1
$\begingroup$

Let $k$ be a field. Let $X$ be a scheme of finite type over $k$. Let $Y$ be a locally closed subset of $X$. We denote by $X_0$ the set of closed points of $X$. Suppose $Y \cap X_0$ is closed in $X_0$. Is $Y$ closed? If yes, how do you prove it?

Motivation Let $k$ be an algebraically closed field. Let $X$ be an integral scheme of finite typle ove $k$. Let $X_0$ be the set of closed points of $X$. We can regard $X_0$ as a prevariety over $k$(e.g. Mumford's red book). Let $\Delta_0$ be the diagonal subset of $X_0 \times X_0$. Suppose $X_0$ is a variety, i.e. $\Delta_0$ is closed in $X_0 \times X_0$. Let $\Delta$ be the diagonal subscheme of $X \times_k X$. Then $\Delta$ is a locally closed subset of $X \times_k X$. I would like to prove $\Delta$ is closed in $X \times_k X$, i.e. $X$ is separated over $k$.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It suffices (math.stackexchange.com/questions/244719) to prove that $Y$ is stable under specialization. $\endgroup$ – Martin Brandenburg Dec 22 '13 at 1:36
  • $\begingroup$ @MartinBrandenburg I know that. So? $\endgroup$ – Makoto Kato Dec 22 '13 at 1:44
  • $\begingroup$ @MakotoKato I deleted my answer cause I haven't yet thought through whether or not it works (as to the comment you posted, when I had originally posted my answer, I had forgotten that I needed to prove that). Also, I think there's an easier method. $\endgroup$ – Avi Steiner Dec 22 '13 at 3:07
  • $\begingroup$ Notice that this reduces to the case of $Y$ being a dense open subset of $X$. $\endgroup$ – Avi Steiner Dec 22 '13 at 3:08
  • $\begingroup$ @MakotoKato I undeleted my answer, after having significantly altered it to (hopefully) make it correct. $\endgroup$ – Avi Steiner Dec 22 '13 at 3:53
1
$\begingroup$

I'm pretty sure that the condition on $Y$ needs to be that $Y\cap X_0$ is closed and non-empty, so I'm going to assume that.

For any closed subset $Z$ of $X_0$, let $t(Z)$ be the set of non-empty closed irreducible subsets of $Z$. One can show that these sets form the closed sets of a topology on $X_0$. In fact, $t$ gives a 1-1 correspondence b/w closed sets.

Snce $X$ is of finite type over a field, it's Noetherian and hence a Zariski space. Therefore, the map $f\colon X\to t(X_0)$ (of topological spaces) taking a point of $x\in X$ to its closure (intersected with $X_0$) is in fact a homeomorphism.

It's enough to prove that $Y$ is equal to its closure. So, we may assume without loss of generality that $\overline{Y}=X$, so that we've reduced to the case of $Y$ a (dense) open subset of $X$.

First, suppose $X$ is irreducible. Then $t(X_0)$ is irreducible. Now, if $X_0$ is the union of two closed subsets $Z_1$ and $Z_2$, then $t(X_0)=t(Z_1)\cup t(Z_2)$, which means that $t(Z_1)$ or $t(Z_2)$ equals $t(X_0)$. Hence, $Z_1$ or $Z_2$ equals $X_0$. Thus, $X_0$ is irreducible. Hence, since $$ [(X-Y)\cap X_0]\cup (Y\cap X_0)=X_0,$$ either $X-Y\supseteq X_0$ or $Y\supseteq X_0$. Hence, since $Y\cap X_0$ is nonempty, $Y\supseteq X_0$. Thus, because $X$ is a Zariski space and $Y$ is open, $Y=X$. In particular, $Y$ is closed.

Next, suppose $X_1,\ldots,X_r$ are the irreducible components of $X$ which intersect $Y$. Then by the above, $Y\cap X_i=X_i$ for all $i$, i.e. $Y=X_1\cup\cdots\cup X_r$. So, $Y$ is closed.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Isn't $Y \cap X_0$ non-empty whenever $Y$ is non-empty? $\endgroup$ – Makoto Kato Dec 22 '13 at 5:06
  • $\begingroup$ @Makoto Possibly, but I'm not entirely sure. $\endgroup$ – Avi Steiner Dec 22 '13 at 6:28
  • $\begingroup$ I've just posted a question on this matter. math.stackexchange.com/questions/615390/… $\endgroup$ – Makoto Kato Dec 22 '13 at 6:46
  • $\begingroup$ I believe the crux is that closed points are dense in every closed set. It follows that the closed points of a locally closed set Y are dense in the closure of Y. If there were a point of the closure of Y that is not in Y, there would be a closed such point, so Y would not be closed in X0. This is essentially your argument, and I deluded myself that I could say it more simply, but I seem to have only made it less clear. $\endgroup$ – roy smith Nov 3 at 21:06
0
$\begingroup$

