Morphism between projective schemes induced by surjection of graded rings












6












$begingroup$


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?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$

















    6












    $begingroup$


    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?










    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$















      6












      6








      6


      5



      $begingroup$


      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?










      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      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






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Apr 21 '12 at 21:02









      onlyonly

      1,7711024




      1,7711024






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2












          $begingroup$

          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            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



















          0












          $begingroup$

          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













            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
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            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









            2












            $begingroup$

            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.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              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
















            2












            $begingroup$

            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.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              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














            2












            2








            2





            $begingroup$

            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.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            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.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            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


















            • $begingroup$
              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











            0












            $begingroup$

            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.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$


















              0












              $begingroup$

              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.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$
















                0












                0








                0





                $begingroup$

                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.






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$



                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.







                share|cite|improve this answer














                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited Jan 15 at 2:40

























                answered Jan 15 at 2:24









                BerberBerber

                909




                909






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    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.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    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





















































                    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







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Human spaceflight

                    Can not write log (Is /dev/pts mounted?) - openpty in Ubuntu-on-Windows?

                    張江高科駅