I've been working through a proof of Chevalley's theorem for the special case of morphisms of finite type between Noetherian schemes as outlined in Görtz-Wedhorn Theorems 10.19 and 10.20 on page 248.

The claim of Theorem 10.19 is:

If $f:X\rightarrow Y$ is a dominant morphism of finite type between Noetherian schemes, then $f(X)$ contains a dense open subset of $Y$.

The first portion of the proof deals with the case where $Y$ is assumed to be irreducible, and everything seems clear to me there. However, it then continues into the case $Y$ is reducible by decomposing $Y = Y_1\cup\ldots\cup Y_n$ as a union of irreducible components (using that $Y$ is Noetherian) and then concludes by applying the previous case to the restricted morphisms $f^{-1}(Y_i)\rightarrow Y_i$. I'm concerned in that I seem to be unsure how these natural restricted maps should be defined!

It's clear to me how to define the restriction of a scheme morphism to an open set using the natural open subscheme structures for the open set and its inverse image. However, I don't see a good way to do this for closed subsets. If the schemes are affine, say $X = \text{Spec}(B)$, $Y = \text{Spec}(A)$, then if $Z\subseteq Y$ is closed, the scheme $\text{Spec}(A/a)$ would have the same underlying topological space as $Z$ for some ideal $a\subseteq A$. Then $f^{-1}(Z)$ would be the underlying topological space of the scheme $\text{Spec}(B/a^e)$, where $a^e$ is the extension of $a$ by the ring homomorphism corresponding to $f$. There is an induced ring homomorphism $A/a\rightarrow B/a^e$, which corresponds to a scheme morphism $\text{Spec}(B/a^e)\rightarrow \text{Spec}(A/a)$ compatible with $f$. However, I don't see why this morphism need be dominant.

Specifically, my questions are:

If $f:X\rightarrow Y$ is a scheme morphism, and $Z\subseteq Y$ a closed subset, is there a canonical way to define a restricted map $f^{-1}(Z)\rightarrow Z$? Can we do this using the reduced induced closed subscheme structures of $f^{-1}(Z), Z$? If so, what would the map of sheaves look like? Finally, if such a map is defined, is it dominant and of finite type so that the proof of the theorem may use it?

I apologize if these are silly questions; it feels that I'm missing something obvious. However, I haven't had any luck so far finding a reference describing this construction explicitly and as far as I can tell such restricted maps aren't mentioned earlier in G&W. This idea of restricting to a closed subset is also used in the proof of Theorem 10.20. Thanks very much!

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ $f^{-1}(Z)$ is defined as $X\times_YZ$ and the natural morphism is $pr_2:X\times_YZ\to Z$. $\endgroup$ – Armando j18eos Jun 9 '17 at 13:53
  • $\begingroup$ @Armandoj18eos Thanks! For some reason I wasn't thinking in terms of the fiber product. If I assume $f:X\rightarrow Y$ is of finite type between Noetherian schemes, I see how the same can be said for $pr_2$, and I think it is also straightforward to show that the dominance of $f$ implies that of $pr_2$ (using that these schemes are Noetherian). I would be happy to accept your comment as an answer! $\endgroup$ – catfish Jun 10 '17 at 17:18

I extend my comment!

By definition $f^{-1}(Z)=X\times_YZ$ and $g=f_{|f^{-1}(Z)}$ is the natural projection $pr_2:X\times_YZ\to Z$; because for any $x\in X,\,f_x^{\sharp}:\mathcal{O}_{Y,f(x)}\to\mathcal{O}_{X,x}$ is a morphism of finite type of local Noetherian rings, by base change $\forall x\in f^{-1}(Z),\,g_z^{\sharp}=f_x^{\sharp}\otimes Id_{\displaystyle\mathcal{O}_{Y,f(x)/\mathcal{I}_{Z,f(x)}}}$ and it is a morphism of finite type: by definition $g$ is a morphism of finite type of (Noetherian) schemes.

By Noetherian hypothesys, one can assume that $Z$ is irreducible; by this lemma: $g$ is a dominant morphism if and only if the inverse image of generic point $\eta$ of $Z$ via $g$ is not empty.

If $g$ is not dominant then $g^{-1}(\eta)=\emptyset\iff\eta\notin g(g^{-1}(Z))\Rightarrow\eta\notin\overline{g(g^{-1}(Z))}$, that is there exists an open neighbourhood $U$ of $\eta$ such that $g^{-1}(U)=\emptyset$; by construction, there exists an open subset $V$ of $Y$ such that $U=V\cap Z$ and $\emptyset=g^{-1}(U)=f^{-1}(U)=f^{-1}(V\cap Z)=f^{-1}(V)\cap f^{-1}(Z)\Rightarrow f^{-1}(V)=\emptyset$: by dominance of $f$ this is a contradiction, then $g$ is dominat.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thank you! One concern I have though: it doesn't seem to be the case that the projection need be surjective. Indeed if $Z$ isn't contained in $f(X)$ ($f$ need not be surjective), then certainly $g$ won't be surjective right? However if $Y$ is Noetherian with a minimal decomposition into irreducible components $Y = Y_1\cup\ldots\cup Y_n$, and if $Z= Y_1$ for example, then for any open subset $U\subseteq Z$ one can construct a nonempty open subset of $Y$ contained in $U$ using $Y\setminus (Y_2\cup\ldots\cup Y_n)$, and so the density of $f(X)$ in $Y$ guarantees that of $g(f^{-1}(Z))$ in $Z$. $\endgroup$ – catfish Jun 12 '17 at 3:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, you are right: $g$ needs not be surjective. The dominant morphisms are particular topological maps: you can use the Noetherian hypothesys and pass to irreducible case and apply the lemma. $\endgroup$ – Armando j18eos Jun 12 '17 at 9:12

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.