10
$\begingroup$

In the book The geometry of schemes by Eisenbud and Harris, at page 27 we find the exercise asserting that

Exercise I.XXXVI.
The underlying space of a zero-dimensional scheme is discrete; if the scheme is Noetherian, it is finite.

Thoughts
I thought that a zero-dimensional scheme is one such that, in every local ring $\mathscr O_{X,p}$, the only prime ideal is its unique maximal ideal $\mathfrak m_{X,p}.$ Hence, supposing that $X=\operatorname{Spec} R$ is affine, we deduce that every prime ideal is maximal, so each ponit in $X$ is closed. But how does this imply the discreteness? It only implies the Hausdorff-ness of $X$, right?
Furthermore, I cannot perceive what the "Noetherianity" has to do with the finiteness claimed here. In the affine case, it seems to be claiming that there are only a finite number of prime ideals in a Noetherian ring, if its scheme is zero-dimensional? For example, $\mathbb Z$ is a Dedekind domain, hence its scheme is zero-dimensional, but it has infinitely many primes: does this contradict the statement?

Thanks in advance for any reference or hint, and point out any inappropriate point if any is presented.
Edit I see why my example cannot work now: it is one-dimensinoal: don't forget the pirme $(0)$. But I am still wondering why the statement is true...

| cite | improve this question | | | | |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ My answer here might be relevant for your second question. The point is that the underlying space of a noetherian scheme is a noetherian space, and that a Hausdorff space (e.g. a discrete space), which is also noetherian must be finite. $\endgroup$ – Nils Matthes Aug 24 '13 at 8:26
  • $\begingroup$ @NilsMatthes Thanks for that answer: it is really helpful. Now I only have to show that the underslying space is Hausdorff if the scheme is of dimension $0$. $\endgroup$ – awllower Aug 24 '13 at 8:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Sorry I had to delete my answer, it was early in the morning and there were many things wrong with it. $\endgroup$ – PVAL-inactive Aug 24 '13 at 8:51
  • $\begingroup$ @PVAL No Problem! BTW, the preperty that every point is closed only implies the $T_1$ separation, not Hausdorff. So this becomes more and more confusing. :( $\endgroup$ – awllower Aug 24 '13 at 9:12
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It is false in the absence of noetherianity that a zero-dimensional scheme (even if assumed affine) has the discrete topology: see my answer. $\endgroup$ – Georges Elencwajg Aug 24 '13 at 12:02
14
$\begingroup$

a) A noetherian zero-dimensional scheme is covered by finitely many open affines which are spectra of zero-dimensional noetherian rings.
If these spectra are discrete finite, then the scheme is discrete finite too.
This answers the second part of your question.

b) Here is why the spectrum $X=\operatorname{Spec}(A)$ of a zero-dimensional ring $A$ is Hausdorff:
Consider two distinct points of $X$, i.e. two maximal ideals $\mathfrak m,\mathfrak n\subset A$.
There exist idempotent elements $m\in \mathfrak m, n\in \mathfrak n$ with $m+n=1$.
The disjoint open subsets $ D(n), D(m)$ are then separating neighbourhoods of $\mathfrak m$ and $\mathfrak n$.
The details (and more) are to be found in the Stacks Project here.

c) If moreover $A$ is noetherian, then $X=\operatorname{Spec}(A)$ is finite and thus discrete.
Inded a noetherian ring has only finitely many minimal prime ideals and all primes are minimal in a zero-dimensional ring.

d) It is false that the spectrum of a zero-dimensional ring is discrete if the ring is not assumed noetherian:
If $A=K^\mathbb N$ is the denumerable power of a field $K$ then $A$ is zero-dimensional and $\operatorname{Spec}(A)$ is homeomorphic to the Stone-Čech compactification of $\mathbb N$, a dreadful beast which is certainly not discrete since it is compact and infinite.

| cite | improve this answer | | | | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ For a synthesis of properties of rings of dimension zero, you might look here. $\endgroup$ – Georges Elencwajg Aug 24 '13 at 13:52
  • $\begingroup$ Hmm, sorry, but why do the idempotents in b) exist? Unfortunately, I don't see this immediately. There must be some argument that $\operatorname{Spec}(A)$ is not connected, but I don't see how to obtain this, or proceed from there. $\endgroup$ – Nils Matthes Aug 24 '13 at 14:38
  • $\begingroup$ Dear @Nils: you might look here, in the Stacks Project by De Jong and collaborators. $\endgroup$ – Georges Elencwajg Aug 24 '13 at 15:24
  • $\begingroup$ Might ask what do the symbols $D(m), D(n)$ mean? Also, do you mind to prove the fact that every Noetherian ring has only a finite number of minimal primes? Thanks. $\endgroup$ – awllower Aug 24 '13 at 15:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Dear awllower: $D(m)$ denotes the set of primes of $A$ which do not contain $m$, i.e. $D(m)=Spec(A)\setminus V(f)$.The finiteness of the set of minimal primes results from Atiyah-Macdonald: Proposition 4.6+Theorem 7.13 (applied to the zero ideal). $\endgroup$ – Georges Elencwajg Aug 24 '13 at 17:17
5
$\begingroup$

As a complement to Georges's excellent answer, I think it is worth noting a systematic construction of non-discrete zero-dimensional schemes.

Start with an arbitrary scheme $S$, say noetherian to simply what follows. There is a finer topology on $S$ than the initial one, called the constructible topology on $S$. The open subsets for this topology consists in constructible subsets of $S$ (i.e. finite union of locally closed subsets). Denote this topological space by $S^{\rm cons}$. It turns out that $S^{\rm cons}$ is always totally disconnected and compact, see EGA IV.1.9.15 ($S$ is noetherian hence quasi-compact and quasi-separated). Edit So $S^{\rm cons}$ is discrete if and only if $S$ is finite (set-theoretically).

To finish, and this was really surprising for me, such a "dreadful beast" is the underlying space of a scheme ! See EGA IV.1.9.16. So

$S^{\rm cons}$ is non-discrete and zero-dimensional for any noetherian scheme such that the underlying space is infinite.

If $S_1, S_2$ are two integral algebraic varieties not birational to each other, then $S_1^{\rm cons}$ is not isomorphic to $S_2^{\rm cons}$ by looking at residue fields.

| cite | improve this answer | | | | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Dear Cantlog, I'm impressed by your erudition: have you read all of EGA? +1 (although I'm too ignorant to have checked everything you wrote) $\endgroup$ – Georges Elencwajg Aug 29 '13 at 0:19
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks @GeorgesElencwajg! I only search in EGA when I need some information on specific subjects or results . This masterpiece is kind of intimidating for me. $\endgroup$ – Cantlog Aug 29 '13 at 8:50

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.