬nite presentation, from
the explicit form R
g
/(f
1
, . . . , f
r
) = R[X]/(1 āgX, f
1
, . . . , f
r
).
5.5 The proof of the Chevalley theorem
Finally, we are now ready to prove the general Chevalley theorem on constructible sets:
Theorem 5.10 (Chevalley). Let f : X ā Y be a quasicompact morphism, locally of
ļ¬nite presentation. Then if C ā X is locally constructible, so is f(C) ā Y .
Interestingly, it turns out that Grothendieck does not (in EGA IV1) state the theorem
in maximal generality. Grothendieck assumes that f is of ļ¬nite presentation, so he assumes
in addition that f is quasiseparated. The more general form of the theorem is in the
[dJea10].
So let us prove this fact.
5.5.1 Step 1: Reduction to X, Y aļ¬ne
The ļ¬rst step is to make some reductions. Since we are trying to prove an assertion
which is local on Y , we may assume that Y is itself aļ¬ne, and consequently that X is
quasicompact. Let us now keep the assumption that Y is aļ¬ne.
It follows that X is a ļ¬nite union
X
i
, where each X
i
is aļ¬ne (and thus quasicom
pact and quasiseparated). In particular, C ā© X
i
is not only locally constructible, but
constructible, by Corollary 5.8. The morphisms X
i
ā X ā Y are quasicompact for each
i as Y, X
i
are both aļ¬ne, and they are locally of ļ¬nite presentation.
If we show (assuming Y aļ¬ne, as usual) that f(C ā© X
i
) is constructible for each i,
then we will be done. The upshot is that we can reduce to the case of Y aļ¬ne and X
aļ¬ne. In particular, we need to prove:
Lemma 5.11. Let f : X ā Y be a morphism of aļ¬ne schemes which is of ļ¬nite presen
tation. If C ā X is constructible, so is f(C).
But in fact we can make a further reduction. We know that there is an aļ¬ne scheme
X
and a morphism of ļ¬nite presentation X
ā X such that C is the image of X
, by
Proposition 5.9. So we are reduced to something even more concrete:
Lemma 5.12. Let f : X ā Y be a morphism of aļ¬ne schemes which is of ļ¬nite presen
tation. Then f(X) is constructible.
31
5.5.2 Step 2: Reduction to the noetherian case
Finally, it is here that we introduce the āļ¬nite presentationā trick most clearly. Consider
a map
SpecS ā SpecR
coming from a ļ¬nitely presented morphism of rings
R ā S.
The claim is that the image SpecS in SpecR is constructible.
Now the key observation is that we know this, when R is noetherian, because then it
is the usual Chevalley theorem:
Theorem 5.13 (Chevalley). Let f : X ā Y be a morphism of ļ¬nite type between
noetherian schemes. Then if C ā X is constructible, so is f(C).
We shall not give the proof of this result. (Reference to be added.)
We are not necessarily working with noetherian rings. However, in general, R is a
ļ¬ltered colimit of noetherian rings: namely, of its ļ¬nitely generated Zsubalgebras. The
claim is that we can reduce to this case by:
Lemma 5.14. Let R ā S be a ļ¬nitely presented morphism of rings. Then there is a
ļ¬nitely generated subring R
ā R and a morphism of ļ¬nite presentation R
ā S
such that
R ā S is a basechange of R
ā S
.
So visually, this looks like a cocartesian diagram
R
//
S
R
OO
//
S
OO
.
Let us assume this lemma for the moment and see how it implies the big theorem.
Recall that our goal is to show that the image of SpecS ā SpecR is constructible. But
we have a cartesian diagram of schemes:
SpecS
//
SpecR
SpecS
//
SpecR
.
Consequently, we know that the image of SpecS ā SpecR is the preimage of the image
of SpecS
ā SpecR
, by basic properties of ļ¬bered products. But SpecS
ā SpecR
has
constructible image by noetherianness, so the same is true for the top map, as inverse
images preserve constructibility. We are thus done, modulo the lemma.
