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.

An exercise in Hartshorne claims that a scheme $X$ of finite type over a field $k$ is geometrically irreducible (respectively geometrically reduced) if and only if $X \times_k K$ is irreducible (respectively reduced) for any field extension $K/k$. Now I'm perfectly fine with this if $K/k$ is algebraic, but what about transcendental extensions?

We already encounter some weird phenomena in "simple" examples such as $\text{Spec}(k(x) \otimes_k k(y))$, which is a pretty bizarre scheme. I'm not claiming this is a counterexample, since it ends up being an integral scheme (also $k(x)$ is not finitely generated over $k$), only that I don't have a good feel for what happens with transcendental extensions of the base field.

share|improve this question
add comment

2 Answers 2

up vote 3 down vote accepted

Let me half-answer your question for geometrically reduced schemes first. This is essentially:

Lemma: Let $A$ be a reduced $k$-algebra, where $k$ is an algebraically closed field. Then if $K/k$ is any extension, $A \otimes_k K$ is reduced too.

The whole point is that we don't actually have to handle anything besides the case of $A$ a field! The reason is that any reduced noetherian ring imbeds into a (finite) product of fields (and in general, one can argue that $A$ is a filtered colimit of its noetherian subrings). As a result, one simply has to show that if $L, K$ are any two $k$-extensions, then $L \otimes_k K$ is a reduced ring.

The situation is more subtle in the case of irreducibility, and one needs a bit of general topology. Here the key lemma is:

Lemma: Let $X$ be a irreducible $k$-scheme, where $k$ is algebraically closed. Then $X \times_k K$ is irreducible for any extension $K/k$.

Here one may argue that $X \times_k K \to X $ is an open surjection (it is open because any map of discrete schemes is universally open). Moreover, one can show that the fibers are irreducible.

Now, if one has a continuous surjection $p: X \to Y$ such that the fibers $p^{-1}(y)$ are irreducible, and if $Y$ is irreducible, then $X$ is irreducible: to see this, consider a decomposition $X = X_1 \cup X_2$ for two proper closed subsets. We can consider the set of $y \in Y$ such that $X_y \subset X_1$ and the set such that $X_y \subset X_2$; these fill $Y$ as the fibers are irreducible. Moreover they are closed (as they are the complements of the images of $X - X_i$ and $p$ is open). It follows that one fills $Y$ and consequently one of $X_1, X_2$ fills $X$.

So there is again a bit of commutative algebra one needs, which is:

Lemma: Let $k$ be an algebraically closed field, and let $K, L$ be extensions of $k$. Then $\mathrm{Spec} K \otimes_k L$ is irreducible.

Both of these lemmas amount to saying that the tensor product of extensions of an algebraically closed field is an integral domain. I actually can't remember the proof of this theorem right now; I can look it up a bit later. But hopefully this clarifies the somewhat opaque Hartshorne exercise to a much more believable statement (at least, to me).

The finite type hypothesis isn't necessary, by the way.

share|improve this answer
    
Very helpful! By the way, I tracked down the statement that a morphism with discrete target is universally open in EGA, and it seems to be somewhat nontrivial. I guess the key fact is that a flat morphism locally of finite type is open. –  Justin Campbell Jun 19 '11 at 21:42
    
As for the last lemma, how about this? Since $K,L$ are purely transcendental over $k$ they are the fraction fields of some (possibly infinite-dimensional) polynomial rings over $k$. Thus $K \otimes_k L$ is a localization of a polynomial ring over $k$, hence a domain. –  Justin Campbell Jun 19 '11 at 22:41
1  
@Justin: Dear Justin, the problem is that they're not necessarily purely transcendental (think for instance of $k(x,y, \sqrt{y^2 - x^3})$). I realize I didn't get back to you about this; let me do that shortly. –  Akhil Mathew Jun 19 '11 at 23:18
    
@Justin: Also, yes, you're right: the point is that a flat morphism locally of finite presentation (I'm not sure that finite type is enough here, but maybe it is by limiting arguments in IV-11 that I don't fully understand yet) is universally open and from there it is some technical checking, but purely elementary. –  Akhil Mathew Jun 19 '11 at 23:19
add comment

Here are a few observations that might help you get a feel for transcendental extensions of the base field.

