Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

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

This question is somewhat related to a previous question of mine, but appeared in a different context.

Suppose given two morphisms of $S$-schemes $f,g:X \to Y$. Intuitively, I am interested on the locus of points of $X$ in which these two morphisms coincide. A schematic approach to that, would be to consider $Z$ as the pullback of the diagonal $\Delta: Y \to Y\times_S Y$ by the morphism $(f,g): X \to Y\times_S Y$.

Then, for example, if $Y\to S$ is separated ("Hausdorff"), then $Z \to X$ is a closed immersion, which makes sense.

Also, the composition of $Z \to X$ with $f$ and $g$ are the same (by the commutativity of the cartesian diagram defining $Z$). Hence, I would expect that the scheme $Z$ is what I'm searching.

But one could also take a naive, set-theoretic, approach (which we know is usually inappropriate when dealing with schemes) and define the set $A=\{x\in X \mid f(x)=g(x)\}$.

My question is: what is the relation between $Z$ and $A$?

The most strange thing is that $A$ can be empty, but $Z$ seems to be always well defined. In this case (when $A$ is empty), how this information is "captured" in the scheme $Z$?

share|cite|improve this question
What scheme structure do you propose to put on the set $A$? – Zhen Lin Sep 13 '12 at 14:38
The limit you're computing is called an equalizer. You are trying to compare the equalizer in schemes over $S$ with the set-theoretic equalizer on points, and the problem with doing that is that the functor associating to a scheme its set of points is badly behaved (in particular it does not preserve limits). This is one reason not to use this functor at all... – Qiaochu Yuan Sep 13 '12 at 17:32

This is not really a problem with morphisms $f,g$ but the points of the diagonal $\Delta:=\Delta_{Y/S}$ of $Y\to S$. Denote by $$\Delta_{st}=\{ z\in Y\times_S Y \mid p(z)=q(z) \}$$ where $p, q$ denote the projections to $Y$. Then the scheme-theoretical locus where $f=g$ is $h^{-1}(\Delta)$ (with $h=(f,g) : X\to Y\times_S Y$) while $A=h^{-1}(\Delta_{st})$.

So the issue is the comparison of the scheme-theoretical diagonal $\Delta$ with the set-theoretical diagonal $\Delta_{st}$. We have obviously $\Delta\subseteq \Delta_{st}$ as sets. But the inverse inclusion doesn't hold in general. A simple example is when $S, Y$ are affine defined respectively by $\mathbb R$ and $\mathbb C$. Then $Y\times_S Y$ physically has $4$ points, all in $\Delta_{st}$, but $\Delta$ has only one point (image of $S$ by the diagonal map).

share|cite|improve this answer

For questions like this it is convenient to take the functor-of-points view of schemes. Fix a base scheme $S$, and let $h : Z \to X$ be the equaliser of $f, g : X \to Y$ in $\textbf{Sch}_S$. This exists since $\textbf{Sch}_S$ has fibre products and a terminal object. (It is indeed the pullback of the diagonal $\Delta_Y : Y \to Y \times_S Y$ along $\langle f, g \rangle : X \to Y \times_S Y$, but there are other descriptions.) By the universal property of equalisers, there is a bijection $\DeclareMathOperator{\Spec}{Spec}$ $$\textbf{Sch}_S(T, Z) \cong \{ \bar{x} \in \textbf{Sch}_S(T, X) : f \circ \bar{x} = g \circ \bar{x} \}$$ and this is natural in $T$. Thus, the $T$-valued "points" of $Z$ are exactly what you expect them to be. In particular, if $S = T = \Spec k$ is an algebraically closed field, and $X$ is a scheme locally of finite type over $\Spec k$, then the $k$-valued points of $Z$ are exactly the closed points of $X$ on which $f$ and $g$ agree; indeed, under these hypotheses, the residue field of a closed point of $X$ is guaranteed to be canonically isomorphic to $k$, so there is a natural bijection between $\textbf{Sch}_k(\Spec k, X)$ and closed points of $X$. (I'm not sure whether all closed points of $Z$ are $k$-valued. This at least seems plausible, since it is true in the case where $X$ and $Y$ are affine.)

In general, however, we must work a little harder. By general abstract nonsense, there is a canonical map from the "underlying" points of $Z$ to the set $\{ x \in X : f (x) = g (x) \}$. Is it surjective? Let $x$ be a point in $X$ such that $y = f (x) = g (x)$. Let $f^\sharp_x, g^\sharp_x : \mathscr{O}_{Y, y} \to \mathscr{O}_{X, x}$ be the induced homomorphisms on local rings, and form the coequaliser $$\mathscr{O}_{Y,y} \rightrightarrows \mathscr{O}_{X,x} \rightarrow B$$ in the category of commutative rings. The homomorphism $\mathscr{O}_{X,x} \to B$ is guaranteed to be surjective, so assuming $B$ is not the trivial ring, $B$ is a local ring and $\mathscr{O}_{X,x} \to B$ is a local homomorphism. The residue field of $B$ is canonically isomorphic to $\kappa (x)$, so we get an $S$-morphism $\bar{x} : \Spec \kappa (x) \to X$ such that $f \circ \bar{x} = g \circ \bar{x}$, and it lifts to an $S$-morphism $\bar{z} : \Spec \kappa (x) \to Z$; if $z$ is the underlying point of $\bar{z}$, then we have $h(z) = x$, as required.

However, if $B$ is the trivial ring, all hell breaks loose, and in that case $x$ is not in the set-theoretic image of $h : Z \to X$. For, if $x = h(z)$, then there would be a diagram of local rings $$\mathscr{O}_{Y,y} \rightrightarrows \mathscr{O}_{X,x} \rightarrow \mathscr{O}_{Z,z}$$ and $h^\sharp_z : \mathscr{O}_{X,x} \to \mathscr{O}_{Z,z}$ must factor through $\mathscr{O}_{X,x} \to B$ by the universal property of $B$ as a coequaliser. But then $\mathscr{O}_{Z,z} = 0$ – a contradiction.

This situation is not impossible either. For example, take $S = \mathbb{F}_p$, $X = Y = \Spec \overline{\mathbb{F}_p}$, $f = \textrm{id}$, and $g$ the Frobenius $p$-power map $t \mapsto t^p$. Then the equaliser of $f, g : X \to Y$ is the empty scheme, because the coequaliser of the corresponding homomorphism of rings is the trivial ring.

share|cite|improve this answer

If you want to revert to a set theoretic product, the way to do it is via functor of points. Note that for the functor of points of $X\times_Y X,$ defined by $h_{X\times_Y X}(W)=\operatorname{Hom}_S(W,X\times_Y X)$ for any $S$-scheme $W,$ we have $h_{X\times_Y X}(W)=\{(f',g')|f':W\to X,g':W\to X, f'\circ f=g'\circ g\}\subseteq h_X(W)\times h_X(W).$

Examples 4.1,2 from this note display the pathological relationship between products of schemes and products of their underlying points. Another simple example to think about is the relationship between $\Bbb A^1\times_k\Bbb A^1\cong\Bbb A^2$ over $\operatorname{Spec}(k)$ and its underlying set of points.

share|cite|improve this answer

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.