3
$\begingroup$

Definitions

Let $M$ be algebraic variety and let $I$ be the defining ideal of $M$, that is $$I(M) = \{ f \in K[X_1,...,X_n] \mid \forall x \in M : f(x)=0 \}$$ Let $f_1,...,f_m$ be the generators of $I(M)$. Let $$ J = \frac{\partial(f_1,...,f_m)}{\partial(X_1,...,X_n)}$$ be the Jacobian matrix.

A point $x \in M$ in an algebraic variety is called simple if $\mathrm{rk}J(x)=\mathrm{rk}(J)$ where rk is the rank of the $J$. The notation $J(x)$ is the matrix $J$ evaluated in $x \in M$. Clearly, $\mathrm{rk}J(x) \le \mathrm{rk}(J)$.

Let us denoted by $M^{\mathrm{reg}}$ the set of all simple points of $M$. A non-simple point is called regular. A nonsingular variety is a variety without non-simple points.

I want to prove the following:

Any algebraic variety $M$ is the union of finite number of nonintersecting nonsingular subvarieties. That is, $$M = \biguplus_{i=1}^q M_i$$

My attempt

If $M$ is nonsingular then we won. Therefore assume there are singular (non-simple) points in $M$.

Let $M = N_1 \cup ... \cup N_q$ be the decomposition of $M$ into irreducible components. Take one of the $M_i$ to be $M^{\mathrm{reg}}$ which is nonsingular. Now I need to add the rest of the singular points such they each is included in a subvariety in which it is simple. Therefore, I somehow need to take the singular points such that each is contained in a single irreducible component and is simple there (but not in $M$).

$\endgroup$
11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Can you do it for the variety $xy=0$ in the plane? $\endgroup$
    – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
    Jan 11, 2013 at 17:21
  • $\begingroup$ In that case you take the open subvariety $M^{\mathrm{reg}}$ defined by the algebra $K[x,y]_{I(0,0)}$ (by that I mean the localization of $K[x,y]$ by the ideal of functions that vanish at $(0,0)$) and then $M = M^{\mathrm{reg}} \uplus \{ (0,0) \}$. $\endgroup$
    – LinAlgMan
    Jan 11, 2013 at 17:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Do you know that simple points form an nonempty open set? $\endgroup$
    – user27126
    Jan 11, 2013 at 17:40
  • $\begingroup$ @Sanchez Yes. So if we take $N_i^{\mathrm{reg}} \subset N_i$ then it is dense ($N_i$ is irreducible). But does it imply that $N_i - N_i^{\mathrm{reg}}$ contains finitely many points? If it is true then I take the singleton subvarieties of these points. $\endgroup$
    – LinAlgMan
    Jan 11, 2013 at 17:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If I understand your hint, let us denote $\mu = \mathrm{rk}(J)$ and $$ M_s= \{ x \in M \mid \mathrm{rk}J(x) = s \} \ .$$ Then $M_\mu = M^{\mathrm{reg}}$ and $$ M = \biguplus_{s=0}^{\mu} M_s \ . $$ It remains to show that $M^{(s)}$ are indeed subvarieties. $\endgroup$
    – LinAlgMan
    Jan 11, 2013 at 17:54

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1
$\begingroup$

To amplify Sanchez's comment: suppose the ground field is perfect (e.g. algebraically closed or of characteristic $0$). Then $M_0:=M^{reg}$ is open and dense in $M$. So $N_1:=M\setminus M_0$ is a closed subset of $M$ of dimension $\dim N_1 < \dim M$. Endow $N_1$ with the structure of reduced closed subvariety of $M$. Let $$M_1=N_1^{reg}, \quad N_2=N_1\setminus M_1, \quad M_2=N_2^{reg} \dots $$ This sequence stops because $\dim N_{n+1} < \dim N_n$. So $$ M = M_0 \cup M_1 \cup ... $$ (finite disjoint union of smooth subvarieties). If you want integral smooth subvarieties, you can replace each $M_i$ by the disjoint union of its connected components.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Is there anything we can say about nonsingular points over imperfect fields? (As in dense/open?) I don't know where perfectness came in.. $\endgroup$
    – user27126
    Jan 12, 2013 at 1:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Dear @Sanchez: the set of nonsingular points is always open, but can be empty. The simplest example is the spec of a finite radicial extension of the ground field. However, the set of regular points is open and dense (if the variety is reduced). Regularity coincides with smoothness (=nonsingularity) over perfect fields. $\endgroup$
    – user18119
    Jan 12, 2013 at 12:58
  • $\begingroup$ Dear @user18119: your terminology is not the standard one. Regular and non-singular are synonyms and are absolute notions, not depending on a base scheme. Smoothness depends on some base scheme and means: regular and remaining regular after any base-change.See section 27.9 in the Stacks Project. See also section 12.2.3 in Vakil's Foundations of algebraic Geometry. $\endgroup$
    – Georges Elencwajg
    Feb 17, 2014 at 23:10

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.