I've been trying to prove a fairly classical, well-known result, but am running into a lot of trouble following any of the proofs I have found. At the moment I am following EGA I

Let $F: \text{Sch}^{\text{op}} \rightarrow \text{Set}$ be a contravariant functor on the category of schemes with values in sets. Suppose we have a family of subfunctors $\mu_{i} : F_{i} \hookrightarrow F$ of $F$ satisfying the following:

i) The subfunctors $F_{i}$ are representable by open immersions;

ii) The functor $F$ satisfies the sheaf condition on the Zariski topology;

iii) Each $F_{i}$ is representable

iv) The open subfunctors $F_{i}$ cover $F$.

I want to show that $F$ is representable by a scheme.

The basic idea seems to be not so difficult. We first obtain gluing data, and then show that the resulting glued scheme represents $F$. Say $F_{i}$ is represented by $(X_{i}, \eta_{i})$ where $\eta_{i} \in F_{i}(X_{i})$ is the universal family. We can form the fibered product \begin{equation} \label{square} F_{ij} = F_{i} \times_{F} F_{j} \end{equation} which is itself representable since $F_{i}$ and $F_{j}$ are representable by open immersions. Moreover, if $u_{ji}$ is the pullback of $\mu_{j}$ and $u_{ij}$ is the pullback of $\mu_{i}$, then the corresponding morphisms via Yoneda's lemma, \begin{align} \phi_{ij}: X_{ij} \longrightarrow X_{j} \\ \phi_{ji}: X_{ij} \longrightarrow X_{i} \end{align} are open immersions. Suppose $F_{ij}$ is represented by $(X_{ij}, \eta_{ij})$.

So far I think I understand. But then Grothendieck supposes we have a morphism $\nu: Y \rightarrow X_{ij}$. He uses this to deduce the following, \begin{align} (u_{ji}(Y))(F(\nu) (\nu_{ij})) = F(\phi_{ji} \circ \nu)(\nu_{i}) \\ (u_{ij}(Y))(F(\nu) (\nu_{ij})) = F(\phi_{ij} \circ \nu)(\nu_{j}) \end{align} How does he obtain this? So the morphism $Y \rightarrow X_{ij}$ will provide a morphism $\hom(-, Y) \rightarrow \hom(-, X_{ij})$. This then provides a cone over the pullback square \eqref{square}. But I can't actually see how those identities are equivalent to the universal property, which seems to be what he is claiming.

More generally, is anyone able to point me to a more accessible proof of this. I'm having trouble following the only other one I know of , which is in the Stacks Project.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.