1
$\begingroup$

Let $A$ be a DVR, and consider a Noetherian scheme $X$ over $B = spec A$. Let $\eta$ denote the generic point of $B$, and $X_{\eta}$ the generic fiber. Suppose that $i : Y \to X_{\eta}$ is some closed subscheme. Then we consider the scheme theoretic closure of $Y$, $i' : Y' \to X$.

Claim: $Y' \to X \to Spec(A)$ is a flat morphism, and $Y$' is the unique closed subscheme having this property and restricting to $Y$ on $X_{\eta}$.

I can prove that $Y'$ is flat, but I am confused about uniqueness, which seems to come down to the following statement:

Let $R$ be a Noetherian $A$-algebra over a DVR $A$, and $I, J$ ideals of $R$. Suppose that $R/I$ and $R/J$ are flat over $A$, and that $R/I \otimes_A A_{\eta}$ and $R/J \otimes_A A_{\eta}$ are isomorphic as $R \otimes_A A_{\eta}$ algebras. Then $I = J$.

Is such a statement true? I am stuck - I would appreciate a hint!

(I can prove that $Y'$ is flat:

Firstly, $i_* O_Y$ is a quasicoherent sheaf, because a locally closed embedding into a Noetherian scheme is quasi-compact and quasi-separated. Then $Y'$ is defined as the vanishing of the quasi-coherent ideal sheaf which is the kernel of the map $O_X \to i_*(O_Y)$.

We reduce to the case where $X$ is affine, say $X = Spec B$. Then $Y = (B \otimes_A A_{\eta})/I$, and this is flat over the field $A_{\eta}$. Since $Spec(A_{\eta})$ is an open subscheme of $Spec A$, it follows that $Y$ is flat over $Spec(A)$. Hence if we denote by $t$ the uniformizer for $A$, then $(B \otimes_A A_{\eta})/I$ has no $t$-torsion.

We are given $B \to B \otimes_A A_{\eta} /I$, with kernel $I'$. Then the closed subscheme $Y'$ is $Spec(B / I')$. But as $B / I'$ is a subring of $ B \otimes_A A_{\eta} /I$, and the latter has no $t$-torsion, it follows that $B / I'$ has no $t$-torsion. This implies that $Y'$ is flat over $A$.

I can also prove that that $Y'$ restricts to $Y$ on $A_{\eta}$ - I think that this is a general property of the scheme theoretic closure. If $Y \to U \to X$ is a locally closed embedding, then the scheme theoretic closure fits into a fiber diagram in the natural way. It should follow because of the quasicoherence of the ideal sheaf $I'$, and the fact that the map $O_X \to i_* O_Y$ restricted to $U$ fits into the short exact sequence defining the closed subscheme $Y$ of $U$.)

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It does not say $R/I\otimes A_{\eta}$ and $R/J\otimes A_{eta}$ are isomorphic, but actually equal. $\endgroup$ – Mohan Apr 2 '16 at 15:26
  • $\begingroup$ @Mohan Being isomorphic over $R_{\eta}$ (not just isomorphic as rings or whatever) is an equivalent statement. I don't really understand how intepreting as equality helps though, I would appreciate it if you could say more. $\endgroup$ – Lorenzo Apr 2 '16 at 18:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ We have the natural map $R\to R/I\otimes A_{\eta}$ and $I$ is the kernel. Since the latter is same for $I, J$, clearly being kernels of the same map, they must be same. $\endgroup$ – Mohan Apr 2 '16 at 21:48
  • $\begingroup$ @Mohan Why are they the kernel of that map? The only thing that can be said is that $I_{\eta} = J_{\eta}$... the result is not true without the flatness assumption - take (tx) and (x) in $K[x,t]_{(t)}$ over $K[t]_{(t)}$. They agree over the generic point, but they are not the same ideal. The quotient by the former is not flat ( x is t torsion). $\endgroup$ – Lorenzo Apr 2 '16 at 23:32
  • $\begingroup$ I thought you are assuming $R/I,R/J$ are flat over $A$. That is immediate if you take closures. If you take a n arbitrary scheme, not necessarily flat, of course it is false. $\endgroup$ – Mohan Apr 3 '16 at 2:12
3
$\begingroup$

This is essentially what Mohan is saying in the comments. I hope this clears up the confusion.

Lemma. Let $A$ be a DVR with fraction field $K$, and let $R$ be an $A$-algebra. If $I, J \subseteq R$ are ideals such that $R/I$ and $R/J$ are flat, and $R/I \otimes_A K \cong R/J \otimes_A K$ (as $R \otimes_A K$-algebras), then $I = J$.

Proof. Since $R/I$ is flat, the map $R/I \to R/I \otimes_A K$ is injective. Thus, the kernel of $R \to R/I \otimes_A K$ is just $I$. Similarly, the kernel of $R \to R/J \otimes_A K$ is $J$. Since $R/I \otimes_A K \cong R/J \otimes_A K$ as $R$-algebras, the diagram $$\begin{array}{ccccc} & & R & & \\ &\swarrow & &\searrow& \\ R/I \otimes_A K & & \stackrel\sim\longrightarrow & & R/J \otimes_A K \end{array}$$ commutes, so $I = J$. $\square$

Remark. The isomorphism as $R \otimes_A K$-algebras, rather than just $K$-algebras, is what Mohan calls them being 'equal'. This is essential in the proof: we use the maps $R \to R/I \otimes_A K$; you couldn't compare the two if you only remembered the $K$-structure.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks. It was the first line of your argument that had not occurred to me, even though that is an obvious consequence of flatness and the inclusion of A into its fraction field. I made the point that they were isomorphic as $R \otimes K$ algebras in the original statement of my question, I don't really understand what it was about the presentation of my question that led people to believe that I was especially confused on that point... anyway, thanks for taking the time to clear this up! $\endgroup$ – Lorenzo Apr 3 '16 at 14:00

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.