1
$\begingroup$

Am I correct in assuming that any projective scheme $X \subset \mathbb P^n$ can be written as $X \cong \mathrm{Proj} (\Bbbk [x_0, \dotsc, x_n] / I)$ for some homogeneous ideal $I = (f_1, \dotsc, f_r)$ so that $X$ can be described concretely by considering the restriction of affine charts of $\mathbb P^n$ to $X$ and affine charts of $X$ can be given by $\mathrm{Spec} (A_i)$ where $$ A_i = \Bbbk [\tfrac{x_0}{x_i}, \dotsc, \hat{\tfrac{x_i}{x_i}}, \dotsc, \tfrac{x_n}{x_i}] / (f_{1, i}, \dotsc, f_{r,i}) $$ where $[x_0 : \dotsb : x_n]$ are homogeneous coordinates of $\mathbb P^n$ and $i$ runs from $0$ to $n$ and $f_{k,i}$ is the dehomogenization of the polynomial $f_k$ that appears as a relation in $I$?

When comparing schemes and varieties from the point of view of affine coordinate charts is the only difference that for schemes the $A_i$'s may contain nilpotent elements?

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Regarding the first question: yes, this is true. Given a closed subscheme $X$ of $\mathbb P^n_k$, on each of the standard affine opens $U_i = D_+(x_i)$ it is defined by some ideal $J_i$ of $(k[x_0,\dots ,x_n]_{x_i})_0$, by affineness. Each $J_i$ corresponds to a homogeneous ideal $I_i$ of the homogeneous coordinate ring $k[x_0,\dots ,x_n]$, and you can check that $I = \bigcap_i I_i$ does the job. In fact, this argument works for closed subschemes of any projective scheme $\operatorname{Proj} S_\bullet$ (even when $S_\bullet$ is not generated in degree 1, with slight modification).

As for the second question, a (not necessarily irreducible) variety can be defined as a reduced, separated scheme of finite type over a field. A projective scheme is always separated and finite type, so the two things which can be relaxed are "reduced" and "field" - in general, your $A_i$ could be quotients of $R[x_{0/i}, \dots ,\hat x_{i/i} ,\dots ,x_{n/i}]$ for $R$ some ring, with $X\subset\mathbb P^n_R$. If you insist on working over $k$, then nilpotents are the only new thing that you will see in $A_i$.

Note also that if $X$ is a variety, then it is not necessarily true that $I$ is a radical ideal - consider $\operatorname{Proj} k[x_0,x_1]/(x_0^2,x_0 x_1)$. So, it's possible that the coordinate rings of the standard open affines have no nilpotents, yet the homogeneous coordinate ring of $X$ is nonreduced.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much. I don't quite understand the last paragraph, which I guess pertains to the last paragraph of the question. So you can define a variety locally by any ideal, but the Nullstellensatz gives a correspondence between algebraic sets and radical ideals, so this means you can naturally associate a radical ideal to a variety. However, when considering schemes, it matters if the ideal is radical or not... Or did I miss your point? $\endgroup$ – Earthliŋ Apr 28 at 19:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Sorry, that was more of a remark about nilpotents in $A_i$ vs nilpotents in the homogeneous coordinate ring. I edited to add an actual answer to your second question and clarified my other statement. The Nullstellensatz gives a correspondence between algebraic subsets of $\mathbb A^n_k$ and radical ideals; there isn't such a correspondence between projective algebraic sets and homogeneous radical ideals, as this example shows. $\endgroup$ – Alex K Apr 28 at 22:59

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.