32
5.5.3 Step 3: the ļ¬nite presentation lemma
Finally, we are left with the lemma, Lemma 5.14. This lemma is the crucial step in the
above approach, and is one of the reasons that āļ¬nite presentationā results can often be
reduced to noetherian ones. There are more results on this theme, which essentially boil
down to the idea that in the category of rings, ļ¬nitely presented objects are compact.
So we have a ļ¬nitely presented morphism R ā S. This means that we can write
S = R[x
1
, . . . , x
n
]/(f
1
, . . . , f
k
), so S is a quotient of a ļ¬nitely generated polynomial ring
over S by a ļ¬nitely generated ideal. However, the coeļ¬cients in the ļ¬nitely many f
i
all
lie in some ļ¬nitely generated subring R
. This means that the ring
S
= R
[x
1
, . . . , x
n
]/(f
1
, . . . , f
k
)
makes sense, and is a ļ¬nitely presented R
algebra. However, it is also easy to see that
R ā S is a basechange of this. This proves the lemma.
5.6 Proconstructible and indconstructible sets
Finally, we would like to generalize the above results to the case where the morphism
X ā Y is not even assumed to be of ļ¬nite presentation. In this case, we can say much
less in general. We will now have to introduce a looser class of sets that will be preserved
under images.
Deļ¬nition 5.15. Let X be a topological space, and T ā X.
1. T is called proconstructible if it locally an intersection of constructible sets.
2. T is called indconstructible if it locally a union of constructible sets.
So in the ļ¬rst case, if T is proconstructible, then each x ā X has a neighborhood U
such that Uā©T is an intersection of sets constructible in U. The other case is similar, with
unions replacing intersections. The āgeneric pointā of the aļ¬ne line A
1
is an example of
a proconstructible set which is not constructible (and not indconstructible).
We would now like to show that pro and indconstructible sets behave reasonably well
with respect to morphisms of schemes. First, we handle the case of inverse images.
Proposition 5.16. Let f : X ā Y be a morphism of schemes, and let T ā Y be
proconstructible (resp. indconstructible). Then f
ā1
(T) is proconstructible (resp. ind
constructible).
Proof. We handle the ļ¬rst case; the second is similar. It also follows from the simple
observation that a set is proconstructible if and only if its complement is indconstructible.
Fix x ā X. There is a neighborhood U ā Y containing f(x) such that T ā© U can be
written as
T
Ī±
for the T
Ī±
ā U constructible. Now consider f
ā1
(T ā© U) ā f
ā1
(U); it
follows that
f
ā1
(T ā© U) =
f
ā1
(T
Ī±
),
where each f
ā1
(T
Ī±
) is constructible in f
ā1
(U) by Proposition 5.4.
33
This is reasonable and expected. With it, we want to get a slightly better characteriza
tion of pro and indconstructible sets. Namely, the condition of locality in the deļ¬nition
is slightly annoying, and we want to get a better estimate. We will now see that any open
aļ¬ne will do for those āneighborhoodsā in the deļ¬nition.
Proposition 5.17. Let X be a quasicompact, quasiseparated scheme. Then T ā X is
proconstructible (resp. indconstructible) in X if and only if it is a intersection (resp.
union) of constructible sets.
Proof. We will prove the result for proconstructible sets; it is clear that this is suļ¬cient
by taking complements.
It is clear that intersections of constructible sets are proconstructible. Conversely, let
T ā X be proconstructible. Then there is a ļ¬nite open cover Ā¦U
Ī±
Ā¦ of X such that T ā©U
Ī±
is an intersection of constructibles
T
Ī²
Ī±
(for the
_
T
Ī²
Ī±
_
constructible subsets of U
Ī±
) for
each Ī±.
By shrinking (thanks to Proposition 5.16), we may assume that each U
Ī±
is aļ¬ne, so
that the morphism U
Ī±
ā X is quasicompact. In particular, each T
Ī²
Ī±
is constructible in
X. We now need to write T as an intersection of globally constructible sets. Let the Ī±ās
indexing the open covering Ā¦U
Ī±
Ā¦ range from 1 to n, and suppose that for each Ī± ā [1, n],
the relevant Ī²ās (yielding the T
Ī²
Ī±
) range over a set B
Ī±
.
