We say that for a topological space $X$, $\mathcal{O}_X$ is a pre-sheaf if for all open $U\subseteq X$, $\mathcal{O}_X(U)$ is a ring, $\mathcal{O}_X(\varnothing)=0$, and if we have defined $\forall\ U\subseteq V$ the restriction homomorphisms $\rho_{V,U}:\mathcal{O}_X(V)\to\mathcal{O}_X(U)$ s.t. $\rho_{U,U}=\mathrm{id}$, $U\subseteq V\subseteq W\implies \rho_{W,U}=\rho_{V,U}\circ\rho_{W,V}$. For convenience, given $f\in V$, we write $\rho_{V,U}(f)=f|_U$.

$\mathcal{O}_X$ is called a sheaf if whenever $U\subseteq X$ is open, $\{U_i\}_i$ is an open cover for $U$, and $f_i\in\mathcal{O}_X(U_i)\ \forall\ i$ s.t. $f_i|_{U_i\cap U_j}=f_j|_{U_i\cap U_j}\ \forall\ i,j$, then $\exists!\ f\in U$ s.t. $f|_{U_i}=f_i\ \forall\ i$.

This defines the pair $(X,\mathcal{O}_X)$, which we call a ringed space.

If $X\subseteq\mathbb{A}^n_k$ is an affine variety, then $\mathcal{O}_X$ is said to be the structure sheaf when $\mathcal{O}_X(U)$ is the set of $k$-valued regular functions on $U$. It can be shown that this defines a sheaf, with the restriction map.

More generally, given any irreducible topological space $X$, and any sheaf $\mathcal{O}_X$ of $k$-valued functions s.t. $X$ is homeomorphic to some (irreducible) affine variety in $\mathbb{A}^n_k$, we say that the ringed space $(X,\mathcal{O}_X)$ is an affine variety.

My question is, why do we do this? It seems to me that we could simply define $\mathcal{O}_X(U)=0\ \forall\ U$, i.e. $f\in\mathcal{O}_X(U)\implies f(u)=0\ \forall\ u\in U$, defined on any affine variety $X\subseteq\mathbb{A}^n_k$. We could also define $\mathcal{O}_X(U)=k^U\ \forall\ U$, which would be similarly meaningless. Does $\mathcal{O}_X$ have any meaning as a structure sheaf in this generalized context?

  • $\begingroup$ Where did you see this definition? I've never seen the term "affine variety" used in this generality. $\endgroup$ – Eric Wofsey Jul 1 '16 at 21:25
  • $\begingroup$ This seems like an awful definition. Surely more is required. $\endgroup$ – Hoot Jul 1 '16 at 21:28
  • $\begingroup$ It's in the book by Gathmann. What is the usual definition for an affine variety (in the more general context)? $\endgroup$ – Monstrous Moonshine Jul 1 '16 at 21:33
  • $\begingroup$ If you're referring to mathematik.uni-kl.de/~gathmann/class/alggeom-2002/main.pdf, that's not the definition I see there: Definition 2.3.15 on page 26 says $X$ should be isomorphic to a subset of $\mathbb{A}^n$, not just homeomorphic. $\endgroup$ – Eric Wofsey Jul 1 '16 at 21:51

This is not the standard definition of "affine variety". The standard definition would require not just that $X$ is homeomorphic to an affine variety in $\mathbb{A}^n_k$ but that it is isomorphic to an affine variety $Y$ in $\mathbb{A}^n_k$ as a ringed space. That is, there is a homeomorphism $f:X\to Y$ such that the induced map of sheaves of rings $f^*\mathcal{O}_Y\to\mathcal{O}_X$ is an isomorphism.

Indeed, your definition allows many exotic things that no one normally considers to be "affine varieties". Besides the examples you named, note also that any irreducible projective curve is homeomorphic to $\mathbb{A}^1$, and so every such curve would be considered "affine" by this definition.

  • $\begingroup$ I think my question must have been on the meaning of the word "isomorphic". Thanks for clearing that up. $\endgroup$ – Monstrous Moonshine Jul 2 '16 at 0:28

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.