7
$\begingroup$

Let $k$ be an algebraically closed field. Let $\pi : C \to Spec(k)$ be a smooth curve (i.e. a separated, smooth morphism of finite presentation and relative dimension $1$) I am trying to understand a few assertions about what an effective Cartier divisor on $C$ looks like that I read in Katz-Mazur's book Arithmetic of elliptic curves (freely available here : https://web.math.princeton.edu/~nmk/katz-mazur.djvu)

Here are a few assertions that I am having trouble to understand :

1) Any section $\sigma : Spec(k) \to C$ of $\pi$ defines an effective cartier divisor (a section of a separated morphism is a closed immersion). That would algebraically translate, if i'm not mistaken, to the fact that if $A$ is a dimension one, regular finite type algebra over $k$, and $\mathfrak{m}$ is a maximal ideal that is the kernel of a morphism $A \to k$ then $m$ is a locally free $A$-module of rank one.

2)If $D \subset C$ is a closed subscheme that is finite over $Spec(k)$ then $D$ is an effective cartier divisor. Using the same notation as before if would translate as : if $I$ is an ideal of $A$ such that $A/I$ is a finite dimensional $k$-vector space then $I$ is locally free of rank one.

3)An effective Cartier divisor in $C$ is a finite $k$-scheme : if $I$ is a locally free $A$-ideal of rank $1$ then $A/I$ is a finite dimensional vector space.

So basically I think if we put it all together it comes down to the following statement :

Let $k$ be an algebraically closed field, $A$ be regular $k$ algebra of finite type and dimension $1$ and $I$ be an ideal of $A$. Then $I$ is invertible (i.e. locally free of rank $1$) if and only if $A/I$ is a finite dimensional $k$ vector space.

Is this true ? And if yes why ?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ An $A$ like the one you describe is a Dedekind domain (i.e. locally it is a dvr) and your assertions will follow. $\endgroup$ – Mohan Sep 13 '15 at 13:43
  • $\begingroup$ Does it have to be a domain ? Would you mind elaborating a bit ? Because even in the case of dedekind domain i'm not sure how this follows ? $\endgroup$ – J. Doe Sep 13 '15 at 13:44
  • $\begingroup$ Since the curve is smooth, if it irreducible, it will be a domain. If not, it will be disjoint union of curves and you can still argue the same for each component. $\endgroup$ – Mohan Sep 13 '15 at 13:46
  • $\begingroup$ Ah yes I see. because smooth => reduced. thank you very much $\endgroup$ – J. Doe Sep 13 '15 at 14:42
  • $\begingroup$ Isn't J.Doe the generic point in the scheme of American names ? :-) $\endgroup$ – Georges Elencwajg Sep 13 '15 at 18:10
7
$\begingroup$

Yes, your final statement is true.
This is because if moreover $A$ is a domain then it is a Dedekind ring: actually every non-zero ideal $0\subsetneq I\subset A$ is invertible, since by the fundamental result on Dedekind rings we can write $I=\mathfrak m_1^{a_1}\dots \mathfrak m_r^{a_r} $, where the $ \mathfrak m_i$'s are maximal ideals, necessary invertible with $A/\mathfrak m_i=k$, and $a_i\gt0$.
Notice that Dedekindness follows from the regularity hypothesis, which is equivalent to all localizations $A_\mathfrak m$ being discrete valuation rings.

EDIT
If the ring $A$ satisfies your hypotheses but is not a domain it can be written canonically as a product $A=A_1\dots \times A_s$ where the $A_i$'s are Dedekind domains to which the above applies.
More precisely every ideal $I\subset A$ is a product of ideals $I=I_1\times \dots\times I_s \quad (I_i\subset A_i)$ and that product is invertible if and only if all $I_i$'s are non zero, which is equivalent to $A/I$ (or all $A_i/I_i$'s) being finite-dimensional over $k$.
The geometric picture is blindingly clear: the scheme $$\operatorname {Spec}(A)=\coprod _{i=1}^s\operatorname {Spec}(A_i) $$ is the disjoint union of its irreducible components, which coincide with its connected components, and of course a sheaf is invertible on $\operatorname {Spec}(A)$ if and only if its restrictions to these components $\operatorname {Spec}(A_i)$ are all invertible.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks a lot ! I can't upvote your answer because I don't have enough points. $\endgroup$ – J. Doe Sep 13 '15 at 14:41
  • $\begingroup$ Just to make sure : We don't need $k$ to be algebraically closed ? and in fact what you are saying says that every closed subscheme of C is an effective cartier divisor ? $\endgroup$ – J. Doe Sep 13 '15 at 14:46
  • $\begingroup$ Just nitpicking. Every {\bf proper closed} subscheme is an effective Cartier divisor. $\endgroup$ – Mohan Sep 13 '15 at 16:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ahah yes of course you are right :) thanks $\endgroup$ – J. Doe Sep 13 '15 at 16:28

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.