While studying some algebraic geometry and more specifically secant varieties of Segre embeddings, I encountered a problem. I understand that every variety has a defining ideal such that the variety is the zero set of the ideal. However, I think I may not understand the notion of defining a variety set-theoretically.

As an example, consider the $x$-axis in $\mathbb{R}^2$. I understand it is the zero-set of the polynomial $y=0$, and that it's defining ideal is $\langle y \rangle $.

$\textbf{Question 1: }$ Am I correct in saying that the $x$-axis is generated set-theoretically by $\{y\}$ and ideal-theoretically by $\langle y \rangle $?

If this is the case, the following confuses me. I have seen papers (for example https://arxiv.org/abs/1104.1776) claiming that they defined a certain variety (in this case Sec$_4(\mathbb{P}^3\times \mathbb{P}^3\times \mathbb{P}^3$)) set-theoretically.

$\textbf{Question 2: }$ In this case, what stops me from defining the defining ideal of the variety as the ideal generated by the set of polynomials used for the set-theoretic definition?

I feel this should be possible, but then I would not understand why the above paper only works on a set-theoretic level and why in fact there is a difference.

I would greatly appreciate any help!


Schemes are locally ringed spaces, which means that in order to specify a scheme, one needs to provide a topological space and structure sheaf. Saying that one has specified a subscheme set-theoretically means that one has given the topological space, but not the structure sheaf. There are many possible choices for the structure sheaf that one could make - for your example of the $x$-axis inside $\Bbb A^2$, it may be set-theoretically specified as $V(y^n)$ for any positive integer $n$, and it's clear that each of these structures are pair-wise non-isomorphic.

As for your question 2, when you are talking about a closed subset of some scheme and attempting to give it a scheme structure, the structure you refer to is often called the "reduced-induced" structure. There are times when it makes sense to deal with this (if a property you're looking at doesn't depend on the reducedness, for instance) and there are times when it makes things behave poorly (counting multiplicity of things, for instance). A lot of interesting algebraic geometry happens when you remember this, so that's probably motivation enough to think about it.

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your comment! I do not know anything about schemes so I will look into them. Am I correct in interpretating your first answer as saying that there is no natural way to obtain the ideal $\langle y \rangle$ starting from the set $\{ y^4\}$ for example. In my case this was the case because I 'naively' started with exactly $\{ y \}$. $\endgroup$ – MisterT Nov 11 '17 at 20:46
  • $\begingroup$ What do you mean when you're talking about $\{y^4\}$? $\endgroup$ – KReiser Nov 11 '17 at 20:52
  • $\begingroup$ I mean that one can define the $x$-axis set theoretically as the zero set by the polynomial $y^4$. While asking the question I assumed there was a simple way to obtain the defining ideal of the $x$-axis from this, by just taking $y^4$ as a generator of the ideal. However, this is clearly not the case $\endgroup$ – MisterT Nov 11 '17 at 20:54
  • $\begingroup$ There's a simple way to specify the defining ideal like that, and the most usual way is as $V(y^4)$ (or $V(I)$ for some specified ideal $I$). I was just confused about your notation. $\endgroup$ – KReiser Nov 11 '17 at 21:21

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.