6
$\begingroup$

Let X be a non-projective non-reduced scheme and let D be an effective Cartier divisor on X. Why is D disjoint from $Ass(\mathcal{O}_X)$? In other words, why can't reduced points lie in the support of any effectice Cartier divisor?

The question comes from trying to understand Kleimann's example of a non-projective, non-reduced scheme for which there is not a bijective correspondence between Cartier divisors and line bundles.

Thanks in advance for any insight.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

If $x$ is point in the support of $D$, then $D$ is defined locally at $x$ by a regular element in the maximal ideal $m_x$ of $O_{X,x}$. If $x$ is an associated point, then, by definition, $m_x$ doesn't contain any regular element, contradiction.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The nice answer of Georges reminds me add the hypothesis $X$ is (locally) noetherian. $\endgroup$ – user18119 Sep 4 '12 at 22:23
2
$\begingroup$

We can reduce to the definition of an effective Cartier divisor $D$ on the scheme $X$, which is a closed subscheme $D\subset X$.
Such a divisor is locally defined on an affine open subset $U= Spec(A)\subset X$ by $U\cap D= V(f)$ where $f\in A$ is not a zerodivisor .
To conclude you have to remember that if the ring $A$ is noetherian its zero divisors are exactly the union of its associated primes (Atiyah-Macdonald Prop.4.7) : $$Zdiv(A)=\bigcup_{\mathfrak p\in Ass(A)} \mathfrak p=\bigcup_{\mathfrak p\; \text {a minimal prime}} \mathfrak p$$

Remark
This definition of Cartier divisor has many advantages.
In particular we have $dim(D)\lt dim(X)\:$ (if $dim(X)\lt \infty $) and this would be violated with a less stringent definition of "divisor":
For example take for $X$ the cross $X=V(xy)\subset k[x,y]=\mathbb A^2_k$ ($k$ a field).
If you allowed $D=V(\bar x)\subset X$ as a Cartier divisor, you would have $dim(D)=dim(X)$: this is the punishment for allowing a zero divisor like $\bar x$ (with $\bar x \bar y=0)$ to define a Cartier divisor.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ $\dim(D)<\dim(X)$ if $\dim(X)$ is finite :). $\endgroup$ – user18119 Sep 4 '12 at 11:23
  • $\begingroup$ Dear QiL, you are of course right: corrected. $\endgroup$ – Georges Elencwajg Sep 4 '12 at 12:10

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.