0
$\begingroup$

For me, an affine variety is an irreducible closed subset of some $A_k^n$. A quasi-affine variety is a non-empty open subset of an affine variety. A projective variety is an irreducible closed subset of some $P_K^n$. A quasi-projective variety is a non-empty open subset of a projective variety. A variety is everyone of the above: an affine variety, or a quasi-affine variety, a projective variety, or a quasi projective variety.

If $X\subseteq A_K^n$ is an affine variety, then the quotient $A(X)=K[x_1,\dots,x_n]/I(X)$ is the affine coordinate ring of $X$, where $I(X)$ is the ideal of the polynomials that vanish on $X$.

If $X$ and $Y$ are affine varieties, $f\colon X\to Y$ is said a finite morphism if $f$ is dominant (i.e. $f(X)$ is dense in $Y$) and $A(X)$ is integral over its subring $A(Y)$.

If $X$ and $Y$ are varieties, then $f\colon X\to Y$ is said a finite morpshism if exists a finite open cover $(U\alpha)_\alpha$ of $Y$, i.e. $Y=\bigcup_{\alpha} U_\alpha$, where $\forall \alpha$ $U_\alpha$ is affine, i.e. $U_\alpha$ is isomorphic to an affine variety, and also $f^{-1}(U_\alpha)$ is affine, and $f\colon f^{-1}(U_\alpha)\to U_\alpha$ is a finite morpshism in the sense of affine varieties (of the previous definition).

For completeness: if $X$ and $Y$ are varieties, then a map $f\colon X\to Y$ is said a morphism if $f$ is continuous and for every open subset $U$ of $Y$ and for every map $g\colon U\to K$ regular in $U$, then $g\circ f: f^{-1}(U)\to K$ is regular in $f^{-1}(U)$. ($K$ is an algebraically closed field).

How can i show that the composition of a finite morphism between varieties is a finite morphism?

I'am able to show this if $f\colon X\to Y$ and $g\colon Y \to Z$ are morphism of affine varieties, since i use the fact that if $A\leq B\leq C$ are commutative rings whit (the same) unit, then if $C$ is integral over $B$ and $B$ is integral over $A$, then $C$ is integral over $A$.

But i don't see how to show this in the general case with the second definition.

EDIT 21/02/18 I will ad some results about finite morpshisms of affine variety that may help:

1) A finite morphism of affine varieties is surjective

2) A finite morphism of affine varieties is a closed map

3) A finite morphism of affine varieties has all fiber finite

4) The restriction of a finite morpshism to a subvariety of the domain is also a finite morphism onto the image.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

I'm not sure I understand the difficulty. If $Z=\bigcup_{\alpha\in I}U_\alpha$ is a finite affine open cover, then $Y=\bigcup_{\alpha\in I}g^{-1}(U_\alpha)$ is also a finite affine open cover and $$g:g^{-1}(U_\alpha)\to U_\alpha\;\mbox{ and } \;f:f^{-1}(g^{-1}(U_{\alpha}))\to g^{-1}(U_\alpha)$$ are finite morphisms of affine varieties for all $\alpha\in I$. You say you've shown that the composition of finite morphisms of affine varieties is finite, so $$g\circ f:f^{-1}g^{-1}(U_\alpha)\to U_\alpha$$ is finite for all $\alpha\in I$. Hence $g\circ f$ is a finite morphism.

Am I missing something?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Why $f^{-1}(g^{-1}(U_\alpha))$ is affine? I know that exists $Z=\bigcup_{\alpha\in I}U_\alpha$ finite affine open cover such that $Y=\bigcup_{\alpha\in I}g^{-1}(U_\alpha)$ is also finite affine oper cover and $g:g−1(Uα)→Uα$ is a finite morpshism of affine varieties. Then i know that exists $Y=\bigcup_{\beta\in J}V_\beta$ finite affine oper cover such that $X=\bigcup_{\beta\in J}f^{-1}(V_\beta)$ is also finite affine oper cover and $f:f^{-1}(V_\beta)\to V_\beta$ is a finite morphism of affine varieties. But now i don't know how to go on. $\endgroup$ – Minato Feb 17 '18 at 8:52
  • $\begingroup$ Your post does not indicate that the definition holds for a particular open cover. In fact, you completely failed to include a quantified of any kind in your definition. I interpreted the definition be that the condition was true for all open covers, which is what I would typically expect (and yields the result you want tho prove, making it a good definition). $\endgroup$ – David Hill Feb 17 '18 at 21:28
  • $\begingroup$ I suggest you review the definition and update your post to indicate whether there exists an open cover such that the conditions hold, or the conditions hold for all open covers. $\endgroup$ – David Hill Feb 17 '18 at 21:30
  • $\begingroup$ 'quantifier' . . . stupid auto-correct. $\endgroup$ – David Hill Feb 18 '18 at 2:07
  • $\begingroup$ You are right, i wasn't enough accurate. Sorry. $\endgroup$ – Minato Feb 18 '18 at 9:13

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.