3
$\begingroup$

Does the category of Schemes admit a (single) generator (or a cogenerator)?

What if we restrict to the category of schemes of finite type over a field $k$?

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

The category of schemes does not admit a generating family, see MO/2015.

But the category of schemes which are (locally) of finite type over some ring $k$ has a generating family: First of all, the category of affine schemes of finite type is a large generating family. Next, one observes that this subcategory is essentially small: Up to isomorphism there is only a set of $k$-algebras of finite type. In fact, they are all isomorphic to $k[x_1,x_2,\dotsc]/I$ for some ideal $I$ such that the quotient is of finite type. Taking the disjoint union of all these affine schemes, we obtain a generating object if we work with schemes locally of finite type.

I doubt that the category of schemes of finite type has a generating object.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I think the user is asking for a generating object rather than a generating family. $\endgroup$ – Zhen Lin Sep 6 '13 at 8:34
  • $\begingroup$ There seems to be something wrong in your second paragraph, but I'm not sure what. Taking the disjoint union of the objects in a generating family doesn't yield a generating object in general. $\endgroup$ – Zhen Lin Sep 6 '13 at 8:51
  • $\begingroup$ Consider the category $\mathbf{Set}^2$: it has no generator, but it does have a generating family. (A generator in a cocomplete locally small topos is necessarily a dense generator, but the only categories that have a dense generator are full subcategories of $\mathbf{Set}$.) $\endgroup$ – Zhen Lin Sep 6 '13 at 9:02
  • $\begingroup$ Okay, it is true in pointed categories. Unfortunately schemes are not pointed ... $\endgroup$ – Martin Brandenburg Sep 6 '13 at 9:05
  • $\begingroup$ Indeed. The obstruction is basically the existence of empty hom-sets. $\endgroup$ – Zhen Lin Sep 6 '13 at 9:07
1
$\begingroup$

First question: no. Consider morphisms $X \to \operatorname{Spec} \mathbb{F}_p$ for fixed $X$ and different $p$. Thus there is always a non-empty scheme $Y$ such that there are no morphisms $X \to Y$. However, if $X$ were a generator, then there are no morphisms $X \to Y$ if and only if the unique morphism $\emptyset \to Y$ is an epimorphism, which is clearly impossible for $Y$ non-empty.

Second question: probably no. Geometrically speaking, if $X$ is a generator, then all objects can be "covered" by copies of $X$. When there is only one kind of "point", we could take $X$ to be that point, but the whole raison d'être for scheme theory is the need for "fat points", e.g. nilpotent thickenings like $\operatorname{Spec} k[x]/(x^n)$ or more generally spectra of local $k$-algebras.

So, consider the family of schemes $Y_n = \operatorname{Spec} k[x]/(x^n)$. These are $k$-schemes of finite type and they are all distinct, and we have a chain of monomorphisms $Y_0 \to Y_1 \to Y_2 \to \cdots$. However, any morphism $X \to Y_n$ must factor through the "affine envelope" $X \to \operatorname{Spec} \Gamma (X, \mathscr{O}_X)$. If $X$ is a generator, then the resulting chain $$\mathrm{Hom}(X, Y_0) \to \mathrm{Hom}(X, Y_1) \to \mathrm{Hom}(X, Y_2) \to \cdots$$ must be strictly increasing, but that can only happen if $\Gamma (X, \mathscr{O}_X)$ has nilpotents of unbounded nilpotency index. If $\Gamma (X, \mathscr{O}_X)$ is noetherian, that is impossible. Unfortunately it is not guaranteed that $\Gamma (X, \mathscr{O}_X)$ is noetherian even when $X$ is a $k$-scheme of finite type, but at the very least we can conclude that any generator for the category $k$-schemes of finite type has to be very strange.

If you really want a generator, then I suggest looking at the category of varieties over an algebraically closed field. It is also worth pointing out that the category of affine schemes has a cogenerator, because the category of commutative rings has a generator (namely $\mathbb{Z} [x]$). Geometrically this corresponds to the fact that every affine scheme can be embedded in a cartesian power of the affine line.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ "since $X$ is of finite type over $k$, so is $\operatorname{Spec} \Gamma(X, \mathscr{O}_X)$." Unfortunately this isn't true in general. See Ravi Vakil's "An example of a nice variety whose ring of global sections is not finitely generated", math.stanford.edu/~vakil/files/nonfg.pdf $\endgroup$ – Martin Brandenburg Sep 6 '13 at 9:35
  • $\begingroup$ Right. I have replaced the argument with something more heuristic for now. $\endgroup$ – Zhen Lin Sep 6 '13 at 9:39

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.