Morphism between projective schemes induced by surjection of graded rings
$begingroup$
Ravi Vakil 9.2.B is "Suppose that $S rightarrow R$ is a surjection of graded rings. Show that the induced morphism $text{Proj }R rightarrow text{Proj }S$ is a closed embedding."
I don't even see how to prove that the morphism is affine. The only ways I can think of to do this are to either classify the affine subspaces of Proj S, or to prove that when closed morphisms are glued, one gets a closed morphism.
Are either of those possible, and how can this problem be done?
algebraic-geometry
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Ravi Vakil 9.2.B is "Suppose that $S rightarrow R$ is a surjection of graded rings. Show that the induced morphism $text{Proj }R rightarrow text{Proj }S$ is a closed embedding."
I don't even see how to prove that the morphism is affine. The only ways I can think of to do this are to either classify the affine subspaces of Proj S, or to prove that when closed morphisms are glued, one gets a closed morphism.
Are either of those possible, and how can this problem be done?
algebraic-geometry
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Ravi Vakil 9.2.B is "Suppose that $S rightarrow R$ is a surjection of graded rings. Show that the induced morphism $text{Proj }R rightarrow text{Proj }S$ is a closed embedding."
I don't even see how to prove that the morphism is affine. The only ways I can think of to do this are to either classify the affine subspaces of Proj S, or to prove that when closed morphisms are glued, one gets a closed morphism.
Are either of those possible, and how can this problem be done?
algebraic-geometry
$endgroup$
Ravi Vakil 9.2.B is "Suppose that $S rightarrow R$ is a surjection of graded rings. Show that the induced morphism $text{Proj }R rightarrow text{Proj }S$ is a closed embedding."
I don't even see how to prove that the morphism is affine. The only ways I can think of to do this are to either classify the affine subspaces of Proj S, or to prove that when closed morphisms are glued, one gets a closed morphism.
Are either of those possible, and how can this problem be done?
algebraic-geometry
algebraic-geometry
asked Apr 21 '12 at 21:02
onlyonly
1,7711024
1,7711024
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I think a good strategy could be to verify the statement locally, and then verify that the glueing is successful, as you said. Let us call $phi:Sto R$ your surjective graded morphism, and $phi^ast:textrm{Proj},,Rto textrm{Proj},,S$ the corresponding morphism. Note that $$textrm{Proj},,R=bigcup_{tin S_1}D_+(phi(t))$$
because $S_+$ (the irrelevant ideal of $S$) is generated by $S_1$ (as an ideal), so $phi(S_+)R$ is generated by $phi(S_1)$. For any $tin S_1$ you have a surjective morphism
$S_{(t)}to R_{phi(t)}$ (sending $x/t^nmapsto phi(x)/phi(t)^n$, for any $xin S$), which corresponds to the canonical closed immersion of affine schemes $phi^ast_t:D_+(phi(t))hookrightarrow D_+(t)$. It remains to glue the $phi^ast_t$'s.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Hmmm, is it true that gluing together closed morphisms always gives a closed morphism?
$endgroup$
– only
Apr 21 '12 at 22:00
$begingroup$
Oh, I think I can prove it works if there are a finite number of closed morphisms, just by gluing the images and then using finite union of closed subschemes are closed. I don't see how to do it here in general though, because I need to glue together infinitely many...
$endgroup$
– only
Apr 21 '12 at 22:07
$begingroup$
There is no problem in the infinite case too. If you have an arbitrary open covering $(X_t)$ of a scheme $X$ and a closed subscheme $U_tsubset X_t$ for every $t$, such that $U_scap X_t$ and $U_tcap X_s$ are the same closed subscheme of $U_tcap U_s$, then you have a unique closed subscheme $Usubset X$ s.t. $Ucap X_t=U_t$ for any $t$. You may take this property as a synonymous of having a closed immersion. Apply it to $X=textrm{Proj},,S$ and $X_t=D_+(t)$, $U_t=D_+(phi(t))$.
