Exercise II.3.5 (c) in Hartshorne, Algebraic Geometry, asks to find an example of a surjective, finite-type and quasi-finite morphism of schemes which is not finite.

I need to find a finitely generated $A$-algebra $B$ which is not finite generated as an $A$-module. The only examples, I could find, of such a kind of $B$ give rise to a morphism which is not quasi-finite. Basically I was trying to use some modification of the classic $B=\mathbb{C}[x]$. I have also thought to find a morphism which is not closed, since we know that a finite morphism is always closed, but even this way didn't lead me anywhere.

Do you have any suggestion?

P.S.: $f$ quasi-finite means that $f^{-1}(y)$ is a finite set for every point $y\in Y$.

MOREOVER: while thinking at this example, I asked another question to myself. Which is a quasi-finite morphism which is not of finite-type?

Thank you very much!

  • $\begingroup$ Hint: have you looked at the previous exercise? Is there some way you could mess with this to get something which satisfies your goals? $\endgroup$ – KReiser Sep 24 '15 at 16:09
  • $\begingroup$ @KReiser, thank you for your reply. Do you mean the exercise characterizing finite morphisms or the one stating that a finite morphism is closed? In the first case I cannot see any way to mess anything and in the second case I have actually tried, but the only example I could found was not surjective. $\endgroup$ – A. Prufrock Sep 24 '15 at 16:41
  • $\begingroup$ I mean exercise II.3.4, which asks you to prove that $f:X\to Y$ is finite iff for every open affine $\mathrm{Spec} B = V\subset Y$, $f^{-1}(V)$ is affine and Spec of some finite $B$-module. What conditions can you violate about this statement? $\endgroup$ – KReiser Sep 24 '15 at 16:53
  • $\begingroup$ Just a cultural note: often finite type is part of the definition of quasifinite, in order to make the concept stable under base change. With these definitions stuff like $k \subset k(x)$ won't count. $\endgroup$ – Hoot Sep 24 '15 at 17:05
  • $\begingroup$ For the problem: could you do it without the surjectivity requirement? We can probably cheat to get around that. The target being the affine line could certainly work. $\endgroup$ – Hoot Sep 24 '15 at 17:07

The example given, $Y=\mathbf A^1_k$ for $k$ any field, $X=A\sqcup B$ for $A=\operatorname{Spec} k[x,y]/(xy-1)$, $B=\{\ast\}=\operatorname{Spec} k$, is valid. Here the map $f:X\rightarrow Y$ is induced by the map $\varphi:k[x]\rightarrow\Gamma(X,\mathscr O_X)=\Gamma(A\sqcup B,\mathscr O_A\times\mathscr O_B)\cong k[x,y]/(xy-1)\times k$, which is in turn induced by the universal property of the product by the maps $k[x]\rightarrow k[x,y]/(xy-1)$, $k[x]\rightarrow k$. It is obviously quasi-finite; it is of finite type since $X=A\sqcup B$ is a cover of $X$ by open affines and $Y$ is itself affine. Surjectivity of closed points is obvious. Finally, if $\eta$ is the generic point of $A$, and $\xi$ is the generic point of $Y$, then we ask what is $f(\eta)$. If $\mathfrak m\subset\mathscr O_{X,\eta}$ is the maximal ideal of the stalk, and $p_\eta:\Gamma(X,\mathscr O_X)$ is the map into the stalk, then $f(\eta)$ is the point in $Y$ corresponding to $\varphi^{-1}p_\eta^{-1}(\mathfrak m)$. But now $$\mathscr O_{X,\eta}\cong (k[x,y]/(xy-1)\times k)_{(0,k)}\cong (k[x,y]/(xy-1))_{(0)}=k(x)$$ with $\mathfrak m=(0)$ in that ring, so $f(\eta)$ corresponds to $\varphi^{-1}((0,k))=(0)$.

A note about looking for an affine example $f:\operatorname{Spec} A\rightarrow\operatorname{Spec} B$. Identifying $B$ with its image we may assume $B\subset A$, $A$ f.g. over $B$ (finite type) satisfying lying over (surjectivity) but with only finitely many primes lying over a given $\mathfrak p\in\operatorname{Spec} B$. Localizing at the multiplicatively closed set $U:=B-\mathfrak p$, and quotienting by $\mathfrak p_{\mathfrak p}$, we may be tempted to assume $B_{\mathfrak p}/\mathfrak p_{\mathfrak p}$ is a field $k$ (certainly the localization induces a bijection between the primes of $A$ lying over $\mathfrak p$ and primes of $A[U^{-1}]/\mathfrak p A[U^{-1}]$). But it is possible that while $A$ is not finite over $B$, $A[U^{-1}]$ is finite over $B[U^{-1}]$, so we cannot naïvely reduce to this case. But if we go ahead and ask for a finitely-generated $k$-algebra $A$ with finitely many primes which is not finite dimensional as a $k$-vector space, we run into problems. In particular, by the general form of the Nullstellensatz, $A$ is a Jacobson ring. (By the basis theorem it is Noetherian.) A Noetherian ring $R$ is Jacobson iff for every $\mathfrak p\in\operatorname{Spec} R$ such that $R/\mathfrak p$ is 1-dimensional, $R/\mathfrak p$ has infinitely many maximal ideals. Since $\operatorname{Spec} A$ is finite by assumption, this implies $A$ must have dimension zero; i.e. all primes are maximal. Hence $A$ is Artinian and finite-dimensional over $k$; i.e. $f$ is a finite morphism of schemes.


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.