Let $X,Y$ be varieties over $\mathbb{C}$, $k(X), K(Y)$ be function fields of $X, Y$. Suppose $\pi: X \to Y$ is a dominant, $\textit{injective}\ $ morphism, why the degree of the function field extension $[K(X) : K(Y)] =1$?

If $\phi : X \to Y$ is a finite morphism, then the fibre is finite, and by semicontinuity theorem, let $n$ be the number of the points in the generic fibre, then I feel one should similarly have $[K(X) : K(Y)] =n$. But I don't know how to show that. Any suggestions or reference on this question?

$\textbf{Edit}$: I really want the morphism $\phi$ to be a morphism between locally finite type and finite morphism. To be precise, for any affine open set $U=\rm{Spec}(B) \subset Y$, there is an affine open over of $\pi^{-1}(U)$, such that each $\rm{Spec}(A_i)$ in this cover has the property $A_i$ is a finitely generated $B-$module. I don't know the corresponding definition of this sort of morphism, or is it just a finite morpism?

  • $\begingroup$ Identify $X$ with its image in $Y.$ Do you see now why they have equal function fields? do they have common (isomorphic) open subsets for example? $\endgroup$ – Ehsan M. Kermani Mar 26 '13 at 2:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ These are related recent discussions, in case you haven't seen them math.stackexchange.com/questions/340565/… and math.stackexchange.com/questions/340687/… $\endgroup$ – Ehsan M. Kermani Mar 26 '13 at 2:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Your phrase "More generally..." is not warranted since an injective morphism needn't be finite: think of the injection $\mathbb A^1\hookrightarrow \mathbb P^1$ $\endgroup$ – Georges Elencwajg Mar 26 '13 at 7:11
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You only get a morphism $K(Y)\to K(X)$ if $\pi$ is also dominant. If it is dominant and injective, it identifies $X$ with some dense subset of $Y$, and they therefore share an open affine. How do you define finite morphism? That'd be good to know in order to answer your second question. $\endgroup$ – Jesko Hüttenhain Mar 26 '13 at 7:22
  • $\begingroup$ @Ehsan M.Kermani, wow, great! I did not notice a similar question just posted yesterday! That helps me clarify how to define the degree of the morhpism, but I still want to keep my question here because it asked the correspondence between degree and points in the fibre. $\endgroup$ – Li Yutong Mar 26 '13 at 16:21

The following property implies what you want.

Let $f : X\to Y$ be a dominant morphism of integral algebraic varieties over $\mathbb C$. Suppose $[K(X): K(Y)]=n$. Then there exists a dense open subset $U$ of $Y$ such that $f^{-1}(y)$ consists in $n$ points for all $y\in U$.

Proof. The first step is to reduce to the case when $f$ is a finite morphism. One can suppose $X=\mathrm{Spec}(B)$, $Y=\mathrm{Spec}(A)$ are affine. The dominant morphism $f$ corresponds to an injective homomorphism $A\to B$. Write $$\mathrm{Frac}(B)=\mathrm{Frac}(A)[t]$$ with $t$ annihilating a polynomial $P(T)\in K(Y)[T]$ of degree $n$ (theorem of primitive element). Replacing $A$ by a localization $A_a$ (geometrically, replace $Y$ by a principal open subset and $X$ by the pre-image of this principal open subset), the element $t$ becomes integral over $A$. As $B$ is a finitely generated algebra over $A$, localizing further $A$, we can suppose $$A\subseteq B\subseteq A[t]$$ (because each element of $B$ belongs to some $A_a[t]$, it is enough to invert a common denominator for a system of generators of $B$ over $A$). As $B$ and $A[t]$ have the same field of fractions and $B$ is finite over $A$, it is easy to see that localizing again $A$, we find $$B=A[t]=A[T]/(P(T)).$$ Now we are almost done. The discriminant $\Delta\in A$ of $P(T)$ belongs to $A$ (we may need to localize $A$ for this) and is non-zero because $P(T)$ is separable in $\mathrm{Frac}(A)[T]$. Let $U$ be the principal open subset $D(\Delta)\subseteq Y$. Then for any $y\in Y$, the fiber $f^{-1}(y)$ is given by the algebra $k(y)[T]/(\bar{P}(T))$ where $k(y)=\mathbb C$ denotes the residue field at $y$ and $\bar{P}(T)\in k(y)[T]$ is the canonical image of $P(T)$. Its discriminant is $\Delta(y)\ne 0$, so it has $n$ (distinct) roots.

Remark. The statement remains true if $Y$ is any integral scheme, $f$ is of finite type, and the extension $K(X)/K(Y)$ is finite separable. But in conclusion, $n$ is the number of points in the geometric fiber $X_{\bar{y}}=(f^{-1}(y))_{\overline{k(y)}}$. The proof is exactly the same. Without the separability hypothesis, the conclusion is for all $y\in U$, $X_y$ is given by a finite $k(y)$-algebra of vector dimension $n$.

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your beautiful explanation!!! I was wondering if there is any easy way to justify the claim "The first step is to reduce to the case when $f$ is a finite morphism." To me, this seems the Zariski's main theorem in the sense of Grothendieck. $\endgroup$ – Li Yutong Apr 8 '13 at 1:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Dear user 18119: I'm sad that you no longe post under your real name. But I was still sadder to read in your user page the words "please delete me". Please, please, I implore you dear user: stay with us! $\endgroup$ – Georges Elencwajg Sep 1 '13 at 9:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @user 18119: sad news , but thanks for all the brilliant contributions from a great expert . I wish you all the best, professionally and personnally: godspeed, dear friend. $\endgroup$ – Georges Elencwajg Sep 1 '13 at 20:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @GeorgesElencwajg: I think i figured it out:Since $A[t]$ is integral over $A$, so is $B$. Because $B$ is a finitely generated algebra over $A$, which is also integral over $A$, it is a finitely generated $A$-module, say $B = A b_1+\cdots + A b_n$. It follows that $K(B) = K(A)[b_1,\dots,b_n]$. Since $K(B) = K(A)[t]$, we have that $t$ is a polynomial in the variables $b_i$ with coefficients in $K(A)$. Hence localizing $A$ at finitely many elements we have that $t$ is inside $A[b_1,\dots,b_n]$, the latter of course being equal to $B$. Thus $A[t] \subset B$ and so $B = A[t]$. Do you agree? $\endgroup$ – Manos Apr 13 '17 at 14:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Dear @Manos: I read your comment with pleasure and it looks quite correct. However I would have to really immerse myself again in the situation in order to give a 100% guarantee. Sorry about that :-( $\endgroup$ – Georges Elencwajg Apr 13 '17 at 18:33

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.