$endgroup$
– Brenin
Apr 21 '12 at 22:29
$begingroup$
Note that for every $t,sin S_1$, the morphisms of rings $phi_t$ and $phi_s$ coincide on $S_{(ts)}$, the localization corresponding to $D_+(t)cap D_+(s)$. So the condition in the assumption is satisfied.
$endgroup$
– Brenin
Apr 21 '12 at 22:31
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Almost 7 years late! Here is my try. Hallo Thorsten!
I call our maps $f colon operatorname{Proj} B to operatorname{Proj} A$ and $varphi colon A to B$. Surjectivity implies that we actually have a well-defined map $operatorname{Proj} B to operatorname{Proj} A$ and a morphism of schemes in this way.
Being a closed immersion is affine-local on the target. Therefore we can consider some cover of open affines $bigcup_{j in J} V_j = operatorname{Proj} A$ and then check that for each $j in J$ we have a closed immersion $f mid_{f^{-1}(V_j)} colon f^{-1}(V_j) hookrightarrow V_j$. This is described in Vakil's notes as an exercise.
We have that the collection over all homogeneous $g in A$ of $D(g) = {,p in operatorname{Proj} A mid g notin p ,}$ cover $operatorname{Proj} A$. As $varphi$ is surjective, we have $f^{-1} (D(g)) = D(varphi(g))$.
We now have
begin{align*}
f mid_{D(varphi(g))} colon D(varphi(g)) & hookrightarrow D(g) \
p & mapsto varphi^{-1} (p) , .
end{align*}
These sets are all open affines! For any graded ring $R$, we have for any homogeneous $h in R$ the identification $D(h) = operatorname{Spec}(R_h)_0 = operatorname{Spec}{, frac{x}{h^n} mid n in mathbb N, , deg x = deg h cdot n ,}$. (Sometimes, $(R_h)_0$ is confusingly written as $R_{(h)}$.) Our map can then be seen as
begin{align*}
f mid_{operatorname{Spec} (B_{varphi(g)})_0} colon operatorname{Spec} (B_{varphi(g)})_0 & hookrightarrow operatorname{Spec} (A_g)_0 \
p & mapsto varphi^{-1} (p) ; ,
end{align*}
which corresponds to the surjective ring homomorphism
begin{align*}
varphi (D(g)) colon (A_g)_0 & to (B_{varphi(g)})_0 \
frac{x}{g^n} & mapsto frac{varphi(x)}{varphi(g)^n} ; ,
end{align*}
which means that $f mid_{f^{-1}(D(g))} colon f^{-1}(D(g)) hookrightarrow D(g)$ is a closed immersion, concluding that $f$ is a closed immersion.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f134964%2fmorphism-between-projective-schemes-induced-by-surjection-of-graded-rings%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I think a good strategy could be to verify the statement locally, and then verify that the glueing is successful, as you said. Let us call $phi:Sto R$ your surjective graded morphism, and $phi^ast:textrm{Proj},,Rto textrm{Proj},,S$ the corresponding morphism. Note that $$textrm{Proj},,R=bigcup_{tin S_1}D_+(phi(t))$$
because $S_+$ (the irrelevant ideal of $S$) is generated by $S_1$ (as an ideal), so $phi(S_+)R$ is generated by $phi(S_1)$. For any $tin S_1$ you have a surjective morphism
$S_{(t)}to R_{phi(t)}$ (sending $x/t^nmapsto phi(x)/phi(t)^n$, for any $xin S$), which corresponds to the canonical closed immersion of affine schemes $phi^ast_t:D_+(phi(t))hookrightarrow D_+(t)$. It remains to glue the $phi^ast_t$'s.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Hmmm, is it true that gluing together closed morphisms always gives a closed morphism?
$endgroup$
– only
Apr 21 '12 at 22:00
$begingroup$
Oh, I think I can prove it works if there are a finite number of closed morphisms, just by gluing the images and then using finite union of closed subschemes are closed. I don't see how to do it here in general though, because I need to glue together infinitely many...
