I am trying to use a well known result of Grothendieck to show that if $S$ is a scheme, and $\mathcal{B}$ is a quasi coherent sheaf of $\mathcal{O}_{S}$-algebras, then there is a relative affine spectrum which is a scheme over $S$.

Denote by $\text{Sch}_{/S}$ the category of schemes over $S$. I am trying to use the result which states that for a functor $$ F: \text{Sch}_{/S} \longrightarrow \text{Set} $$ to be representable, it is necessary and sufficient that it be a Zariski sheaf which is covered by representable open subfunctors.

Grothendieck proves a corollary of this (EGA, which states that if $\{S_{i} \}$ is an affine (or indeed any open) cover of $S$ and $F$ is a Zariski sheaf, then we need only show that the functors $$ F_{i} = F \times_{h_{S}} h_{S_{i}} $$ are representable.

My problem is that I have no idea what this pullback diagram even is. The functor $h_{S}$ is (presumably) the functor which sends any $S$-scheme $(f: X \rightarrow S)$ to the set with one element, namely $\{ f \}$. But then the $h_{S_{i}}$ certainly are not going to be subfunctors of $h_{S}$, and by extension the $F_{i}$ will not be subfunctors of $F$, let alone open subfunctors.

What am I missing here? What is $h_{S}$ actually supposed to be? If I assume that it's an abuse of notation and that $h_{S}$ is really the functor that sends a scheme (not an $S$-scheme) $X$ to the set $\text{Hom}(X, S)$, then what is the morphism of functors $F \rightarrow h_{S}$ supposed to be?

  • $\begingroup$ Luke, was there something else you needed clarified about this problem? $\endgroup$ – Alex Youcis Apr 7 at 20:04

I think what you're looking for is the following. Let $F$ be a sheaf on $X$ and let $\{U_i\}$ be an open cover of $X$. Then, we know by the definition of a sheaf that the diagram

$$0\to F\to \prod_i (\iota_i)_\ast(F\mid_{U_i})\to \prod_{ij}(\iota_{i,j})_\ast(F\mid_{U_i\cap U_j})\qquad (1)$$

is exact where $\iota_i:U_i\hookrightarrow X$ and $\iota_{ij}:U_i\cap U_j\hookrightarrow X$.

Suppose now that $F\mid_{U_i}\cong h_{S_i}$ for some $U_i$-schemes $S_i$. The isomorphisms $(F\mid_{U_i})\mid_{U_j}\cong (F\mid_{U_j})\mid_{U_i}$ give rise to isomorphisms $\varphi_{ij}:(S_i)_{U_i\cap U_j}\xrightarrow{\approx} (S_j)\mid_{U_i\cap U_j}$. We then get a $U$-scheme $S$ (e.g. see Tag01JA). Then, check that $h_S$ sits in the same exact sequence as in $(1)$ (e.g. see the description of the functor of points as in Lemma 25.14.1 of loc. cit.).

I guess technically I only addressed the question on the small Zariski site of $X$, but you can get the claim on the big Zariski site by just noting that if you have any map $f:X'\to X$ you can pull the arguments back to the small Zariski site of $X'$ using the open cover $f^{-1}(U_i)$ and proceeding in the same way.

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for the response. I'm still not entirely sure how that would give a natural transformation $F \rightarrow h_{S}$. I should also clarify that $h_{S}$ is really an abuse of notation for $h_{(S, \text{id}_{S})}$, right? $\endgroup$ – Luke Apr 7 at 2:19
  • $\begingroup$ @Luke To show that they have the same description of points functorially? Also, what does $h_{(S,\id)}$ mean? Be careful, I just realized that I switched notation from your post. In my language it's the fact that we've constructed an $X$-scheme $S$, let's say with structure morphism $f:S\to X$, and thus $h_S$ means $h_{(S,f)}$ if I'm interpreting your question correctly. $\endgroup$ – Alex Youcis Apr 7 at 2:22
  • $\begingroup$ @Luke chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/92097/chat $\endgroup$ – Alex Youcis Apr 7 at 2:24

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.