The claim is that
T =
Ī²
1
āB
1
,...Ī²nāBn
T
Ī²
1
1
āŖ āŖ T
Ī²n
n
, (6)
where the intersection runs over all sequences Ī²
1
, . . . , Ī²
n
. If this is proved, then it is clear
that T is an intersection of constructible sets.
This is easy to check. If x ā T, then x belongs to some U
Ī±
; it follows that for this Ī±,
and every Ī² ā B
Ī±
, we have x ā T
Ī²
Ī±
. So x lies in the big intersection in Eq. (6). Conversely,
suppose x / ā T. Then for each Ī±, there is Ī²
Ī±
ā B
Ī±
such that x / ā T
Ī²Ī±
Ī±
. It follows that
x / ā B
Ī²
1
1
āŖ āŖ B
Ī²n
n
,
so it does not lie in the lefthandside of Eq. (6).
As we saw for constructible sets, it is now clear that:
Corollary 5.18. Let X be a scheme. Then T ā X is proconstructible (resp. ind
constructible) if and only if for every open aļ¬ne U ā X, we have that T ā© U is an
intersection (resp. union) of constructible subsets of U.
5.7 A characterization of proconstructible sets
We now want to imitate the arguments in the previous sections to show that proconstructible
sets are closed under pushforwards under reasonable circumstances. To start with, as be
fore, we prove the converse: we can always get a proconstructible set as an image of a
quasicompact morphism.
Lemma 5.19. If U ā X is a quasicompact open immersion, then the image of a procon
structible set in U is proconstructible in X.
34
Proof. We may assume that X is aļ¬ne, and thus U quasicompact and quasiseparated,
by the local nature of proconstructibility. In this case, any constructible set T ā U is an
intersection T =
T
Ī±
of constructible subsets Ā¦T
Ī±
Ā¦ in U. However, each of these Ā¦T
Ī±
Ā¦
are constructible in X by Proposition 3.8, so we are done.
Proposition 5.20. Let X be a quasicompact, quasiseparated scheme and T ā X procon
structible. Then there is an aļ¬ne scheme X
and a quasicompact morphism f : X
ā X
such that T = f(X
).
This result is thus analogous to Proposition 5.9.
Proof. Indeed, as usual we may reduce to X aļ¬ne, for we can cover X with ļ¬nitely many
open aļ¬nes Ā¦X
i
Ā¦. If we prove the result for each set in this open cover, then we need only
take the coproduct of the various X
ās that occur. Note that the morphism .X
i
ā X
is quasicompact by quasiseparatedness. So we may just assume at the outset that X is
aļ¬ne.
In this case, we know (Proposition 5.17) that T is an intersection
T
Ī±
of constructible
sets T
Ī±
. We also know that each T
Ī±
occurs as the image of an aļ¬ne scheme SpecR
Ī±
via
a morphism
SpecR
Ī±
ā X,
which is evidently quasicompact, thanks to Proposition 5.9, which is the counterpart of
the present result for constructible sets. We need to make the intersection of all the R
Ī±
ās
occur as an image.
To do this, we ļ¬rst note that any ļ¬nite intersection of the T
Ī±
ās occurs as an image in
a natural way. Say X = SpecR; then for every ļ¬nite set F, consider the morphism
g
F
: Spec
Ī±āF
R
Ī±
ā SpecR.
Here Spec
Ī±āF
R
Ī±
is the ļ¬bered product of the maps SpecR
Ī±
ā SpecR for Ī± ā F.
Consequently, the image of g
F
is
F
T
Ī±
.
We now want to move from getting ļ¬nite intersections to the whole intersection. How
ever, the g
F
ās form a projective system (where F ranges over ļ¬nite subsets of the indexing
set of Ī±), and it turns out that in such instances we can always do it. We formalize this
in the following lemma.
Lemma 5.21. Let R be a ring and R
Ī²
, Ī² ā B be a inductive system of Ralgebras over a
directed set B. There is consequently a projective system SpecR
Ī²
of schemes.
Then the natural morphism R ā lim
āā
R
Ī²
induces a morphism
Spec lim
āā
R
Ī²
ā SpecR
whose image is the intersection of the images of all the SpecR
Ī²
.