$endgroup$
– only
Apr 21 '12 at 22:07
$begingroup$
There is no problem in the infinite case too. If you have an arbitrary open covering $(X_t)$ of a scheme $X$ and a closed subscheme $U_tsubset X_t$ for every $t$, such that $U_scap X_t$ and $U_tcap X_s$ are the same closed subscheme of $U_tcap U_s$, then you have a unique closed subscheme $Usubset X$ s.t. $Ucap X_t=U_t$ for any $t$. You may take this property as a synonymous of having a closed immersion. Apply it to $X=textrm{Proj},,S$ and $X_t=D_+(t)$, $U_t=D_+(phi(t))$.
$endgroup$
– Brenin
Apr 21 '12 at 22:29
$begingroup$
Note that for every $t,sin S_1$, the morphisms of rings $phi_t$ and $phi_s$ coincide on $S_{(ts)}$, the localization corresponding to $D_+(t)cap D_+(s)$. So the condition in the assumption is satisfied.
$endgroup$
– Brenin
Apr 21 '12 at 22:31
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think a good strategy could be to verify the statement locally, and then verify that the glueing is successful, as you said. Let us call $phi:Sto R$ your surjective graded morphism, and $phi^ast:textrm{Proj},,Rto textrm{Proj},,S$ the corresponding morphism. Note that $$textrm{Proj},,R=bigcup_{tin S_1}D_+(phi(t))$$
because $S_+$ (the irrelevant ideal of $S$) is generated by $S_1$ (as an ideal), so $phi(S_+)R$ is generated by $phi(S_1)$. For any $tin S_1$ you have a surjective morphism
$S_{(t)}to R_{phi(t)}$ (sending $x/t^nmapsto phi(x)/phi(t)^n$, for any $xin S$), which corresponds to the canonical closed immersion of affine schemes $phi^ast_t:D_+(phi(t))hookrightarrow D_+(t)$. It remains to glue the $phi^ast_t$'s.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Hmmm, is it true that gluing together closed morphisms always gives a closed morphism?
$endgroup$
– only
Apr 21 '12 at 22:00
$begingroup$
Oh, I think I can prove it works if there are a finite number of closed morphisms, just by gluing the images and then using finite union of closed subschemes are closed. I don't see how to do it here in general though, because I need to glue together infinitely many...
$endgroup$
– only
Apr 21 '12 at 22:07
$begingroup$
There is no problem in the infinite case too. If you have an arbitrary open covering $(X_t)$ of a scheme $X$ and a closed subscheme $U_tsubset X_t$ for every $t$, such that $U_scap X_t$ and $U_tcap X_s$ are the same closed subscheme of $U_tcap U_s$, then you have a unique closed subscheme $Usubset X$ s.t. $Ucap X_t=U_t$ for any $t$. You may take this property as a synonymous of having a closed immersion. Apply it to $X=textrm{Proj},,S$ and $X_t=D_+(t)$, $U_t=D_+(phi(t))$.
$endgroup$
– Brenin
Apr 21 '12 at 22:29
$begingroup$
Note that for every $t,sin S_1$, the morphisms of rings $phi_t$ and $phi_s$ coincide on $S_{(ts)}$, the localization corresponding to $D_+(t)cap D_+(s)$. So the condition in the assumption is satisfied.
$endgroup$
– Brenin
Apr 21 '12 at 22:31
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think a good strategy could be to verify the statement locally, and then verify that the glueing is successful, as you said. Let us call $phi:Sto R$ your surjective graded morphism, and $phi^ast:textrm{Proj},,Rto textrm{Proj},,S$ the corresponding morphism. Note that $$textrm{Proj},,R=bigcup_{tin S_1}D_+(phi(t))$$
because $S_+$ (the irrelevant ideal of $S$) is generated by $S_1$ (as an ideal), so $phi(S_+)R$ is generated by $phi(S_1)$. For any $tin S_1$ you have a surjective morphism
$S_{(t)}to R_{phi(t)}$ (sending $x/t^nmapsto phi(x)/phi(t)^n$, for any $xin S$), which corresponds to the canonical closed immersion of affine schemes $phi^ast_t:D_+(phi(t))hookrightarrow D_+(t)$. It remains to glue the $phi^ast_t$'s.
