Let $f: X \to Y$ a dominant morphism of varieties over a field $k$. My 'varieties' are by definition irreducible and let denote as $g_X \in X$ and $g_Y \in Y$ their generic points. Dominant means that $f(g_X)=g_Y$. Let $n= \dim(X), m= \dim(Y)$. Then it is known that the transcendence degree of function fields of varieties coinside with their dimensions. Therefore $\operatorname{trdeg}_k \ K(X) =\dim(X)=n$ and $\operatorname{trdeg}_k \ K(Y) =\dim(Y)$.

I want to check that the dimension of the generic fiber $X_{g_Y} = f^{-1}(g_Y)$ is $e= n-m$.

My 'proof' has some gaps I would like to plug. Assume that both varieties are affine: $X= \operatorname{Spec}(A), Y=\operatorname{Spec}(R)$. The map $f$ is dominant, therefore $R \to A$ is injective. The affine ring of generic fiber $X_{g_Y}$ is $A \otimes_R K(Y)$. Since $g_X \in X_{g_Y} $ there exist a map $A \otimes_R K(Y) \to K(X)= \operatorname{Frac}(A)$ und therefore, since $K(X)$ is a field, we get the induced inclusion of fields $K(A \otimes_R K(Y)) \subset K(X)$. $K(A \otimes_R K(Y))$ is the function field of generic fiber $X_{g_Y}$.

Question: what do we know about the field extension $K(A \otimes_R K(Y)) \subset K(X)$? which transcendence degree does it have?

My idea is obvious: if I can prove that $\operatorname{trdeg}_{K(A \otimes_R K(Y)} K(X)= m$ then I can use additivivity formula for transcendence degrees of field extensions to show that $\operatorname{trdeg}_k K(A \otimes_R K(Y))=n-m$ because of $\operatorname{trdeg}_k \ K(X) =n$ and additivity for tower of extensions $k \subset K(A \otimes_R K(Y) \subset K(X)$. But I don't know how I can figure out that $\operatorname{trdeg}_{K(A \otimes_R K(Y)} K(X)= m$.

  • $\begingroup$ why the downvote? $\endgroup$ – Isak the XI Mar 24 at 23:02
  • $\begingroup$ I believe those two fields are equal. Maybe you can try an example such as $A^1 \to spec k$ induced by $k \to k[x]$. $\endgroup$ – Youngsu Mar 25 at 7:15

As Youngsu pointed out, the fields $K(A\otimes_RK(Y))$ and $K(X)$ are indeed equal. To see this, note that $A\otimes_RK(Y)$ is the localisation of the domain $A$ at its multiplicative subset $R\setminus\{0\}\subseteq A$, and $K(A\otimes_RK(Y))$ is obtained from $A\otimes_RK(Y)$ by localising at the remaining non-zero elements. By transitivity of localisations, this shows that $K(A\otimes_RK(Y))$ can also be written as the localisation of $A$ at all its non-zero elements, which is $K(X)$.

So what goes wrong here? The problem is that the generic fibre $X_{g_Y}$ is usually not a variety over $k$! Suppose, for example, that $X=Y$ and $f\colon X\rightarrow X$ the identity. Then the generic fibre is $\operatorname{Spec} K(X)$, and $K(X)$ is usually not of finite type as a $k$-algebra, unless it is a finite field extension of $k$ (by Hilbert's Nullstellensatz), i.e., unless $X$ is $0$-dimensional.

However, $X_{g_Y}$ is a variety* over $K(Y)$ (can you show that?), and it is indeed true that $X_{g_Y}$ is $(n-m)$-dimensional as a $K(Y)$-variety! So instead of $\operatorname{trdeg}_kK(A\otimes_RK(Y))=n-m$, you need to show that $$\operatorname{trdeg}_{K(Y)}K(A\otimes_RK(Y))=n-m\,.$$ Now your idea of using transitivity of transcendence degrees works: We've seen above that $K(A\otimes_RK(Y))=K(X)$, and $\operatorname{trdeg}_{K(Y)}K(X)=\operatorname{trdeg}_kK(X)-\operatorname{trdeg}_kK(Y)=n-m$.

* Usually, $K(Y)$ won't be algebraically closed, but I think you're working with the scheme-theoretic definition of varieties anyway.

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your detailed answer. on your question why $X_{g_Y}$ is variety over $K(Y)$ i think the reason is that we need just to such that $A\otimes_RK(Y)$ has finite type over $K(Y)$, but that's clear because $A$ is finitely generated $R$-algebra and base change preserves this property, that's it? $\endgroup$ – Isak the XI Mar 26 at 1:10
  • $\begingroup$ About your argument on the observation that $A\otimes_RK(Y)$ is the localization of $A$ by certain mult set. Here you implicitely use that $A\otimes_R K(Y)$ is a domain (not contains zero divisors except $0$). Otherwise, if a ring $S$ isn't adomain, the function field of $S$ cannot simply constructed by only inverting all elements except zero. How the proceed in that case? $\endgroup$ – Isak the XI Mar 26 at 1:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If $\operatorname{nil}(A)$ is the nilradical of $A$, we can replace $A$ by $A/\operatorname{nil}(A)$ and similarly $R$ by $R/\operatorname{nil}(R)$. This doesn't change the function fields $K(X)$ and $K(Y)$; or more precisely, $K(A)=K(A/\operatorname{nil}(R))$ and likewise for $R$. Moreover, the fibre $A\otimes_R K(Y)$ gets replaced by $A/\operatorname{nil}(A)\otimes_RK(Y)$, which is again a quotient by a nilpotent ideal. Hence also $K(A\otimes_RK(Y))=K(A/\operatorname{nil}(A)\otimes_RK(Y))$. Thus, everything can be reduced to the situation where $A$ and $R$ are domains. $\endgroup$ – Florian Adler Mar 26 at 10:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Oops, I made a typo in my previous comment: It should be $K(A)=K(A/\operatorname{nil}(A))$, of course. In general, if $A$ is a ring such that $\operatorname{Spec} A$ is irreducible, then $A$ has a unique minimal prime ideal $\mathfrak q$ (which is then necessarily given by $\mathfrak q=\operatorname{nil}(A)$, since the nilradical is the intersection of all prime ideals), corresponding to the generic point. I would define $K(A)$ as the residue field at $\mathfrak q$. That is, $K(A)=k(\mathfrak q)=A_{\mathfrak q}/\mathfrak q A_{\mathfrak q}$. This coincides with the above. $\endgroup$ – Florian Adler Mar 26 at 18:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ by the way the irreducibility of $X_{g_y}$ can be also showed pure topologically: If $Y \subset X$ and $X$ is irreducible then $Y$ is irred iff the closure $\overline{Y}$ is irred. But the generic fiber contains the generic point of $X$ so it's closure is $X$ $\endgroup$ – Isak the XI Mar 26 at 18:54

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.