Hartshorne defines a closed immersion as a morphism $f:Y\longrightarrow X$ of schemes such that

a) $f$ induces a homeomorphism of $sp(Y)$ onto a closed subset of $sp(X)$, and furthermore

b) the induced map $f^\#:\mathcal{O}_X\longrightarrow f_* \mathcal{O}_Y$ of sheaves on $X$ is surjective.

My doubt is that why is the condition a) necessary?

Atleast for affine schemes, if $f:(\textrm{Spec}\ B,\mathcal{O}_{\textrm{Spec}\ B})\longrightarrow (\textrm{Spec}\ A,\mathcal{O}_{\textrm{Spec}\ A})$ is a morphism such that condition (b) holds, then we have the stalk level maps are all surjective. But the stalk level maps are all localization maps which will mean that $f^\#_{\mathcal{O}_{\textrm{Spec}\ A}}:A\longrightarrow B$ is itself surjective. But that itself will mean that $f$ is a closed immersion right?

The definition made in Hartshorne must be because this does not carry through for general schemes. But I am not able to think of any example. Any help in this respect will be appreciated.


2 Answers 2


I figured I would make an answer out the comments to the first answer addressing a point which confused me when I first learned this stuff. A morphism $f:X\to Y$ (I have to write it in this direction or else I'll confuse myself) is said to be a closed immersion if $f$ induces a homeomorphism of $X$ onto a closed subset of $Y$, and $f^\sharp:\mathscr{O}_Y\to f_*(\mathscr{O}_X)$ is surjective.

In some references I've seen it is casually remarked that the second condition is equivalent to surjectivity of the map $f_x^\sharp:\mathscr{O}_{Y,f(x)}\to\mathscr{O}_{X,x}$ for all $x\in X$. But is this really trivial? No! This map, which might reasonably be called the stalk of the morphism $f$ at $x$, is not literally the same as the stalk of $f^\sharp$ at $f(x)$. Indeed, that is a map $f_{f(x)}^\sharp:\mathscr{O}_{Y,f(x)}\to(f_*\mathscr{O}_X)_{f(x)}$. In general, there is always a natural map $\varphi_x:(f_*\mathscr{O}_X)_{f(x)}\to\mathscr{O}_{X,x}$, but it isn't in general an isomorphism. The map $f_x^\sharp$ is equal to $\varphi_x\circ f_{f(x)}^\sharp$. So while it is standard that the map $f^\sharp$ of sheaves (on $Y$!) is surjective if and only if $f_y^\sharp:\mathscr{O}_{Y,y}\to (f_*\mathscr{O}_X)_y$ is surjective for all $y\in Y$, this does not obviously say anything about surjectivity of the maps $f_x^\sharp:\mathscr{O}_{Y,f(x)}\to\mathscr{O}_{X,x}$ for $x\in X$. If however $f$ is a homeomorphism onto a closed subset $f(X)\subseteq Y$, then the stalks of $f_*\mathscr{O}_X$ at points of $Y$ are easy to compute: they are zero at points outside of $f(X)$, and at a point $f(x)\in f(X)$, we have that the natural map $(f_*\mathscr{O}_X)_{f(x)}\to\mathscr{O}_{X,x}$ is an isomorphism. So in that case, surjectivity of each $f_x^\sharp$, $x\in X$, actually will imply surjectivity of $f_y^\sharp$, $y\in Y$, and hence of $f^\sharp$.

Without the condition that $f$ is a closed topological immersion on the underlying topological spaces, it is not going to be true that $f^\sharp$ is surjective if and only if $f_x^\sharp$ is surjective for all $x\in X$. To make this clearer, let's assume $X=\mathrm{Spec}(B)$ and $Y=\mathrm{Spec}(A)$, so $f=\mathrm{Spec}(\alpha)$ for $\alpha:A\to B$ a ring homomorphism. The stalk map of $f$ at $x=\mathfrak{q}\in\mathrm{Spec}(B)$ is the ring map $A_\mathfrak{p}\to B_\mathfrak{q}$, where $\mathfrak{q}=\alpha^{-1}(\mathfrak{p})$. In general, surjectivity of this map for all $\mathfrak{q}\in\mathrm{Spec}(B)$ does not imply surjectivity of $\alpha$ itself.