Once we prove this lemma, the proposition will be clear.
35
Proof. First, the morphism Spec lim
āā
R
Ī²
ā SpecR factors through each morphism SpecR
Ī²
ā
SpecR, so the image is clearly contained in the intersection of the images im(SpecR
Ī²
ā
SpecR). We need to show the converse inclusion.
Suppose y ā SpecR occurs in the image of SpecR
Ī²
ā SpecR for all Ī². We have to
show that there is y
ā Spec lim
āā
R
Ī²
mapping to y. In other words, if k(y) is the quotient
ļ¬eld, we must show that the ļ¬ber Spec lim
āā
R
Ī²
ā
R
k(y) is nontrivial.
This, however, is equivalent to the statement that lim
āā
R
Ī²
ā
R
k(y) ,= 0. Since colimits
commute with tensor products, this in turn is equivalent to lim
āā
(R
Ī²
ā
R
k(y)) ,= 0. We
know that R
Ī²
ā
R
k(y) ,= 0 for each Ī². But a ļ¬ltered colimit of nonzero rings Ā¦S
Ī±
Ā¦ can
never be the zero ring. For if 1 = 0 in lim
āā
S
Ī±
then the deļ¬nition of a ļ¬ltered colimit shows
that 1 = 0 in some S
Ī³
. This shows that Spec lim
āā
R
Ī²
ā
R
k(y) ,= 0 and proves the lemma.
6 Faithfully ļ¬at morphisms
Recall that a morphism of schemes f : X ā Y is called ļ¬at if for each x ā X, O
x
is a ļ¬at
algebra over O
f(x)
.
Deļ¬nition 6.1. f is called faithfully ļ¬at if it is ļ¬at and surjective.
It is straightforward to check (EGA IV.2) that:
1. Faithfully ļ¬at morphisms are closed under basechange and composition.
2. A morphism of aļ¬ne schemes SpecS ā SpecR is faithfully ļ¬at if and only if R ā S
is faithfully ļ¬at.
We omit the proofs of these facts, and focus on proving the following principle:
Principle: Let f : X ā Y be a morphism of Sschemes for some base scheme
S. Suppose S
ā S is a faithfully ļ¬at and quasicompact morphism and
f
S
= f
S
S
: X
S
S
ā Y
S
S
has some property. Then f does too.
Let us introduce the notation X
S
= X
S
S
, Y
S
= Y
S
S
.
This is intended to be a heuristic principle, which is not valid in every case,
11
but it
is valid in many interesting ones. In general, it will always be true that if f satisļ¬es a
property, so does f
S
S
, even without faithfully ļ¬at hypothesis. The converse is the
interesting part. There are many properties of morphisms in which such a ādescentā is
possible:
1. Finite
2. Proper
3. Separated
4. Open (resp. closed, resp. locally closed) immersions
11
For instance, it is not valid for the property of being a projective morphism.
36
6.1 Fpqc morphisms induce the quotient topology
Morphisms of schemes which are simultaneously faithfully ļ¬at and quasicompact (which
we call fpqc
12
) are epimorphisms in the category of schemes in a very strong sense. We
shall not enter into the theory of descent (explained in [Vis08], for instance), whereby given
a fpqc morphism X
ā X quasicoherent sheaves on X
with suitable ādescent dataā lead
to quasicoherent sheaves on X. However, we shall at least show that such fpqc morphisms
induce the quotient topology.
Theorem 6.2. Let f : X
ā X be a fpqc morphism of schemes. Let Z ā X be a subset.
Then Z is closed if and only if f
ā1
(Z) is closed.
Proof. One direction is obvious, f being continuous. Let us prove the other direction.
By basechanging by the morphism Z ā X (where Z is given the reduced induced
subscheme structure), we may assume that Z is dense in X. In particular, we have to
prove that if Z is dense in X and f
ā1
(Z) is closed, then Z is all of X. It will suļ¬ce to
show that f
ā1
(Z) is dense in X
, for then it will be equal to X
.
Suppose Z ā X is dense and is such that f
ā1
(Z) is closed. Then f
ā1
(Z) is procon
structible (by ??), so Z = f(f
ā1
(Z)) is proconstructible as f is quasicompact (by ??).
