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 $V$ be an irreducible affine variety. A rational map $f : V \to \mathbb A^n$ is an $n$-tuple of maps $(f_1, \ldots , f_n)$ where there $f_i$ are rational functions i.e. are in $k(V)$. Th map is called regular at the point $P$ if all the $f_i$ are regular at the point $P$. Hence $\mathrm{dom}(f) = \bigcap_{i=1}^n \mathrm{dom}(f_i)$.

My book then says that $\mathrm{dom}(f)$ is therefore a nonempty open subset of $V$. I can see why it's open, but I can't see why it has to be nonempty. I can see that each of the $\mathrm{dom}(f_i)$ are nonempty, and that it's true in the case where $V$ embeds into $\mathbb A^1$ and the polynomials are in one variable.

So, why is $\mathrm{dom}(f)$ necessarily nonempty?

Thanks

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

You've noted that the $\operatorname{dom}(f_i)$ are non-empty open subsets of $V$. We haven't used irreducibility yet, and in fact that adjective seems to be crucial for working with rational functions and function fields because of the following.

Lemma. If $X$ is an irreducible topological space and $U_1, U_2$ are non-empty open subsets of $X$, then $U_1 \cap U_2 \neq \varnothing$.

It's likely that your definition of irreducibility involves closed sets. To obtain the lemma, just take complements.

share|improve this answer
    
Yes, that helps entirely. I now 'see' what irreducible actually means. Thanks –  Matt Mar 6 '12 at 17:15
    
@Matt Good to hear! I liked your other question, by the way. It's exactly what you should ask of your algebra. –  Dylan Moreland Mar 6 '12 at 17:39
    
Thanks, I've yet to go through Bruno's answer closely. Rather than starting a new thread: my book discusses when it's possible to define to composite of rational maps. It says $f : V \to W$ and $g : W \to \mathbb A^1$ can be composed when $f$ is dominant, i.e. when $f(\mathrm{dom}(f))$ is a dense subset of $W$. This is all fine - but why is the codomain of $g$ just $\mathbb A^1$? I don't see how the argument fails for a more general codomain –  Matt Mar 6 '12 at 17:58
    
@Matt I think that you can compose them. Probably the author is headed towards obtaining a map of function fields $K(W) \to K(V)$ obtained by sending such $g$ to $g \circ f$, in order to get the equivalence of categories between varities with dominant rational maps and the category of finitely generated field extensions of the ground field. –  Dylan Moreland Mar 6 '12 at 18:19
    
Yes, thanks - you're right! –  Matt Mar 6 '12 at 18:23

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.