5
$\begingroup$

I have two different definitions of a relative effective Cartier divisor. The first one is a bit outdated and defines the notion over analytic spaces, in the following way:

Definition 1:

Let $X$ be a smooth projective curve and $T$ an analytic space. A relative effective Cartier divisor on $X$ over $T$ is simply an effective Cartier divisor on the product $X\times T$ which does not contain any fiber of the projection $ X\times T \to T $.

The second definition is more modern (can be found for instance in the Stack project), and defines the notion over schemes:

Definition 2:

Let $S$ be a scheme and $X$, $T$ be schemes over $S$. A relative effective Cartier divisor on $X\,/\,T$ is a closed subscheme $D\subset X$ together with a flat morphism $f:D\to T$, such that the ideal sheaf $\mathcal{I}_D$ of $D$ is invertible.

Now, I'd like to understand the relashionship between the two definitions. I'm more interested in the modern, scheme-theoretic one and in particular I'd like to see if a $D$ as in definition 2 can be thought as a divisor on the fibred product $X\times T$ over $S$.

What I did so far is the following: we can write down the pullback diagram defining the fibered product and, using the given $f:D\to T$ and the inclusion $i:D\to X$ (how can I see the diagram commutes?) we get the dashed arrow.

The pullback diagram

Should I think of the dashed morphism as the inclusion of $D$ as a codimension $1$ subscheme of $X\times T$ ?

And, further, is it possible to show that the resulting divisor on $X\times T$ does not contain any fiber of the projection, as in definition 1?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ A little hint? What exact sequence should I consider to exploit the flatness of $f$? $\endgroup$ – Abramo Nov 20 '13 at 15:51
0
$\begingroup$

I have the sketch of a solution, but please help me to improve it. $\newcommand{\O}{\mathcal{O}}$ $\newcommand{\I}{\mathcal{I}}$ $\newcommand{\SES}[3]{0\to #1 \to #2 \to #3 \to 0}$ $\DeclareMathOperator{\spec}{Spec}$

Let's make the following assumptions:

  1. Everything is affine and we have rings $\O_X$, $\O_T$ and $\O_D \subset \O_X$ such that $$ X = \spec (\O_X), \quad T = \spec (\O_T), \quad D = \spec (\O_D) $$
  2. The morphism $f:D\to T$ is intended to be an $S$-morphism, so the commutativity of the above diagram follows immediately.

Notice that in this setting we have $\O_{X\times T} = \O_X \otimes_k \O_T$.

Now let $F$ be the fiber of a given $t\in T$, i.e. $\O_F=\O_X\otimes_k k(t)$, where $K(t)$ is the residue field of $T$ at the point $t$.

We have an exact sequence of $\O_T$-modules $$ \SES{\I_F}{\O_{X\times T}}{\O_F} $$ and applying the functor $\square \otimes_{\O_T} \O_D$ (which is exact by the flatness hypothesis) we get the exact $$ \SES{\I_F \otimes_{\O_T} \O_D}{\O_{X\times_k T} \otimes_{\O_T} \O_D}{\O_F \otimes_{\O_T} \O_D}. $$ Now, because of the identity $$ \O_{X\times T} \otimes_{\O_T} \O_D = \O_X \otimes_k \O_T \otimes_{\O_T} \O_D = \O_X \otimes_k \O_D = \O_D $$ we can rewrite the above sequence as $$ \SES{\I_{F\cap D}}{\O_D}{\O_F \otimes_{\O_T} \O_D}, $$ so we see that $\O_{F\cap D} = \O_F \otimes_{\O_T} \O_D$. Hence we find $$ F\cap D = \spec(\O_F \otimes_{\O_T} \O_D) = F\times_T D \neq F\quad \implies \quad F \not\subset D, $$ i.e. no fiber of the projection is contained in $D$, as we wanted.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Even if $S = \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}} k$, the diagram is not trivially commutative -- $\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}k$ can have non-trivial automorphisms, for example. You're missing an assumption that $f$ is an $S$-morphism. $\endgroup$ – Jan Ladislav Dussek Nov 21 '13 at 2:56
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks a lot for this remark, it allowed me to gain a much better understanding of the reason why people started to work in the relative setting. See this nice answer for more details about this: math.stackexchange.com/a/425043/3416 . About my answer, instead, do you think the rest is ok? I still don't feel very confident with this formalism $\endgroup$ – Abramo Nov 21 '13 at 10:22

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.