We want to show that f
ā1
(Z) is dense in X
.
Thus we are reduced to proving:
Lemma 6.3. Let f : X
ā X be a fpqc morphism. Suppose Z is a proconstructible dense
subset. Then f
ā1
(Z) is dense.
Proof. The result is local on X, so we may assume X aļ¬ne; X
is then quasicompact.
We know that there is an aļ¬ne scheme Y and a morphism Y ā X whose image is Z. We
are going to show that Y
X
X
ā X
has dense image. It suļ¬ces to show that every
maximal point is in the image. So let Ī¾ be a maximal point in X
. To show that Ī¾ is in
the image of Y
X
X
ā X, it suļ¬ces to show that f(Ī¾) is in the image of Y ā X, i.e.
is in T.
But f is ļ¬at, so f sends maximal points into maximal points as it is dominant. Thus
f(Ī¾) is a maximal point in X. In addition, as Y ā X is quasicompact and has dense
image, every maximal point of Y is the image of a point in Y , so every maximal point in
Y lies in T. This shows that f(Ī¾) is in T. This concludes the proof.
After this, the following preliminary ādescentā result will be straightforward.
Proposition 6.4. Let f : X ā Y be a morphism of Sschemes, and let S
ā S be a fpqc
morphism. Then f is open (resp. closed) if f
S
is.
Note that this is technically an exception to the philosophy outlined earlier, in that
the implication is only oneway! The problem is that, unlike most properties of interest
in algebraic geometry, being open (or closed) is not generally stable under basechange.
12
Short for ļ¬d`element plat et quasicompact.
37
In proving such a result, we will always reduce to Y = S. We can do this, because in
general the diagram
X
S
S
//
X
Y
S
S
//
Y
is cartesian, and Y
S
S
ā Y is fpqc (as a basechange of S
ā S). In short, we can
always assume the basechange happens with f going to the ābase.ā We will make this
assumption in all such future arguments, and the preceding discussion shows that it is
reasonable.
Proof. As usual, we may assume Y = S. If f is universally open or universally closed,
any base change, whether fpqc or not, clearly has the same property.
Suppose f
S
is open. In the diagram
X
S
f
S
g
//
X
f
S
g
//
S
,
where we have named the horizontal morphisms for convenience, ļ¬x an open subset U ā X.
The claim is that f(U) is open. For this, it suļ¬ces to show that g
ā1
(f(U)) is open.
However, by basic properties of ļ¬bered products, we know that (EGA I.??)
g
ā1
(f(U)) = f
S
(g
ā1
(U)),
and the latter is open because f
S
is open. Since U was arbitrary, we ļ¬nd that f is open.
The proof for closed morphisms is the same.
6.2 Examples of descent
Armed with the initial result (Theorem ??) on fpqc morphisms, we shall now prove that
wide varieties of properties of morphisms can ādescendā under fpqc base change.
Proposition 6.5. Let f : X ā Y be a morphism of Sschemes, and let S
ā S be a fpqc
morphism. Then f is separated if and only if f
S
is.
Proof. As usual, we may assume Y = S.
Separatedness is preserved under basechange, so one direction is clear. Suppose now
that f
S
is separated. We need to see that f is separated.
Consider the diagonal map
ā : X ā X
S
X
and its basechange
ā
S
: X
S
ā X
S
S
X
S
;
by assumption, the latter is closed (indeed, a closed immersion). It follows that ā itself
is closed, so f is separated.
38
6.3 Immersions
With the above result in mind, we shall show that the notion of āimmersionā descends
under faithfully ļ¬at base change.
Proposition 6.6. Let f : X ā Y be a morphism of Sschemes, and let S
ā S be a fpqc
morphism. Then f is an immersion (resp. an open immersion, a closed immersion) if
and only if f
S
is.
7 The ļ¬nite presentation argument
Following EGA IV8, we shall now discuss a general argument that enables one to make
reductions about statements about ļ¬nitely presented morphisms to the case of noetherian
schemes.
The essential idea of the approach is the following.
