I know that when we have a ring homomorphism $$ \phi: A\rightarrow B$$ this induces continuous map between the spectra $$ \phi': \operatorname{Spec} B\rightarrow \operatorname{Spec}A$$ which maps $p$ to $\phi^{-1}(p)$. What I am wondering about is the other direction. Suppose we have a map between the spectra, is it possible to determine (explicitly) the induced map on the ring? Is it absolutely necessary to consider a morphism affine schemes to do this?

My particular question concerns showing that $A$ is finitely generated as a $\mathbb C$-algebra, i.e. there exists a surjective morphism of rings $\mathbb C[x_1,..., x_n]\rightarrow A$, knowing that $A\otimes_{\mathbb C} B$ is finitely generated (i.e. there exists a surjective morphism of rings $\mathbb C[x_1,..., x_n]\rightarrow A\otimes_{\mathbb C} B $) using the fact that $\operatorname{Spec}(A\otimes_\mathbb C B)=\operatorname{Spec} A\times \operatorname{Spec} B$. Or is this equality only true in the reduced and finitely generated case to begin with?

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Spec is neither faithful nor full, so given a continuous map on spectra, a map on rings inducing it will neither exist nor be unique in general. The "equality" you claim is false; the underlying topological space of the product of two varieties does not have the product topology. (All told, Spec is a very poorly behaved functor.) $\endgroup$ – Qiaochu Yuan Jan 21 '16 at 0:40
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Anytime $Y$ is an affine scheme we have a bijective correspondance between $\operatorname{Hom}(X,Y)$ and $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(Y), \mathcal{O}(X))$, where we consider morphsms of locally ringed spaces rather than just continuous maps. $\endgroup$ – basket Jan 21 '16 at 0:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ An example: you can define a homomorphism $k[x] \to k[y]/(y^2)$ either by sending $x$ to $y$ or $0$. The corresponding continuous maps on spectra can't tell the difference. $\endgroup$ – Hoot Jan 21 '16 at 2:05

I prefer summerize and improve the answers of Qiaochu Yuan and basket!

Let $A$ and $B$ be rings, $X=\operatorname{Spec}A$ and $Y=\operatorname{Spec}B$; one can prove that the function $$ \Phi:(f,f^{\sharp})\in\operatorname{Hom}_{\bf LocRingSp}((X,\mathcal{O}_X),(Y,\mathcal{O}_Y))\to f^{\sharp}(Y)\in\operatorname{Hom}_{\bf Ring}(B,A) $$ is bijective; moreover, the morphism $(f,f^{\sharp})$ is uniquely determined by $f^{\sharp}(Y)$.

What I mean? Which is the improvement?

As you (user306194) affirm: given a morphism of rings (that is $f^{\sharp}(Y)$ in my notation) you can construct a unique morphism of locally ringed spaces $(f,f^{\sharp})$; but, given a continuous map $f$ between the support of locally ringed spaces, you can't define uniquely $f^{\sharp}$!

For example: you read the previous comment of Hoot.

Obviously, all this works in the setting of schemes.

In general, let $A$ be a ring and let $Y$ be a scheme, $X=\operatorname{Spec}A$; one can prove that the function $$ \Phi:(f,f^{\sharp})\in\operatorname{Hom}_{\bf Sch}(Y,X)\to f^{\sharp}(X)\in\operatorname{Hom}_{\bf Ring}(A,\mathcal{O}_Y(Y)) $$ is bijective.

Moreover in general: let $S$ be a scheme, let $X$ be an $S$-scheme with structure morphism $p$ and let $\mathcal{A}$ be a quasi-coherent $\mathcal{O}_S$-algebra; one can prove that the function $$ \Phi:(f,f^{\sharp})\in\operatorname{Hom}_{S-\bf Sch}(X,\operatorname{Spec}\mathcal{A})\to f^{\sharp}(\operatorname{Spec}\mathcal{A})\in\operatorname{Hom}_{\mathcal{O}_S-\bf Alg}(\mathcal{A},p_{*}\mathcal{O}_X) $$ is bijective; where $\operatorname{Spec}\mathcal{A}$ is the relative spectrum of $\mathcal{A}$.

For a reference, I council Bosch - Commutative Algebra and Algebraic geometry, Springer, sections 6.6 and 7.1.

In conclusion, I remember you that $\operatorname{Spec}(A\otimes_{\mathbb{C}}B)$ is canonically isomorphic to $\operatorname{Spec}A\times_{\operatorname{Spec}\mathbb{C}}\operatorname{Spec}B$; usually, the Cartesian product of sets is very bad in the category of schemes.

From the same book, I council you the section 7.2 with any examples and exercises 3, 4 and 5.


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.