$endgroup$
I think a good strategy could be to verify the statement locally, and then verify that the glueing is successful, as you said. Let us call $phi:Sto R$ your surjective graded morphism, and $phi^ast:textrm{Proj},,Rto textrm{Proj},,S$ the corresponding morphism. Note that $$textrm{Proj},,R=bigcup_{tin S_1}D_+(phi(t))$$
because $S_+$ (the irrelevant ideal of $S$) is generated by $S_1$ (as an ideal), so $phi(S_+)R$ is generated by $phi(S_1)$. For any $tin S_1$ you have a surjective morphism
$S_{(t)}to R_{phi(t)}$ (sending $x/t^nmapsto phi(x)/phi(t)^n$, for any $xin S$), which corresponds to the canonical closed immersion of affine schemes $phi^ast_t:D_+(phi(t))hookrightarrow D_+(t)$. It remains to glue the $phi^ast_t$'s.
answered Apr 21 '12 at 21:55
BreninBrenin
9,10331645
9,10331645
$begingroup$
Hmmm, is it true that gluing together closed morphisms always gives a closed morphism?
$endgroup$
– only
Apr 21 '12 at 22:00
$begingroup$
Oh, I think I can prove it works if there are a finite number of closed morphisms, just by gluing the images and then using finite union of closed subschemes are closed. I don't see how to do it here in general though, because I need to glue together infinitely many...
$endgroup$
– only
Apr 21 '12 at 22:07
$begingroup$
There is no problem in the infinite case too. If you have an arbitrary open covering $(X_t)$ of a scheme $X$ and a closed subscheme $U_tsubset X_t$ for every $t$, such that $U_scap X_t$ and $U_tcap X_s$ are the same closed subscheme of $U_tcap U_s$, then you have a unique closed subscheme $Usubset X$ s.t. $Ucap X_t=U_t$ for any $t$. You may take this property as a synonymous of having a closed immersion. Apply it to $X=textrm{Proj},,S$ and $X_t=D_+(t)$, $U_t=D_+(phi(t))$.
$endgroup$
– Brenin
Apr 21 '12 at 22:29
$begingroup$
Note that for every $t,sin S_1$, the morphisms of rings $phi_t$ and $phi_s$ coincide on $S_{(ts)}$, the localization corresponding to $D_+(t)cap D_+(s)$. So the condition in the assumption is satisfied.
$endgroup$
– Brenin
Apr 21 '12 at 22:31
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Hmmm, is it true that gluing together closed morphisms always gives a closed morphism?
$endgroup$
– only
Apr 21 '12 at 22:00
$begingroup$
Oh, I think I can prove it works if there are a finite number of closed morphisms, just by gluing the images and then using finite union of closed subschemes are closed. I don't see how to do it here in general though, because I need to glue together infinitely many...
$endgroup$
– only
Apr 21 '12 at 22:07
$begingroup$
There is no problem in the infinite case too. If you have an arbitrary open covering $(X_t)$ of a scheme $X$ and a closed subscheme $U_tsubset X_t$ for every $t$, such that $U_scap X_t$ and $U_tcap X_s$ are the same closed subscheme of $U_tcap U_s$, then you have a unique closed subscheme $Usubset X$ s.t. $Ucap X_t=U_t$ for any $t$. You may take this property as a synonymous of having a closed immersion. Apply it to $X=textrm{Proj},,S$ and $X_t=D_+(t)$, $U_t=D_+(phi(t))$.
$endgroup$
– Brenin
Apr 21 '12 at 22:29
$begingroup$
Note that for every $t,sin S_1$, the morphisms of rings $phi_t$ and $phi_s$ coincide on $S_{(ts)}$, the localization corresponding to $D_+(t)cap D_+(s)$. So the condition in the assumption is satisfied.
$endgroup$
– Brenin
Apr 21 '12 at 22:31
$begingroup$
Hmmm, is it true that gluing together closed morphisms always gives a closed morphism?