(TO BE ADDED)
8 The quasiļ¬nite form of ZMT
8.1 A lemma on complete local rings
Paradoxically, a key lemma we shall use in proving ZMT is the following:
Lemma 8.1. Let A be a noetherian local complete ring, with y ā SpecA denoting the
maximal ideal. Let X ā SpecA be a quasiļ¬nite separated morphism. Then there is a
decomposition X = X
0
. X
1
where X
0
is ļ¬nite over SpecA and the image of X
1
does not
contain y.
Proof. Suppose we have f
ā1
(y) = Ā¦x
1
, . . . , x
n
Ā¦. We pick one of the points x ā f
ā1
(y) and
will induct on n. As always, there is a morphism
SpecO
x
ā X,
which is an imbedding on the underlying topological spaces. By assumption, f is quasi
ļ¬nite, so that f
ā1
(y) is quasiļ¬nite over k(y); it is thus a discrete set.
13
In particular, in
the composite
SpecO
x
ā SpecA,
the ļ¬ber above y consists just of x, as x is isolated in its fļ¬ber.
The claim is that O
x
is a ļ¬nite Amodule. For the moment, let us assume this. In
that case, the composite
SpecO
x
ā X ā SpecA
is ļ¬nite, and since X ā SpecA is separated, it follows by standard cancellation arguments
(cf. []), that SpecO
x
ā X is ļ¬nite. It is clear that the map induces an isomorphism on
the local rings at x. Given a morphism of ļ¬nite type that induces an isomorphism of a
pair of local rings, it is a local isomorphism by straightforward arguments, cf. [].
13
Proof?
39
It follows that SpecO
x
ā X is a local isomorphism near x, so maps SpecO
x
isomor
phically onto an open neighborhood of X because any open set containing the maximal
ideal in SpecO
x
contains the whole scheme. Since this map is proper, it is closed, and we
ļ¬nd that X = X
. X
where X
= SpecO
x
is ļ¬nite over SpecA and X
has one fewer
point in the ļ¬ber over y. We can thus repeat this procedure to split of chunks of X
until
nothing in the ļ¬ber over y is left; this must terminate as X is noetherian. Thus, modulo
the claim about O
x
, we are done.
We now prove the claim. Let m ā A be the maximal ideal (corresponding to the point
y ā SpecA), and let m
x
ā O
x
be the maximal ideal. By assumption, m is mapped into m
x
under the map A ā O
x
.
We know that O
x
is noetherian, because X ā SpecA is of ļ¬nite type, and consequently
by the Krull intersection theorem, we have
m
n
O
x
ā
m
n
x
O
x
= Ā¦0Ā¦ .
The following bit of commutative algebra will imply that O
x
is ļ¬nite over A.
Lemma 8.2. Let A be a complete local ring with maximal ideal m, M an Amodule.
Suppose M/mM is ļ¬nitely generated and
m
n
M = 0. Then M is ļ¬nitely generated.
8.2 Quasiļ¬nite proper morphisms
The argument for Zariskiās Main Theorem is still somewhat complex, so we āwarm upā
to it by proving:
Theorem 8.3. A proper quasiļ¬nite and ļ¬nitely presented morphism f : X ā Y is ļ¬nite.
We have already proved it in the noetherian case, but here we give a new proof of that
too, one independent of cohomology.
Proof. We shall make a series of reductions.
8.2.1 Step 1: Reduce to Y aļ¬ne
The properties of properness, quasiļ¬niteness, and ļ¬nite presentation are all preserved
under base change. Moreover, they are all local on the base. So we can assume Y aļ¬ne.
8.2.2 Step 2: Reduce to Y aļ¬ne and noetherian
Let us suppose Y = SpecA, and X ā A is ļ¬nitely presented. We know that A is the
direct limit of its ļ¬nitely generated subrings. We know, furthermore, that the scheme X
ādescendsā to a ļ¬nitely generated subring: that is, there exists A
0
ā A ļ¬nitely generated,
and a ļ¬nite type map X
0
ā SpecA
0
such that X ā SpecA is the basechange of X
0
ā
SpecA
0
.
By choosing A
0
large enough, we can moreover assume (??), that X
0
ā SpecA
0
is
quasiļ¬nite and proper. If we show that X
0
ā SpecA
0
is ļ¬nite, then the same will be true
for X as ļ¬niteness is preserved under base change.
