2
$\begingroup$

I am reading the concept of complex spaces from "Several Complex Variables VII: Sheaf-Theoretical Methods in Complex Analysis" By Grauert, Peternell and Remmert. They defined a point $x$ in a complex space $(X,\mathcal{O}_{X})$ to be irreducible if $\mathcal{O}_{X,x}$ is an integral domain.

Now, $x$ has a neighbourhood $U$ in $X$ s.t. $(U,\mathcal{O}_{U})$ is isomorphic (as ringed spaces) to the complex model space(P-26 of the same book mentioned above for precise definition) defined by holomorphic functions $f_1,\ldots,f_{k}\in\mathcal{O}(D)$, where $D$ is an open subset in $\mathbb{C}^{n}$, for some $n$. We'll denote the model space as $V(f_{1},\ldots,f_{k})$, which equals $(Z(f_{1},\ldots,f_{k}),\mathcal{O}_{D}/\mathcal{I}_{D}|_{Z(f_{1},\ldots,f_{k})})$. Here $Z(f_{1},\ldots,f_{k})$ is the common zero set of $f_{1},\ldots,f_{k}$ and $\mathcal{I}_{D}$ is the ideal sheaf of $\mathcal{O}_{D}$ given by $\mathcal{I}_{D}:=\mathcal{O}_{D}f_{1}+\ldots+\mathcal{O}_{D}f_{k}$. Finally, assume that $(\phi,\widetilde{\phi})$ is the isomorphism between the ringed spaces mentioned above.

In the context of complex analytic variety there is another notion of irreducible points given as follows: A point $p$ in a complex analytic variety $X$ is irreducible if the analytic germ $X_{p}$ can't be written as the union of two analytic germs $X_{1p},X_{2p}$ with the property that $X_{ip}\neq X_{p}$, for $i=1,2$.(For the definition of analytic germ, see Definition 1.1.22, P-18, "Complex Geometry" by Daniel Huybrechts). From this, I think the following is true: A point $x$ in the complex space $(X,\mathcal{O}_{X})$ is irreducible iff $Z(f_{1},\ldots,f_{k})_{\phi(x)}$ is an irreducible analytic germ.

Forward Part: Suppose $x$ is irreducible. From the morphism $(\phi,\widetilde{\phi})$ one can get that $\mathcal{O}_{X,x}\simeq\mathcal{O}_{D,\phi(x)}/\mathcal{I}_{D,\phi(x)}$. Consequently, $\mathcal{O}_{D,\phi(x)}/\mathcal{I}_{D,\phi(x)}$ is an integral domain or equivalently, $\mathcal{I}_{D,\phi(x)}$ is a prime ideal of $\mathcal{O}_{D,\phi(x)}$. So $\sqrt{\mathcal{I}_{D,\phi(x)}}$ (radical of $\mathcal{I}_{D,\phi(x)}$) $=\mathcal{I}_{D,\phi(x)}$. Now, by Nullstellensatz $\sqrt{\mathcal{I}_{D,\phi(x)}}=I(Z(\mathcal{I}_{D,\phi(x)}))$(Proposition 1.1.29, P-19, "Complex Geometry" by Daniel Huybrechts), where $Z(\mathcal{I}_{D,\phi(x)}):=\bigcap_{\zeta\in\mathcal{I}_{D,\phi(x)}}Z(\zeta)=\bigcap_{i=1}^{k}Z(f_{i})_{\phi(x)}$ and for any analytic germ $X_{p}$ in $\mathbb{C}^{n}$, the ideal $I(X_{p}):=\{\eta\in\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{C}^{n},p}| X_{p}\subseteq Z(\eta)\}$. Furthermore, Lemma 1.1.28, P-19 of the same book says that an analytic germ $X_{p}$ is irreducible iff $I(X_{p})$ is a prime ideal. Applying this to our case, we get that $Z(\mathcal{I}_{D,\phi(x)})=\bigcap_{i=1}^{k}Z(f_{i})_{\phi(x)}=Z(f_{1},\ldots,f_{k})_{\phi(x)}$ is an irreducible analytic germ.

Backward part(here I am stuck): Suppose $Z(f_{1},\ldots,f_{k})_{\phi(x)}$ is an irreducible analytic germ. This means $I(Z(\mathcal{I}_{D,\phi(x)}))=\sqrt{\mathcal{I}_{D,\phi(x)}}$ is a prime ideal of $\mathcal{O}_{D,\phi(x)}$. Now, if one can show that $\mathcal{I}_{D,\phi(x)}$ itself is a prime ideal of $\mathcal{O}_{D,\phi(x)}$, then $\mathcal{O}_{D,\phi(x)}/\mathcal{I}_{D,\phi(x)}$ (equivalently, $\mathcal{O}_{X,x}$) is an integral domain and we are done. But how does it follow from what we have that $\mathcal{I}_{D,\phi(x)}$ is a prime ideal$?$ Any help is appreciated.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

There is a difference between $\sqrt{\mathcal I_{D,\phi(x)}}$ and $\mathcal I_{D,\phi(x)}$ only if the germ is not reduced, and in this case, the two definitions are simply not equivalent. Otherwise, they are, and this is exactly what your proof shows.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ So, you are saying that the backward part doesn't hold necessarily because the hypothesis is not enough to ensure that $\phi(x)$ is a reduced point of $V(f_{1},\ldots,f_{k})$ (equivalently, $x$ is reduced point of $(X,\mathcal{O}_{X})$), let alone being an irreducible point which is far stronger and being a reduced point is same as getting the two above-mentioned ideals as equal, which we clearly don't have. $\endgroup$ – Sam May 4 '18 at 2:22
  • $\begingroup$ Indeed, classical examples of non-reduced points, for example, double points in $\mathbb{C}$ ($V(z^{2})$) will serve as a counter-example here. $\endgroup$ – Sam May 4 '18 at 2:29
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, @Sam, exactly. Note that in Huybrechts' definition, the germ is irreducible if and only if its reduction is irreducible. $\endgroup$ – Ben May 4 '18 at 8:18

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.