Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Let $A$ be a ring and $X$ be the spectrum of $A$ with the Zariski topology. For an element $f\in A$ let $X_f:=\{p\subset A\text{ prime ideal }\,|\,f\notin p\}$; the $X_f$ form a basis of the topology on $X$. Finally let $\mathcal{O}$ be the structure sheaf of $X$ (a sheaf or rings).

I have managed to show that the stalk of $\mathcal{O}$ at $\mathfrak{p}\in X$ is isomorphic to to the local ring $A_{\mathfrak{p}}$. What I'm struggling to understand though is the following:

Question 1: For $f\in A$ the ring $\mathcal{O}(X_f)$ is isomorphic to the localized ring $A_f$. Why?

Let $\mathfrak{N}$ be the nilradical of $A$. I know that the spectra of $A$ and $A/\mathfrak{N}$ are homeomorphic, but I have trouble answering this:

Question 2: Are the structure sheaves of the spectra of $A$ and $A/\mathfrak{N}$ the same?

I am very thankful for any hints, references or full out answers.

share|improve this question
3  
The second question has a negative answer because if $X = \mathrm{Spec} A$ then $\mathcal{O}_X(X) = A$. –  Andrea Feb 9 '12 at 20:04
1  
Well, let's at least get started: define a map $A_f \to \mathscr O(X_f)$ by sending $a/f^n$ to the function on $X_f$ sending $\mathfrak p$ to the image of $a/f^n$ in $A_\mathfrak p$. Injectivity shouldn't be so bad. Surjectivity is more finicky. –  Dylan Moreland Feb 9 '12 at 20:10
1  
It is prooved (questin 2) in chapter 2 in Hartshorne's Algebraic geometry. –  rafaelm Feb 9 '12 at 21:01
1  
Maybe one more comment: We have an (anti-)equivalence between the category of commutative rings (with unity) and the category of affine schemes (as is proven in any scheme-theoretic treatise on algebraic geometry), and so a positive answer to Question 2 would contradict this equivalence. –  M Turgeon Feb 10 '12 at 18:57
    
In some texts the structure sheaf is defined to be the the localized ring $A_f$ on $X_f$. This is done in Görtz& Wedhorn for example. –  Carsten Feb 10 '12 at 19:05

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

Question 1 is done in Hartshorne, proposition 2.2 on pages 71-72, as rafaelm mentioned. Dylan is exactly right in the first step of the proof. Surjectivity is more difficult.

Question 2 is not true as Andrea noted. For simplicity, take any ring with non-zero nilradical, i.e. a non-reduced ring, for example $A=k[X,Y]/(X^2)$. Then $A/nil(A)=A/(\bar{X})=k[Y] \neq A$. Then $\mathcal O_X \neq \mathcal O_{X_{red}}$, where $X=Spec ~A$ and $X_{red}=Spec ~(A/nil(A))$, because $\mathcal O_X(X) = A$ and $\mathcal O_{X_{red}}(X)=k[Y]$.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.