A) Krull dimension Given two field extensions $k\to K , k\to K'$ the Krull dimesion of their tensor product is the minimum of their transcendence degrees over $k$ :

$$ Krulldim(K\otimes _k K')= min (trdeg_k K,trdeg_k K')$$

B) Tensor product with purely transcendental extension Given a field $k$, an arbitrary extension $k\to K$ and a purely transcendental extension $k\to k(\mathcal X)=k(...,X_i,...)$, the tensor product $K \otimes _k k(\mathcal X)$ is the sub-$k$-algebra of $K(\mathcal X)$ consisting of fractions of the form $\frac {F(\ldots,X_i,\ldots)}{f(\ldots,X_i,\ldots)}$ with $F(\ldots,X_i,\ldots)\in K[\mathcal X] \;$ and $f(\ldots,X_i,\ldots)\in k[\mathcal X]\setminus \{0\}$.

In particular $K \otimes _k k(\mathcal X)$ is an integral domain and the corresponding scheme $Spec(K \otimes _k k(\mathcal X))$ is reduced and irreducible. As a particular case you get your one-dimensional [cf. A)] scheme $Spec(k(x) \otimes _k k(y)$, which I hope now looks a little less "bizarre"

C) Examples Let me show how bad behaviour is detected by finite algebraic extensions.
i) Let $k\subset K$ be an algebraic extension of char. $p$ fields such that there is an $a\in K$ with $a \notin k$ but $a^p \in k$. Then $K\otimes_k k(a)$ is not reduced because $(a\otimes1-1\otimes a)^p=a^p\otimes1-1 \otimes a^p=0$ and so $a\otimes1-1\otimes a$ is a non zero nilpotent of $K\otimes_k k(a)$. Hence $Spec(K)$ is a reduced but not geometrically reduced $k$-scheme.
ii) Consider the extension $\mathbb Q\subset \mathbb Q(\sqrt 2) $. We have $\mathbb Q(\sqrt 2) \otimes _{\mathbb Q} \mathbb Q(\sqrt 2)= \mathbb Q(\sqrt 2) \times \mathbb Q(\sqrt 2)$, a split (also called diagonal) $Q(\sqrt 2)$-algebra. Hence $Spec(\mathbb Q(\sqrt 2) \otimes _{\mathbb Q} \mathbb Q(\sqrt 2))$ is a reducible -even disconnected- scheme.Thus the $\mathbb Q$- scheme $Spec (\mathbb Q(\sqrt 2))$ is irreducible but not geometrically irreducible .

Interestingly for all non-trivial finite Galois extensions $k\subset K$ the $k$-scheme $Spec(K)$ is irreducible but not geometically irreducible . Indeed, a finite extension of fields $k\subset K$ of dimension $n$ is Galois if and only if it splits itself: $K\otimes_k K=K^n $

D) It is all just field theory ! Recall two possible attributes of a field extension $k\subset K$ :
separable if for all extensions (equivalently, all algebraic extensions) $k\to L$ the ring $K\otimes_k L$ is reduced i.e. has zero as sole nilpotent element.
primary a void condition in characteristic zero and in characteristic $p$ the condition that any $a\in K$ algebraic over $k$ is purely inseparable: $a^{p^r}\in k$ for some positive integer $r$.
With this terminology we reduce scheme properties to field properties:
Theorem 1 The $k$-scheme $X$ is geometrically irreducible if and only if it is irreducible and the residue field of its generic point $\eta$ is a primary extension $Rat(X)=\kappa(\eta)$ of $k$.
Theorem 2 The $k$-scheme $X $ is geometrically reduced if and only if it is reduced and the residue field of each of its its generic points $\eta_i$ is a separable extension $\kappa (\eta_i)$ of $k$.
Final remark A purely transcendental extension $k\subset k(\ldots,T_i,\ldots)$ is both primary and separable. This, in conjunction with Theorems 1 and 2, might help develop an intuition for non-algebraic base extensions .

Bibliography The formula for the Krull dimension of the tensor product of two fields is very difficult to locate in the literature. The only reference I know is EGA IV, Quatrième partie, where it is found on page 349 as Remarque (4.2.1.4) in the errata !

share|improve this answer
    
Interesting. The reason I called $\text{Spec}(k(x) \otimes_k k(y))$ "bizarre" is because it looks pretty strange geometrically: set-theoretically it consists of those points of $\mathbb{A}^2$ which do not come from the setwise product $\mathbb{A}^1 \times \mathbb{A}^1$, plus the generic point. In particular, it has "diagonal" lines and conics but not horizontal or vertical lines. –  Justin Campbell Jun 19 '11 at 3:47
add comment

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.