I think the simplest example that will illustrate this is when $B=A_g$ is a principal localization of $A$. Then in fact the stalk map in the previous paragraph is an isomorphism for every prime ideal of $A_g$ (the set of which are in natural bijection with the set of primes of $A$ not containing $g$, i.e. $D(g)$). But the localization map $A\to A_g$ (i.e. the map on global sections of $f$) is not usually surjective. Note that in this case $f$ is a homeomorphism onto the open subset $D(g)$ of $\mathrm{Spec}(A)$, but $D(g)$ is not generally closed in $A$.

I think maybe this illustrates why the first condition is important, and why, if one wants to think about surjectivity of $f^\sharp$ in terms of the stalks of $f$, $f_x^\sharp$, for $x\in X$, the topological condition is needed, and logically "precedes" the condition on $f^\sharp$.

Lastly, I should note that the maps which I have been calling the ``stalks of $f$," $f_x^\sharp$, for $x\in X$, are in fact the stalks of the map of sheaves on $X$ (in the usual sense) $f^\flat:f^{-1}\mathscr{O}_Y\to \mathscr{O}_X$ corresponding to $f^\sharp$ under the adjunction between $f^{-1}$ and $f_*$. So surjectivity of all $f_x^\sharp$, $x\in X$, is logically equivalent to surjectivity of $f^\flat$. There is no reason to believe that $f^\flat$ is surjective if and only if $f^\sharp$ is, or even that there is an implication in either direction in general.

  • $\begingroup$ Very complete:+1. $\endgroup$ Mar 15, 2014 at 8:29
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for the detailed answer! Your answer has made things very clear! $\endgroup$ Mar 15, 2014 at 18:29

Here is where the confusion lies: Let $\varphi : \mathcal{F} \rightarrow \mathcal{G}$ be a morphism of sheaves on a scheme $X$. Then $\varphi$ is surjective does not mean that for all open $U \subset X$, the morphism $\varphi(U) : \mathcal{F}(U) \rightarrow \mathcal{G}(U)$ is surjective.

See Caution II.1.2.1 of Hartshorne for more details.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ What you say is correct, only the stalk level maps are surjective. But even then the map $A\longrightarrow B$ will be surjective, and my question will make sense, right? $\endgroup$ Mar 14, 2014 at 17:39
  • $\begingroup$ @poorna: The stalks being surjective does not imply that the map on global sections is surjective. This is indeed the content of the Caution I referenced in my answer. Think about what happens for the open immersion $\mathrm{Spec}(k[x^\pm]) \hookrightarrow \mathrm{Spec}(k[x])$. The stalks at any closed point of $\mathrm{Spec}(k[x^\pm])$ is surjective, but the global sections $k[x] \rightarrow k[x^{\pm}]$ are not. $\endgroup$
    – RghtHndSd
    Mar 14, 2014 at 18:09
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Dear @poorna, The maps on stalks are of the form $A_\mathfrak{p}\to B_\mathfrak{q}$, where $\mathfrak{q}$ is a prime of $B$ lying over the prime $\mathfrak{p}$ of $A$. These can be surjective for all $\mathfrak{q}\in\mathrm{Spec}(B)$ without $A\to B$ being surjective. You're thinking of the assertion that if $A_\mathfrak{p}\to B_\mathfrak{p}$ is surjective for all primes $\mathfrak{p}\in\mathrm{Spec}(A)$, then $A\to B$ is surjective. $\endgroup$ Mar 14, 2014 at 18:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ah, that's right. I now understand where I have been getting confused, thank you! $\endgroup$ Mar 14, 2014 at 18:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Dear @Keenan: no problem, I find the anglicization of my name very chic, even royal ! [Although I can imagine that an American or Englishman could find the frenchization "Georges" chic too: the grass is always greener across the fence, they say :-)] $\endgroup$ Mar 15, 2014 at 17:11

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.