We denote by $\mathbb{2}$ the two element field $\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z} =\{0, 1\}$. Let $X$ be a set. We denote by $\mathbb{2}^X$ the set of maps $X \rightarrow \mathbb{2}$. We make $\mathbb{2}^X$ into a ring with pointwise addition and multiplication. We denote by $\chi_A$ the characteristic function with respect to a subset $A$ of $X$. We regard $\chi_A$ as an element of $\mathbb{2}^X$ in the obvious way. Let $A, B$ be subsets of $X$. We denote by $A\Delta B$ the symmetric difference of $A$ and $B$, i.e. $(A - B) \cup (B - A)$. It is easy to see that $\chi_{A\Delta B} = \chi_A + \chi_B$. It is also easy to see that $\chi_{A\cap B} = \chi_A\chi_B$.

Lemma 1 Let $X$ be a set. Let $A, B, C$ be subsets of $X$. Then $(A\Delta B)\cap C = (A\cap C) \Delta (B\cap C)$.

Proof: $\chi_{(A\Delta B)\cap C} = \chi_{A\Delta B}\chi_C = (\chi_A + \chi_B)\chi_C = \chi_A\chi_C + \chi_B\chi_C = \chi_{A\cap C} + \chi_{B\cap C} = \chi_{(A\cap C) \Delta (B\cap C)}$. Hence $(A\Delta B)\cap C = (A\cap C) \Delta (B\cap C)$. QED

Lemma 2 Let $X$ be a set. Let $A, B$ be subsets of $X$. Then $A\Delta B = \emptyset$ if and only if $A = B$.

Proof: Suppose $A\Delta B = \emptyset$. Then $\chi_{A\Delta B} = 0$. Hence $\chi_A + \chi_B = 0$. Hence $\chi_A = -\chi_B = \chi_B$. Hence $A = B$. The converse is clear. QED

Definition 1 Let $X$ be a topological space. A subset of $X$ is called quasi-constructible if it is a finite union of locally closed subsets of $X$.

Lemma 3 Let $X$ be a topological space. A finite union of quasi-constructible subsets of $X$ is quasi-constructible. A finite intersection of quasi-constructible subsets of $X$ is quasi-constructible. The complement of a quasi-constructible subset of $X$ is quasi-constructible.

Proof: Clear.

Lemma 4 Let $k$ be a field. Let $X$ be a $k$-scheme locally of finite type. Let $X_0$ be the set of closed points of $X$. Let $Y$ be a non-empty locally closed subset of $X$. Then $Y \cap X_0$ is non-empty$.

Proof: This can be proved exactly in the same way as my answer to this question.

Lemma 5 Let $k$ be a field. Let $X$ be a $k$-scheme locally of finite type. Let $X_0$ be the set of closed points of $X$. Let $Z$ be a non-empty quasi-constructible subset of $X$. Then $Z \cap X_0$ is non-empty$.

Proof: This follows immediately from Lemma 4.

Lemma 6 Let $k$ be a field. Let $X$ be a $k$-scheme locally of finite type. Let $X_0$ be the set of closed points of $X$. Let $Y_1, Y_2$ be locally closed subsets of $X$. Suppose $Y_1 \cap X_0 = Y_2 \cap X_0$. Then $Y_1 = Y_2$.

Proof: By Lemma 1, $(Y_1\Delta Y_2)\cap X_0 = (Y_1\cap X_0) \Delta (Y_2\cap X_0) = \emptyset$. Since $Y_1\Delta Y_2$ is quasi-constructible, $Y_1\Delta Y_2 = \emptyset$ by Lemma 5. Hence $Y_1 = Y_2$ by Lemma 2. QED

Proposition Let $k$ be a field. Let $X$ be a $k$-scheme locally of finite type. Let $X_0$ be the set of closed points of $X$. Let $Y$ be a locally closed subsets of $X$. Suppose $Y \cap X_0$ is closed in $X_0$. Then $Y$ is closed in $X$.

Proof: There exists a closed subset $Z$ of $X$ such that $Y \cap X_0 = Z\cap X_0$. Then $Y = Z$ by Lemma 6. QED

$\endgroup$

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.