Let $\phi:X\to Y$ be a morphism between irreducible quasiprojective varieties. If $\phi$ has a dense image in $Y$ can we conclude that its image has an interior? It really feels like it, but I couldn't show it. Maybe there is a counterexample? I guess for specific type of quasi-projective varieties resp. morphisms the image is a constructible set. A dense constructible set must surely have an interior, no?

  • $\begingroup$ You mean interior in the sense of "union of all open subsets of $Y$ which contain the image"? This exists by definition, but I don't know how useful it is. $\endgroup$ May 26 at 5:49
  • $\begingroup$ No, I want to know (equivalently) that there is a nonempty Zariki open set that is contained in the image. Obviously if the image has an interior, then it is dense but is the reverse also true. I have sufficient example of sets that are dense but have no interior in the Zariski topology, but not one for which it is also an image of a morphism. $\endgroup$
    – quantum
    May 26 at 6:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @quantum By Chevalley's theorem $\phi(X)$ always contains a non-empty open subset of $\overline{\phi(X)}$ -- therefore if $\phi(X)$ is dense then $\phi(X)$ has non-empty interior. $\endgroup$ May 26 at 6:43

1 Answer 1


The result you are asking for is essentially equivalent* to Chevalley's theorem on the constructibility of the image of a morphism between Noetherian schemes.

More precisely, one may make the following statement (the name is ad hoc):

Theorem (weak Chevalley's theorem, [GW, Theorem 10.19]): Let $f\colon X\to Y$ be a dominant (i.e. having dense image) finite type morphism of Noetherian schemes. Then, $f(X)$ contains a dense open subset of $Y$.

Of course, for $X$ and $Y$ irreducible quasi-projective varieties this reduces to your precise question.

You should then rest at ease knowing:

a) your intuition is good to suspect this is true,

b) you couldn't prove it (this is a semi-tricky result).


[GW] Görtz, U. and Wedhorn, T., 2010. Algebraic Geometry I: Schemes. Vieweg+ Teubner.

*I mean that many proofs of Chevalley's theorem prove the claim you're asking about as a lemma, and then deduce Chevalley's therorem fairly easily from this lemma.

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you Alex. It is indeed reassuring if an expert tells me to "rest at ease" giving the reasons you wrote. Yes, now I remember solving Chevalley Theorem in Hartshorne (exercise II.3.19 ). Thanks for the reference indeed! $\endgroup$
    – quantum
    May 26 at 8:51

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.