This is related to the answer in this question: Showing that a power of an ample sheaf is equivalent to an effective Cartier divisor

Let $X$ be a quasiprojective scheme over a Noetherian ring A and suppose we have a very ample sheaf $\mathcal{L} \cong i^\ast O(1)$ for $i$ an immersion into projective space. Then, given a finite set of points $F$ (say the associated points of $X$) I want to show that there is a hyperplane $H \in \mathcal{O}(1)$ such that it does not meet any of these points, i.e that $Supp H \cap F = \emptyset.$

I was told that this is really tautologous, and I believe it is, but I am afraid I don't see it. I have seen arguments of the form previously, but never felt completely comfortable with them and thus I would be interested to see a careful proof (or as careful as you have the energy to give) of doing this.

In the comments, it seems as if the statement I am making here is not true. Basically, I am interested in this just to get a detailed answer for the previous question, so feel free to reinterpret the question as long as the previous question gets a detailed answer.

  • $\begingroup$ This fails if $A$ is a finite field. You need to take a hypersurface. $\endgroup$ – Cantlog May 6 '14 at 21:53
  • $\begingroup$ @Cantlog OK - I posted this in reference to math.stackexchange.com/questions/781382/… where I read it as one could find such a hyperplane. Maybe I interpreted the answer incorrectly. But this question is mostly to clear up the details on that question, so feel free to modify it so that the previous question gets a more detailed answer. $\endgroup$ – user101036 May 6 '14 at 22:25
  • $\begingroup$ In the post you link to, I read the answer too quickly, sorry. For any $A$, you can use Avoidance Lemma for homogeneous ideals to find such a hypersurface. $\endgroup$ – Cantlog May 7 '14 at 6:58
  • $\begingroup$ @Cantlog I am not sure I understood correctly: If we consider $\mathcal{O}(1)$ we want to find an element $H$ that avoids all these associated points. Sections of $\mathcal{O}(1)$ corresponds to elements of degree 1. How does the prime avoidance lemma make sure that we find an element of degree 1? (and what is the ideal I am using it for? you are welcome to post this as an answer if you want!9 $\endgroup$ – user101036 May 7 '14 at 11:30
  • $\begingroup$ @Tedar: Dear Tedar, I have to confess that when thinking about your linked question, I was thinking about the case when the base is a field, rather than an arbitrary ring $A$, which is slightly more technical. Regards, $\endgroup$ – Matt E May 9 '14 at 2:24

Embed $X$ into a projective scheme $\mathrm{Proj}(B)$ where $B$ is a homogeneous $A$-algebra. Let $\mathfrak p_1, \dots, \mathfrak p_n$ be the homogeneous prime ideals corresponding to the fintely many points you want to avoid.

As $B_+$ (the irrelevant ideal) is not contained in any $\mathfrak p_i$, the homogeneous prime avoidance lemma says that there exists a homogeneous element $f\in B$, of some degree $d$, such that $f\notin \cup_i \mathfrak p_i$. Then the hypersurface of degree $d$ defined by $f$ avoids the given points.

As said in the comment, in general it is not possible to find such an $f$ of degree $1$. Indeed, if $A$ is a finite field, and $X$ is a projective space over $A$, there is no hyperplane avoinding the (finite) set of the rational points of $X$. If $A$ contains an infinite field $k$, then we can view $B_1$ (homogeneous elements of degree $1$) and the $\mathfrak p_i$ as vector spaces over $k$, and of course there will then exists an $f\in B_1$ not in any $\mathfrak p_i$, thus a hyperplane avoinding the given points.

  • $\begingroup$ @Cantlog: Ah, so if I I understood correctly, the suggestion given in the other question was not correct? I understand the answer you give fine, thanks! $\endgroup$ – user101036 May 8 '14 at 12:58
  • $\begingroup$ @Tedar: Dear Tedar, cant_log is correct that over a finite field, or other particularly finite situations, you may not be able to find a hyperplane. It is standard in these situations to do as cant_log does and look for a hypersurface instead. As a general remark, I wouldn't focus on the case of finite fields (where things like Bertini and related issues can be a little delicate) if I was trying to build up geometric intuition. Regards, $\endgroup$ – Matt E May 9 '14 at 2:10

As noted in cant_log's comment and answer, the statement is not true for all $A$, although a modified version is. (One has to replace $\mathcal O(1)$ by $\mathcal O(d)$ for an appropriate choice of $d$.)

Here is a proof when $k$ is an infinite field.

Let $X$ be a closed subset of $\mathbb P^n$, and let $X_i$ ($i = 1,\ldots,n$) denote the finite collection of irreducible and embedded components of $X$.

Let $(\mathbb P^n)^*$ denote the dual projective space, parameterizing hyperplanes in $\mathbb P^n$. Let $Z_i$ denote the collection of hyperplanes which contain $X_i$. Since $X_i$ is non-empty, this is a proper closed subset of $(\mathbb P^n)^*$, hence its complement $U_i$ is a non-empty open subset. The intersection $U$ of all the $U_i$ is thus also a non-empty open subset.

If $k$ is infinite, we may then find a $k$-point of $U$, and hence find a hyperplane which does not contain any of the $X_i$, as required.

If $k$ is finite, the problem is that $U$ may not contain any $k$-point. (E.g. $X$ might be the union of all the rational hyper lanes!) It will contain a $k'$-point for some finite extension $k'$ of $k$, and if $\ell$ is the equation (over $k'$) of the corresponding hyperplane, then the product of all the conjugates (by elements of Gal$(k'/k)$) of $\ell$ will be a higher degree hypersurface which does not contain any of the components of $X$.

For general $A$ you have to a little more careful with this geometric approach, since after all if Spec $A$ is not irreducible, then neither $\mathbb P^n$ nor $(\mathbb P^n)^*$ will be irreducible either.

One could cut down to the irreducible components of Spec $A$ (after all, the image of each component of $X$ lies (at least) one of the components of Spec $A$), and then, assuming $A$ is a domain and working first over the generic point of $A$ (where the case of a field applies) one could proceed by Noetherian induction on $A$ (essentially, induction on dimension) to prove the result.

I like this geometric way of thinking, but in terms of writing out the details, its probably simpler at this point to just use the algebraic argument suggested by cant_log.


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.