So it is suļ¬cient to prove the theorem for X
0
ā SpecA
0
. In particular, we can reduce
to the noetherian case. Here we could just quote Theorem 3.11, but we prefer not to, as
it will illustrate important ideas.
40
8.2.3 Step 3: Reduction to Y aļ¬ne, noetherian, and local
We have seen that it is suļ¬cient to prove the theorem for Y of the form SpecA, with A
noetherian. We now want to go further and assume A local noetherian.
To do this, recall the discussion in ??. We know that it is suļ¬cient to ļ¬nd an open
cover Ā¦U
Ī±
Ā¦ of Y such that f
ā1
(U
Ī±
) ā U
Ī±
is ļ¬nite for each Ī±. That is, given y ā Y , we must
ļ¬nd a small neighborhood U of yāwhich we may assume aļ¬neāsuch that f
ā1
(U) ā U
is ļ¬nite.
However, we have seen that the local scheme SpecO
y
is the projective limit of the small
open aļ¬ne neighborhoods of y. In particular, if we show that
X
Y
SpecO
y
ā SpecO
y
is ļ¬nite, we will see that there is such an open neighborhood U. Since O
y
is local noethe
rian, we see it is enough to handle that case.
8.2.4 Step 4: Reduction to Y aļ¬ne, noetherian, local, and complete
We have now seen that it is suļ¬cient to show that if f : X ā Y is a quasiļ¬nite proper
morphism with Y = SpecA, for A noetherian local, then f is ļ¬nite. We now claim that it
is suļ¬cient to do the same when A is, moreover, complete. This will be the ļ¬nal reduction,
after which we will be able to apply Lemma 8.1.
Let
Ė
A be the completion of A at its maximal ideal. This is a noetherian local ring,
and we have a faithfully ļ¬at morphism A ā
Ė
A by elementary commutative algebra (cf.
[]). In the cartesian diagram
X
A
Ė
A
//
X
Spec
Ė
A
//
SpecA
,
we see that it is suļ¬cient to show that the proper quasiļ¬nite morphism X
A
Ė
A ā Spec
Ė
A
is ļ¬nite by ādescent,ā as in Proposition ??.
8.2.5 Step 5: Completion of the argument
After this long series of reductions, we have found that it is enough to prove that if
f : X ā Y is a quasiļ¬nite proper morphism for Y = SpecA, with A noetherian, local,
and complete, then f is ļ¬nite.
This is now easy. We know (Lemma 8.1) that X = X
0
. X
1
where X
0
ā SpecA is
ļ¬nite and the image of X
1
does not meet the closed point of SpecA. But X
1
ā X is a
closed immersion, so X
1
ā SpecA is proper, and in particular closed; if its image does
not meet the only closed point, then we ļ¬nd that X
1
= ā
.
Thus X = X
0
is ļ¬nite over SpecA.
8.3 Compactiļ¬ability of quasiļ¬nite morphisms
We shall now prove the following basic result.
41
Theorem 8.4. A quasiļ¬nite morphism of ļ¬nite presentation is quasiaļ¬ne.
Recall that a morphism of schemes f : X ā Y is quasiaļ¬ne if O
X
is an fample
line bundle. This is equivalent to saying that f factors as an open immersion and an aļ¬ne
morphism.
Proof. Let f : X ā Y be a quasiļ¬nite morphism of ļ¬nite presentation. We begin with
the usual steps.
It suļ¬ces to assume Y aļ¬ne, because all properties here (quasiļ¬niteness, morphisms
of ļ¬nite presentation, quasiaļ¬neness) are local on the base.
14
By the same āļ¬nite pre
sentationā argument as before, we may reduce to the case that Y is of ļ¬nite type over Z,
and in particular of ļ¬nite dimension. So we are reduced to proving the result in the case
of noetherian schemes of ļ¬nite dimension.
Let us now induct on dimY . When dimY = 0, the result is trivial. Suppose dimY > 0
and the result proved for noetherian schemes Y
with dimY
< dimY . We will show for
each y ā Y , the morphism X
Y
SpecO
y
ā SpecO
y
is quasiaļ¬ne. This will imply, by
the usual argument, that each point y ā Y has a small aļ¬ne neighborhood U
y
such that
X
Y
U
y
ā U
y
is quasiaļ¬ne. Since quasiaļ¬neness is local on the base, this will prove
that X ā Y is quasiaļ¬ne.
So, let Y = SpecA, for A a local noetherian ring, and assume that for all Y
noetherian
of ļ¬nite dimension (not necessarily aļ¬ne), the result is true. We want to show that X ā Y
is quasiaļ¬ne. By making the fpqc base change Spec
Ė
A ā SpecA, we may assume that
A is in fact complete. (Recall that completion does not aļ¬ect the dimension, by Hilbert
polynomial arguments, cf [Eis95].)
But then X ā SpecA is a quasiļ¬nite morphism to the Spec of a complete local
noetherian ring. Thus, we can apply Lemma 8.1. We ļ¬nd that X decomposes as X =
X
1
.X
2
where X
1
is ļ¬nite over SpecA and the image of X
2
does not intersect the maximal
ideal of
Ė
A.
Then X
1
ā SpecA is ļ¬nite, hence aļ¬ne, so it is clearly quasiaļ¬ne. The map X
2
ā
SpecA ā Ā¦yĀ¦ for y the maximal ideal in SpecA is also quasiļ¬nite, but the dimension of
the space SpecA ā Ā¦yĀ¦ is strictly less than that of SpecA. By the inductive hypothesis,
we ļ¬nd that X
2
ā SpecA is quasiaļ¬ne. Piecing both parts together, X ā SpecA is
quasiaļ¬ne.
One real bit of cleverness in the above argumentāwhich did not appear in the proof
that a proper quasiļ¬nite morphism is ļ¬niteāis the induction on the dimension of Y (after
the reduction to the noetherian case!). This is a geometric, and not an algebraic argument.
8.4 The ļ¬nal version of Zariskiās Main Theorem
We can now state:
Theorem 8.5 (Zariskiās Main Theorem, ļ¬nal version). A quasiļ¬nite morphism be
tween noetherian schemes factors as an open immersion and a ļ¬nite morphism.
14
I donāt think quasiprojectiveness is!
42
Proof. By Theorem 3.10 (that is, the cohomological theory), this is true for quasiprojective
quasiļ¬nite morphisms. However, we have just seen in Theorem 8.4 that any quasiļ¬nite
morphism of ļ¬nite presentation (and since we are in the noetherian case, this applies to
us) is quasiaļ¬ne, hence quasiprojective. Thus, we are done.
We have not stated Zariskiās Main Theorem in the greatest possible generality (in which
it is true for ļ¬nitely presented morphisms between possibly nonnoetherian schemes). We
have avoided doing so because the argument in [GD], though mostly similar in spirit to
the arguments here, involves a technical fact about excellent rings and integral closure,
that we have not entered into here.
References
[AK70] Allen Altman and Steven Kleiman. Introduction to Grothendieck duality theory.
Springer, 1970.
[dJea10] Aise Johan de Jong et al. Stacks Project. Open source project, available at
http://www.math.columbia.edu/algebraic_geometry/stacksgit/, 2010.
[Eis95] David Eisenbud. Commutative Algebra: with a view towards Algebraic Geometry.
Springer, 1995.
[GD] Alexander Grothendieck and Jean DieudonnĀ“e.
Ā“
Elements de gĀ“eometrie algĀ“ebrique.
Publications MathĀ“ematiques de lāIH
Ā“
ES.
[Gro71] Alexander Grothendieck. SGA 1: Revetements etales et groupe fondamental.
Springer, 1971. arXiv:math/0206203v2.
[Har77] Robin Hartshorne. Algebraic Geometry. SpringerVerlag, 1977.
[Ray70] Michel Raynaud. Anneaux locaux hensĀ“eliens. Springer, 1970.
[Vis08] Angelo Vistoli. Notes on Grothendieck topologies, ļ¬bered categories, and descent
theory. Published in FGA Explained, 2008. arXiv:math/0412512v4.
43