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

Why is a smooth connected scheme (say over a field) necessarily irreducible?

Intuitively it makes sense because we might very well expect points in the intersection of two irreducible components to be singular points.

But what is a proof? Feel free to add any extra hypotheses if needed (e.g., separated if that is required).

share|cite|improve this question

The local rings of a smooth scheme over a field are regular, and a regular local ring is a domain. Thus a smooth scheme over a field has all local rings being domains. Thus the intersection of any two components must be empty (a point lying on the intersection would not have its local ring being a domain).

share|cite|improve this answer
Well, you reduced the question to «why would a point in the intersection not have its local field a domain?» :) – Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Feb 5 '11 at 13:44
Dear @Matt, Isn't some quasi-compactness hypothesis necessary here? I know that a connected, regular, Noetherian (i.e. quasi-compact) scheme $X$ is necessarily irreducible, using your argument, because one gets that $X$ is the disjoint union of its finitely many irreducible components, so by connectedness there can only be one. But what if there are infinitely many irreducible components? I definitely don't have a counter-example in mind. I just can't think of a proof. – Keenan Kidwell Oct 21 '12 at 4:23
@KeenanKidwell: Dear Keenan, Smoothness of a morphism includes a locally of finite type hypothesis, so a smooth scheme over a field is locally of finite type by definition, and so every point has a neighbourhood with only finitely many irreducible components. This should be enough. Regards, – Matt E Oct 21 '12 at 12:43
Okay, so locally Noetherian is enough. Cool. Thanks! – Keenan Kidwell Oct 21 '12 at 14:22

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.