$endgroup$
– only
Apr 21 '12 at 22:00
$begingroup$
Hmmm, is it true that gluing together closed morphisms always gives a closed morphism?
$endgroup$
– only
Apr 21 '12 at 22:00
$begingroup$
Oh, I think I can prove it works if there are a finite number of closed morphisms, just by gluing the images and then using finite union of closed subschemes are closed. I don't see how to do it here in general though, because I need to glue together infinitely many...
$endgroup$
– only
Apr 21 '12 at 22:07
$begingroup$
Oh, I think I can prove it works if there are a finite number of closed morphisms, just by gluing the images and then using finite union of closed subschemes are closed. I don't see how to do it here in general though, because I need to glue together infinitely many...
$endgroup$
– only
Apr 21 '12 at 22:07
$begingroup$
There is no problem in the infinite case too. If you have an arbitrary open covering $(X_t)$ of a scheme $X$ and a closed subscheme $U_tsubset X_t$ for every $t$, such that $U_scap X_t$ and $U_tcap X_s$ are the same closed subscheme of $U_tcap U_s$, then you have a unique closed subscheme $Usubset X$ s.t. $Ucap X_t=U_t$ for any $t$. You may take this property as a synonymous of having a closed immersion. Apply it to $X=textrm{Proj},,S$ and $X_t=D_+(t)$, $U_t=D_+(phi(t))$.
$endgroup$
– Brenin
Apr 21 '12 at 22:29
$begingroup$
There is no problem in the infinite case too. If you have an arbitrary open covering $(X_t)$ of a scheme $X$ and a closed subscheme $U_tsubset X_t$ for every $t$, such that $U_scap X_t$ and $U_tcap X_s$ are the same closed subscheme of $U_tcap U_s$, then you have a unique closed subscheme $Usubset X$ s.t. $Ucap X_t=U_t$ for any $t$. You may take this property as a synonymous of having a closed immersion. Apply it to $X=textrm{Proj},,S$ and $X_t=D_+(t)$, $U_t=D_+(phi(t))$.
$endgroup$
– Brenin
Apr 21 '12 at 22:29
$begingroup$
Note that for every $t,sin S_1$, the morphisms of rings $phi_t$ and $phi_s$ coincide on $S_{(ts)}$, the localization corresponding to $D_+(t)cap D_+(s)$. So the condition in the assumption is satisfied.
$endgroup$
– Brenin
Apr 21 '12 at 22:31
$begingroup$
Note that for every $t,sin S_1$, the morphisms of rings $phi_t$ and $phi_s$ coincide on $S_{(ts)}$, the localization corresponding to $D_+(t)cap D_+(s)$. So the condition in the assumption is satisfied.
$endgroup$
– Brenin
Apr 21 '12 at 22:31
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Almost 7 years late! Here is my try. Hallo Thorsten!
I call our maps $f colon operatorname{Proj} B to operatorname{Proj} A$ and $varphi colon A to B$. Surjectivity implies that we actually have a well-defined map $operatorname{Proj} B to operatorname{Proj} A$ and a morphism of schemes in this way.
Being a closed immersion is affine-local on the target. Therefore we can consider some cover of open affines $bigcup_{j in J} V_j = operatorname{Proj} A$ and then check that for each $j in J$ we have a closed immersion $f mid_{f^{-1}(V_j)} colon f^{-1}(V_j) hookrightarrow V_j$. This is described in Vakil's notes as an exercise.
We have that the collection over all homogeneous $g in A$ of $D(g) = {,p in operatorname{Proj} A mid g notin p ,}$ cover $operatorname{Proj} A$. As $varphi$ is surjective, we have $f^{-1} (D(g)) = D(varphi(g))$.
