3
$\begingroup$

The theorem $8.15$ (p.177) from the Hartshorne's book "Algebraic Geometry" says:

" Let $X$ be an irreducible separated scheme of finite type over an algebraically closed field $k$. Then $\Omega_{X/k}$ is a locally free sheaf of rank $n= \dim \ X$ iff $X$ is nonsingular variety over $k$."

Proof: If $x\in X$ is a closed point, then the local ring $B =\mathcal{O}_{x,X}$ has dimension $n$, residue field $k$, and is a localization of a $k$-algebra of finite type. Furthermore, the module $\Omega_{B/k}$ of differentials of $B$ over $k$ is equal to the stalk $(\Omega_{X/k})_x$ of the sheaf $\Omega_{X/k}$· Thus we can apply (8.8) and we see that $(\Omega_{X/k})_x$ is free of rank $n$ if and only if $B$ is a regular local ring. Now the theorem follows in view of (8.14A), which says any localization of a regular local ring at a prime ideal is again a regular local ring. and (Ex. 5.7), which says that $\Omega_{X/k}$ is locally free iff $(\Omega_{X/k})_y$ is free for all $y\in X$.

My confusion lies in the last sentence, I can see if $\Omega_{X/k}$ is a locally free sheaf of rank $n= \dim \ X$, then by (Ex. 5.7), $(\Omega_{X/k})_x$ is free of rank $n$ for any closed point, thus $\mathcal{O}_{X,x}$ is a regular local ring at each closed point. Now apply (8.14A), we know $\mathcal{O}_{X,x}$ is a regular local ring at non-closed points, thus $X$ is nonsingular. However, I feel confused with the other direction: Suppose $X$ is smooth, then by (8.8), we know $(\Omega_{X/k})_x$ is free of rank $n$ for any closed point $x$. But how do we show $(\Omega_{X/k})_x$ is free of rank $n$ for any nonclosed point? Here to apply (8.8), it requires $k(x)=k$, but which is true for closed points. I don't think we can use (8.8) for non-closed points.

$\endgroup$
6
$\begingroup$

This is a direct application of exercise II.5.7 (a):

Let $X$ be a noetherian scheme and let $\mathcal{F}$ be a coherent sheaf. If the stalk $\mathcal{F}_x$ is a free $\mathcal{O}_{X,x}$ module for some $x\in X$, then there is a neighborhood of $U$ such that $\mathcal{F}|_U$ is free.

For any closed point $x\in X$, such a neighborhood $U$ contains all nonclosed points which are generalizations of $x$ (that is, if $x'$ is a point with $x\in \overline{\{x'\}}$, then $x'\in U$). Why? If not, then $U^c$ is a closed subset containing $x'$ but not $x$, so $x\notin \overline{\{x'\}}$ by the definition of the closure as the smallest closed subset containing $x'$. So the stalk of $\Omega_{X/k}$ is free of rank $n$ at every point which is a generalization of a closed point, and since we are working over a Noetherian scheme, this is every point.


Edit: As requested (in a now-deleted comment), here are some more details about why every point is a generalization of a closed point in a noetherian scheme $X$. It suffices to prove that every point has a closed point in it's closure, or equivalently every closed subscheme has a closed point. But then this is implied by the standard statement that a quasi-compact scheme has a closed point, as every subscheme of a Noetherian scheme is quasi-compact.

To find a closed point in an arbitrary quasi-compact scheme $X$, let $X=\bigcup_{i=1}^n U_i$ be a finite decomposition of $X$ as a union of open affines so that no $U_i$ is contained inside $\bigcup_{j\neq i} U_j$. Now $(U_2\cup \cdots \cup U_n)^c\cap U_1\subset U_1$ is a closed subset of an affine scheme and thus affine. Since every affine scheme has a closed point (this is the geometry version of every ring having a maximal ideal), we can find a closed point $p\in (U_2\cup \cdots \cup U_n)^c\cap U_1 \subset U_1$, which is then closed in every $U_i$ and thus defines a closed point of $X$.

$\endgroup$
5
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @6666 Hartshorne calls this "generization", and the concept is introduced in exercise II.3.17 (e), which is stated on pages 93-94. I have added more details at the end about the reason every point is a generalization of a closed point. (Why did you delete your comment?) $\endgroup$
    – KReiser
    Apr 24 '20 at 1:35
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry about that, I deleted because I found generalization later on Hartshorne's book. $\endgroup$
    – 6666
    Apr 24 '20 at 14:23
  • $\begingroup$ Isn't a closed subscheme of a Noetherian scheme Noetherian? Do we have to work on the setting of quasi-compact scheme? Can we work via Noetherian scheme? $\endgroup$
    – 6666
    Apr 24 '20 at 14:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @6666 a Noetherian scheme is quasicompact by definition (or by a very direct argument: given an open cover, we can construct a descending chain of closed subsets, and it stabilizing is equivalent to the cover being finite). Closed subschemes of Noetherian schemes are again Noetherian, and more is true: any subspace of a Noetherian topological space is Noetherian. $\endgroup$
    – KReiser
    Apr 24 '20 at 16:53
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, I am asking because I proved the statement last night by showing a Notherian scheme has a closed point $\endgroup$
    – 6666
    Apr 24 '20 at 16:56

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.