On Noetherian schemes
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Is a scheme is Noetherian equivalent to that the underlying topological space is Noetherian and all its stalks are Noetherian?
ag.algebraic-geometry
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Is a scheme is Noetherian equivalent to that the underlying topological space is Noetherian and all its stalks are Noetherian?
ag.algebraic-geometry
1
Probably should be asked on MSE.
– Bernie
2 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Is a scheme is Noetherian equivalent to that the underlying topological space is Noetherian and all its stalks are Noetherian?
ag.algebraic-geometry
Is a scheme is Noetherian equivalent to that the underlying topological space is Noetherian and all its stalks are Noetherian?
ag.algebraic-geometry
ag.algebraic-geometry
edited 3 hours ago
LSpice
2,76822627
2,76822627
asked 3 hours ago
G.-S. Zhou
836
836
1
Probably should be asked on MSE.
– Bernie
2 hours ago
add a comment |
1
Probably should be asked on MSE.
– Bernie
2 hours ago
1
1
Probably should be asked on MSE.
– Bernie
2 hours ago
Probably should be asked on MSE.
– Bernie
2 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
This is false. The easiest counterexample I could come up with is the following "affine line with embedded points at every closed point":
Example. Let $k$ be an infinite field, let $R = k[x]$, and for each $alpha in k$ let $R_alpha = R[y_alpha]/((x-alpha)y_alpha,y_alpha^2)$. Then $R_alpha$ is an affine line with an embedded prime $mathfrak p_alpha = (x-alpha,y_alpha)$ at $x = alpha$, sticking out in the $y_alpha$-direction. Finally, let
$$R_infty = bigotimes_{alpha in k} R_alpha = operatorname*{colim}_{substack{longrightarrow\I subseteq k\text{finite}}} bigotimes_{alpha in I} R_alpha$$
be their tensor product over $R$ (not over $k$); that is
$$R_infty = frac{k[x]left[{y_alpha}_{alpha in k}right]}{sum_{alpha in k}((x-alpha)y_alpha, y_alpha^2)}.$$
This is not a Noetherian ring, because the radical $mathfrak r = ({y_alpha}_{alpha in k})$ is not finitely generated. But $operatorname{Spec} R_infty$ agrees as a topological space with $operatorname{Spec} R_infty^{operatorname{red}} = mathbb A^1_k$, hence $|!operatorname{Spec} R_infty|$ is a Noetherian topological space.
On the other hand, the map $R to R_alpha$ is an isomorphism away from $alpha$, and similarly $R_alpha to R_infty$ induces isomorphisms on the stalks at $alpha$. Thus, the stalk $(R_infty)_{mathfrak q_alpha} = (R_alpha)_{mathfrak p_alpha}$ at $mathfrak q_alpha = mathfrak p_alpha R_infty + mathfrak r$ is Noetherian. Similarly, the stalk at the generic point $mathfrak r$ is just $R_{(0)} = k(x)$. Thus, we conclude that all the stalks of $R_infty$ are Noetherian. $square$
I guess my construction only has embedded points at the rational points, not all closed points. You may assume $k$ algebraically closed, or rename or redefine the object.
– R. van Dobben de Bruyn
1 hour ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
This is false. The easiest counterexample I could come up with is the following "affine line with embedded points at every closed point":
Example. Let $k$ be an infinite field, let $R = k[x]$, and for each $alpha in k$ let $R_alpha = R[y_alpha]/((x-alpha)y_alpha,y_alpha^2)$. Then $R_alpha$ is an affine line with an embedded prime $mathfrak p_alpha = (x-alpha,y_alpha)$ at $x = alpha$, sticking out in the $y_alpha$-direction. Finally, let
$$R_infty = bigotimes_{alpha in k} R_alpha = operatorname*{colim}_{substack{longrightarrow\I subseteq k\text{finite}}} bigotimes_{alpha in I} R_alpha$$
be their tensor product over $R$ (not over $k$); that is
$$R_infty = frac{k[x]left[{y_alpha}_{alpha in k}right]}{sum_{alpha in k}((x-alpha)y_alpha, y_alpha^2)}.$$
This is not a Noetherian ring, because the radical $mathfrak r = ({y_alpha}_{alpha in k})$ is not finitely generated. But $operatorname{Spec} R_infty$ agrees as a topological space with $operatorname{Spec} R_infty^{operatorname{red}} = mathbb A^1_k$, hence $|!operatorname{Spec} R_infty|$ is a Noetherian topological space.
On the other hand, the map $R to R_alpha$ is an isomorphism away from $alpha$, and similarly $R_alpha to R_infty$ induces isomorphisms on the stalks at $alpha$. Thus, the stalk $(R_infty)_{mathfrak q_alpha} = (R_alpha)_{mathfrak p_alpha}$ at $mathfrak q_alpha = mathfrak p_alpha R_infty + mathfrak r$ is Noetherian. Similarly, the stalk at the generic point $mathfrak r$ is just $R_{(0)} = k(x)$. Thus, we conclude that all the stalks of $R_infty$ are Noetherian. $square$
I guess my construction only has embedded points at the rational points, not all closed points. You may assume $k$ algebraically closed, or rename or redefine the object.
– R. van Dobben de Bruyn
1 hour ago
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
This is false. The easiest counterexample I could come up with is the following "affine line with embedded points at every closed point":
Example. Let $k$ be an infinite field, let $R = k[x]$, and for each $alpha in k$ let $R_alpha = R[y_alpha]/((x-alpha)y_alpha,y_alpha^2)$. Then $R_alpha$ is an affine line with an embedded prime $mathfrak p_alpha = (x-alpha,y_alpha)$ at $x = alpha$, sticking out in the $y_alpha$-direction. Finally, let
$$R_infty = bigotimes_{alpha in k} R_alpha = operatorname*{colim}_{substack{longrightarrow\I subseteq k\text{finite}}} bigotimes_{alpha in I} R_alpha$$
be their tensor product over $R$ (not over $k$); that is
$$R_infty = frac{k[x]left[{y_alpha}_{alpha in k}right]}{sum_{alpha in k}((x-alpha)y_alpha, y_alpha^2)}.$$
This is not a Noetherian ring, because the radical $mathfrak r = ({y_alpha}_{alpha in k})$ is not finitely generated. But $operatorname{Spec} R_infty$ agrees as a topological space with $operatorname{Spec} R_infty^{operatorname{red}} = mathbb A^1_k$, hence $|!operatorname{Spec} R_infty|$ is a Noetherian topological space.
On the other hand, the map $R to R_alpha$ is an isomorphism away from $alpha$, and similarly $R_alpha to R_infty$ induces isomorphisms on the stalks at $alpha$. Thus, the stalk $(R_infty)_{mathfrak q_alpha} = (R_alpha)_{mathfrak p_alpha}$ at $mathfrak q_alpha = mathfrak p_alpha R_infty + mathfrak r$ is Noetherian. Similarly, the stalk at the generic point $mathfrak r$ is just $R_{(0)} = k(x)$. Thus, we conclude that all the stalks of $R_infty$ are Noetherian. $square$
I guess my construction only has embedded points at the rational points, not all closed points. You may assume $k$ algebraically closed, or rename or redefine the object.
– R. van Dobben de Bruyn
1 hour ago
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
This is false. The easiest counterexample I could come up with is the following "affine line with embedded points at every closed point":
Example. Let $k$ be an infinite field, let $R = k[x]$, and for each $alpha in k$ let $R_alpha = R[y_alpha]/((x-alpha)y_alpha,y_alpha^2)$. Then $R_alpha$ is an affine line with an embedded prime $mathfrak p_alpha = (x-alpha,y_alpha)$ at $x = alpha$, sticking out in the $y_alpha$-direction. Finally, let
$$R_infty = bigotimes_{alpha in k} R_alpha = operatorname*{colim}_{substack{longrightarrow\I subseteq k\text{finite}}} bigotimes_{alpha in I} R_alpha$$
be their tensor product over $R$ (not over $k$); that is
$$R_infty = frac{k[x]left[{y_alpha}_{alpha in k}right]}{sum_{alpha in k}((x-alpha)y_alpha, y_alpha^2)}.$$
This is not a Noetherian ring, because the radical $mathfrak r = ({y_alpha}_{alpha in k})$ is not finitely generated. But $operatorname{Spec} R_infty$ agrees as a topological space with $operatorname{Spec} R_infty^{operatorname{red}} = mathbb A^1_k$, hence $|!operatorname{Spec} R_infty|$ is a Noetherian topological space.
On the other hand, the map $R to R_alpha$ is an isomorphism away from $alpha$, and similarly $R_alpha to R_infty$ induces isomorphisms on the stalks at $alpha$. Thus, the stalk $(R_infty)_{mathfrak q_alpha} = (R_alpha)_{mathfrak p_alpha}$ at $mathfrak q_alpha = mathfrak p_alpha R_infty + mathfrak r$ is Noetherian. Similarly, the stalk at the generic point $mathfrak r$ is just $R_{(0)} = k(x)$. Thus, we conclude that all the stalks of $R_infty$ are Noetherian. $square$
This is false. The easiest counterexample I could come up with is the following "affine line with embedded points at every closed point":
Example. Let $k$ be an infinite field, let $R = k[x]$, and for each $alpha in k$ let $R_alpha = R[y_alpha]/((x-alpha)y_alpha,y_alpha^2)$. Then $R_alpha$ is an affine line with an embedded prime $mathfrak p_alpha = (x-alpha,y_alpha)$ at $x = alpha$, sticking out in the $y_alpha$-direction. Finally, let
$$R_infty = bigotimes_{alpha in k} R_alpha = operatorname*{colim}_{substack{longrightarrow\I subseteq k\text{finite}}} bigotimes_{alpha in I} R_alpha$$
be their tensor product over $R$ (not over $k$); that is
$$R_infty = frac{k[x]left[{y_alpha}_{alpha in k}right]}{sum_{alpha in k}((x-alpha)y_alpha, y_alpha^2)}.$$
This is not a Noetherian ring, because the radical $mathfrak r = ({y_alpha}_{alpha in k})$ is not finitely generated. But $operatorname{Spec} R_infty$ agrees as a topological space with $operatorname{Spec} R_infty^{operatorname{red}} = mathbb A^1_k$, hence $|!operatorname{Spec} R_infty|$ is a Noetherian topological space.
On the other hand, the map $R to R_alpha$ is an isomorphism away from $alpha$, and similarly $R_alpha to R_infty$ induces isomorphisms on the stalks at $alpha$. Thus, the stalk $(R_infty)_{mathfrak q_alpha} = (R_alpha)_{mathfrak p_alpha}$ at $mathfrak q_alpha = mathfrak p_alpha R_infty + mathfrak r$ is Noetherian. Similarly, the stalk at the generic point $mathfrak r$ is just $R_{(0)} = k(x)$. Thus, we conclude that all the stalks of $R_infty$ are Noetherian. $square$
answered 1 hour ago
R. van Dobben de Bruyn
10.1k23059
10.1k23059
I guess my construction only has embedded points at the rational points, not all closed points. You may assume $k$ algebraically closed, or rename or redefine the object.
– R. van Dobben de Bruyn
1 hour ago
add a comment |
I guess my construction only has embedded points at the rational points, not all closed points. You may assume $k$ algebraically closed, or rename or redefine the object.
– R. van Dobben de Bruyn
1 hour ago
I guess my construction only has embedded points at the rational points, not all closed points. You may assume $k$ algebraically closed, or rename or redefine the object.
– R. van Dobben de Bruyn
1 hour ago
I guess my construction only has embedded points at the rational points, not all closed points. You may assume $k$ algebraically closed, or rename or redefine the object.
– R. van Dobben de Bruyn
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f317222%2fon-noetherian-schemes%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Probably should be asked on MSE.
– Bernie
2 hours ago