We now have
begin{align*}
f mid_{D(varphi(g))} colon D(varphi(g)) & hookrightarrow D(g) \
p & mapsto varphi^{-1} (p) , .
end{align*}
These sets are all open affines! For any graded ring $R$, we have for any homogeneous $h in R$ the identification $D(h) = operatorname{Spec}(R_h)_0 = operatorname{Spec}{, frac{x}{h^n} mid n in mathbb N, , deg x = deg h cdot n ,}$. (Sometimes, $(R_h)_0$ is confusingly written as $R_{(h)}$.) Our map can then be seen as
begin{align*}
f mid_{operatorname{Spec} (B_{varphi(g)})_0} colon operatorname{Spec} (B_{varphi(g)})_0 & hookrightarrow operatorname{Spec} (A_g)_0 \
p & mapsto varphi^{-1} (p) ; ,
end{align*}
which corresponds to the surjective ring homomorphism
begin{align*}
varphi (D(g)) colon (A_g)_0 & to (B_{varphi(g)})_0 \
frac{x}{g^n} & mapsto frac{varphi(x)}{varphi(g)^n} ; ,
end{align*}
which means that $f mid_{f^{-1}(D(g))} colon f^{-1}(D(g)) hookrightarrow D(g)$ is a closed immersion, concluding that $f$ is a closed immersion.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Almost 7 years late! Here is my try. Hallo Thorsten!
I call our maps $f colon operatorname{Proj} B to operatorname{Proj} A$ and $varphi colon A to B$. Surjectivity implies that we actually have a well-defined map $operatorname{Proj} B to operatorname{Proj} A$ and a morphism of schemes in this way.
Being a closed immersion is affine-local on the target. Therefore we can consider some cover of open affines $bigcup_{j in J} V_j = operatorname{Proj} A$ and then check that for each $j in J$ we have a closed immersion $f mid_{f^{-1}(V_j)} colon f^{-1}(V_j) hookrightarrow V_j$. This is described in Vakil's notes as an exercise.
We have that the collection over all homogeneous $g in A$ of $D(g) = {,p in operatorname{Proj} A mid g notin p ,}$ cover $operatorname{Proj} A$. As $varphi$ is surjective, we have $f^{-1} (D(g)) = D(varphi(g))$.
We now have
begin{align*}
f mid_{D(varphi(g))} colon D(varphi(g)) & hookrightarrow D(g) \
p & mapsto varphi^{-1} (p) , .
end{align*}
These sets are all open affines! For any graded ring $R$, we have for any homogeneous $h in R$ the identification $D(h) = operatorname{Spec}(R_h)_0 = operatorname{Spec}{, frac{x}{h^n} mid n in mathbb N, , deg x = deg h cdot n ,}$. (Sometimes, $(R_h)_0$ is confusingly written as $R_{(h)}$.) Our map can then be seen as
begin{align*}
f mid_{operatorname{Spec} (B_{varphi(g)})_0} colon operatorname{Spec} (B_{varphi(g)})_0 & hookrightarrow operatorname{Spec} (A_g)_0 \
p & mapsto varphi^{-1} (p) ; ,
end{align*}
which corresponds to the surjective ring homomorphism
begin{align*}
varphi (D(g)) colon (A_g)_0 & to (B_{varphi(g)})_0 \
frac{x}{g^n} & mapsto frac{varphi(x)}{varphi(g)^n} ; ,
end{align*}
which means that $f mid_{f^{-1}(D(g))} colon f^{-1}(D(g)) hookrightarrow D(g)$ is a closed immersion, concluding that $f$ is a closed immersion.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Almost 7 years late! Here is my try. Hallo Thorsten!
I call our maps $f colon operatorname{Proj} B to operatorname{Proj} A$ and $varphi colon A to B$. Surjectivity implies that we actually have a well-defined map $operatorname{Proj} B to operatorname{Proj} A$ and a morphism of schemes in this way.
Being a closed immersion is affine-local on the target. Therefore we can consider some cover of open affines $bigcup_{j in J} V_j = operatorname{Proj} A$ and then check that for each $j in J$ we have a closed immersion $f mid_{f^{-1}(V_j)} colon f^{-1}(V_j) hookrightarrow V_j$. This is described in Vakil's notes as an exercise.
