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 $f: X \rightarrow Y$ be a morphism of, say, locally noetherian schemes. Suppose that $f$ is locally finite (that is for every open affine subset $U= spec A$ of $Y$, $f^{-1}(U)$ can be covered by open affine subsets $V_i=spec B_i$ such that each $B_i$ is a finitely generated $A$-module), and quasi-compact (so in the above one can assume that there are finitely many $V_i$ as abovecovering $f^{-1}(U)$). Then does it imply that $f$ is finite? I don't think that's true, but I'd like a counter-example (or if it is true, a proof or reference). Thanks.

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

This is not true, because you are not assuming that $f$ is separated. E.g. let $Y$ be the affine line, let $X$ be the affine line with a doubled origin, then $X \to Y$ is not affine (not even separated), in particular not finite, but it is locally finite and q.c.

However, locally finite q.c. morphisms are quasi-finite and closed. We may check this locallly on the target, and so we may replaced $Y$ by $U$ and $X$ by $f^{-1}(U)$, and hence assume that $Y$ is affine. Let us also write $V$ for the disjoint union of the $V_i$ covering $X$.

Then we have the factorization $V \to X \to Y$, the first morphism being surjective, and the composite being finite. The morphism $X \to Y$ is then quasi-finite, and closed. (The first property is clear, and the second property follows from the fact that the image of a closed set in $X$ is also the image of its preimage in $V$ (by surjectivity of $V \to X$), and this latter image is closed, since finite morphisms are closed.)

Now being locally finite and quasi-compact is invariant under base-change, and so a locally finite and quasi-compact morphism is both quasi-finite and universally closed. If it is furthermore separated then it is quasi-finite and proper, therefore finite.

Thus the statement is true if you assume that $f$ is also separated.

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.