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.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I'm reading page 10, exercise 3 part (c) of:

in order to claim that if f is zero on a dense subset of $Y$ then f is zero everywhere don't we need that the codomain, i.e $k$ is a Hausdorff space? or we don't? in this case $k$ is an algebraically closed field and $f: Y \rightarrow k$ is a continuous map where $k$ has the Zariski topology so $k$ is non-Hausdorff.

share|cite|improve this question
Dear user10, You are correct that an argument via Hausdorffness is not valid, but nevertheless the statement is true. (Just not by that particular argument.) Regards, – Matt E May 10 '12 at 3:29
up vote 3 down vote accepted

But $\{0\}$ is still closed in the Zariski topology and, as you said, $f$ is continuous, so $f^{-1}(0)$ is a closed subset of $Y$ which contains $\varphi(X)$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Dear Dylan, I think you mean something like "$f^{-1}(0)$ is closed and contains (a dense subset of, and hence all of) $Y$." Regards, – Matt E May 10 '12 at 4:38
@MattE Woops, I thought $f$ was the morphism as well. Gunctional notation. Thanks! – Dylan Moreland May 10 '12 at 4:52

Your Answer


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.