We have that the collection over all homogeneous $g in A$ of $D(g) = {,p in operatorname{Proj} A mid g notin p ,}$ cover $operatorname{Proj} A$. As $varphi$ is surjective, we have $f^{-1} (D(g)) = D(varphi(g))$.
We now have
begin{align*}
f mid_{D(varphi(g))} colon D(varphi(g)) & hookrightarrow D(g) \
p & mapsto varphi^{-1} (p) , .
end{align*}
These sets are all open affines! For any graded ring $R$, we have for any homogeneous $h in R$ the identification $D(h) = operatorname{Spec}(R_h)_0 = operatorname{Spec}{, frac{x}{h^n} mid n in mathbb N, , deg x = deg h cdot n ,}$. (Sometimes, $(R_h)_0$ is confusingly written as $R_{(h)}$.) Our map can then be seen as
begin{align*}
f mid_{operatorname{Spec} (B_{varphi(g)})_0} colon operatorname{Spec} (B_{varphi(g)})_0 & hookrightarrow operatorname{Spec} (A_g)_0 \
p & mapsto varphi^{-1} (p) ; ,
end{align*}
which corresponds to the surjective ring homomorphism
begin{align*}
varphi (D(g)) colon (A_g)_0 & to (B_{varphi(g)})_0 \
frac{x}{g^n} & mapsto frac{varphi(x)}{varphi(g)^n} ; ,
end{align*}
which means that $f mid_{f^{-1}(D(g))} colon f^{-1}(D(g)) hookrightarrow D(g)$ is a closed immersion, concluding that $f$ is a closed immersion.
$endgroup$
Almost 7 years late! Here is my try. Hallo Thorsten!
I call our maps $f colon operatorname{Proj} B to operatorname{Proj} A$ and $varphi colon A to B$. Surjectivity implies that we actually have a well-defined map $operatorname{Proj} B to operatorname{Proj} A$ and a morphism of schemes in this way.
Being a closed immersion is affine-local on the target. Therefore we can consider some cover of open affines $bigcup_{j in J} V_j = operatorname{Proj} A$ and then check that for each $j in J$ we have a closed immersion $f mid_{f^{-1}(V_j)} colon f^{-1}(V_j) hookrightarrow V_j$. This is described in Vakil's notes as an exercise.
We have that the collection over all homogeneous $g in A$ of $D(g) = {,p in operatorname{Proj} A mid g notin p ,}$ cover $operatorname{Proj} A$. As $varphi$ is surjective, we have $f^{-1} (D(g)) = D(varphi(g))$.
We now have
begin{align*}
f mid_{D(varphi(g))} colon D(varphi(g)) & hookrightarrow D(g) \
p & mapsto varphi^{-1} (p) , .
end{align*}
These sets are all open affines! For any graded ring $R$, we have for any homogeneous $h in R$ the identification $D(h) = operatorname{Spec}(R_h)_0 = operatorname{Spec}{, frac{x}{h^n} mid n in mathbb N, , deg x = deg h cdot n ,}$. (Sometimes, $(R_h)_0$ is confusingly written as $R_{(h)}$.) Our map can then be seen as
begin{align*}
f mid_{operatorname{Spec} (B_{varphi(g)})_0} colon operatorname{Spec} (B_{varphi(g)})_0 & hookrightarrow operatorname{Spec} (A_g)_0 \
p & mapsto varphi^{-1} (p) ; ,
end{align*}
which corresponds to the surjective ring homomorphism
begin{align*}
varphi (D(g)) colon (A_g)_0 & to (B_{varphi(g)})_0 \
frac{x}{g^n} & mapsto frac{varphi(x)}{varphi(g)^n} ; ,
end{align*}
which means that $f mid_{f^{-1}(D(g))} colon f^{-1}(D(g)) hookrightarrow D(g)$ is a closed immersion, concluding that $f$ is a closed immersion.
edited Jan 15 at 2:40
answered Jan 15 at 2:24
BerberBerber
909
909
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f134964%2fmorphism-between-projective-schemes-induced-by-surjection-of-graded-rings%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown