Let $k$ be an algebraically closed field, and $A, B$ affine $k$-algebras. We can define a functor $\mathfrak F$ from the category of affine $k$-algebras to that of affine algebraic varieties, by making $Max(A)$ into a topological space (for $g \in A$, set $D(g)$ to be the set of $\mathfrak m \in Max(A)$ for which $g \not\in \mathfrak m$; this is a basis for a topology of which every open set is a finite union). We then define a sheaf $\mathcal O_A$ on $Max(A)$ in a natural way, and obtain the affine $k$-algebra $(Max(A), \mathcal O_A) = \mathfrak F(A)$.

I know how to prove that the functor $\mathfrak F$ induces an antiequivalence of categories. I know that the tensor product $A \otimes_k B$ is a coproduct in the category of affine $k$-algebras, so it follows that $\mathfrak F(A \otimes_k B)$ is a product in the category of affine varieties. But I have also read that the cartesian product $Max(A) \times Max(B)$, along with the natural projections onto $Max(A), Max(B)$, can serve as the underlying set (usually not in the product topology) of the product of affine varieties $\mathfrak F(A)$ and $\mathfrak F(B)$. Is there an easy way to see this?

I'm trying to do things as "categorically" as possible, in particular avoiding noncanonical descriptions of affine $k$-algebras (as quotients of polynomial rings by radical ideals) where I can. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

  • $\begingroup$ For schemes it's false, at least. $\endgroup$ – Matt Samuel Mar 28 '15 at 22:28
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ You should write «can serve as the underlying SET», not «can serve as the underlying TOPOLOGICAL SPACE». $\endgroup$ – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Mar 28 '15 at 22:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The functor sending an affine variety (in the classical sense) to its set of points is representable, so it preserves all limits. In particular, it preserves products. $\endgroup$ – Zhen Lin Mar 28 '15 at 22:56

For affine varieties over algebraically closed fields, the Nullstellensatz guarantees that the maximum spectrum functor can be identified with the functor $\text{Hom}(\text{Spec } k, -)$, which obviously preserves finite products; in fact it preserves all limits.

Over a non-algebraically closed field this fails, and instead of the maximum spectrum functor it's much nicer to look at the functor $\text{Hom}(\text{Spec } \bar{k}, -)$ together with the action of the absolute Galois group $\text{Gal}(\bar{k} / k)$ on it.

| cite | improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.