How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
Classical Affine Varieties: Coordinate Rings, Morphisms, and Rational Maps
1 · Prerequisites
- Algebraic Extensions, Extension Degree, and Finite Fields
- Binary Operations, Monoids, Groups and Subgroups
- Chain Conditions, Semisimple Modules and the Wedderburn–Artin Theorem
- Construction of the Natural Numbers
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Cauchy Sequences
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Dedekind Cuts
- Cosets, Index and Lagrange's Theorem
- Countability and Uncountability
- Determinants of Matrices over a Commutative Ring
- Divisibility, Euclidean Domains, Principal Ideal Domains and Unique Factorisation
- Eigenvalues, Eigenvectors and the Characteristic Polynomial
- Finite Counting, Factorials and Binomial Coefficients
- Foundations of the Real Numbers for Analysis
- Group Actions, Orbits, Stabilisers and Cayley's Theorem
- Group Homomorphisms and the Isomorphism Theorems
- Ideals, Quotient Rings and the Isomorphism Theorems for Rings
- Linear Independence, Bases and Dimension
- Modules, Submodules, Quotient Modules and the Isomorphism Theorems
- Noether Normalisation and Nullstellensatz
- Noetherian Rings and Hilbert Basis
- Normal Subgroups and Quotient Groups
- Order, Zorn's Lemma, and the Axiom of Choice
- Polynomial Rings, the Division Algorithm and Roots
- Prime Spectra and Radicals
- Relations, Functions, and Quotients
- Rings, Subrings, Integral Domains and Fields
- Roots, Rational Powers, and Classical Inequalities
- Simple Field Extensions and the Construction of the Complex Numbers
- Symmetric Groups, Cycle Decomposition and the Sign Homomorphism
- Tensor Products of Modules
- The Determinant of a Linear Operator, Cofactors and Cramer's Rule
- The Field of Fractions and Localisation
- The ZFC Axioms and the Basic Set Constructions
- Vector Spaces, Linear Subspaces, Span and Direct Sums
2 · Summary
This page develops the classical affine dictionary over an algebraically closed field. It distinguishes possibly empty algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties, proves the coordinate-ring and regular-function identifications, and constructs morphisms, germs and function fields. Principal-open localization is proved with zero divisors allowed. Rational maps are compared on nonempty opens, glued to their maximal affine-target domains, and composed under dominance. The field-embedding correspondence then gives birational equivalence, including integral varieties with compatible affine atlases. Nullstellensatz-dependent results explicitly assume Choice; finite irreducible decomposition also records the inherited Dependent Choice hypothesis.
3 · Logical flowchart
4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs
Classical affine algebraic sets, including the empty boundaries
Definition
Fix an algebraically closed field and . Write for the iterated polynomial ring of Polynomial rings in finitely many commuting indeterminates by iteration. Algebraic closure has the meaning of An algebraically closed field: every nonconstant polynomial has a root in the field. For any , define An affine algebraic set is any such subset, including the empty set. Here and when . With the abbreviations and , one has and : an empty list of equations imposes no condition, whereas . Evaluation, as in Evaluation and roots of a polynomial in a commutative target ring, is performed successively in the finitely many variables.
Sources
Source comparison: Milne, Algebraic Geometry, v6.10, §2a, pp. 36–37. Conventions here distinguish arbitrary affine algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties.
A classical zero locus depends only on the generated ideal and its radical
Statement
For , one has .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: An algebraically closed field , a nonnegative integer , and a subset .
Zero loci mean simultaneous vanishing (Classical affine algebraic sets, including the empty boundaries).
Elements of are finite sums (In a commutative ring, consists of finite sums , and ).
Membership in the radical means a positive power lies in the ideal (The radical of an ideal).
Proof
If , then every satisfies . Conversely , so vanishing on implies vanishing on . Thus .
Write . If and for , then , hence in the field . Thus . The reverse inclusion follows from .
Sources
Source comparison: Milne, Algebraic Geometry, v6.10, §2a p. 36; Theorem 2.16 preamble p. 42. Conventions here distinguish arbitrary affine algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties.
Classical affine zero loci form the Zariski closed sets
Statement
Affine zero loci are the closed sets of a topology on : arbitrary intersections and finite unions are zero loci. In particular . Every algebraic subset carries the induced topology, whose closed sets are .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: An algebraically closed field , a nonnegative integer , arbitrary equation sets in , and ideals in that ring.
The empty and full sets are zero loci (Classical affine algebraic sets, including the empty boundaries).
Replacing equations by their generated ideal does not change their zero locus (A classical zero locus depends only on the generated ideal and its radical).
The product ideal consists of finite sums of products (The sum and product of two-sided ideals).
Proof
For any indexed family , a tuple vanishes on exactly when it vanishes on every . Hence ; the empty intersection is .
If , every product of an element of with one of vanishes at , hence every element of does. If belongs to neither locus, there are with ; then , so . This proves both inclusions.
Replace arbitrary equation sets by generated ideals and iterate the two-set union identity. The zero-set identities for 0 and 1 supply the empty union and the full space. Intersecting these identities with verifies the induced closed-set axioms.
Sources
Source comparison: Milne, Algebraic Geometry, v6.10, Proposition 2.10, pp. 38–39. Conventions here distinguish arbitrary affine algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties.
The classical vanishing ideal
Definition
For any subset , define This is the vanishing ideal. Indeed , for , and for any polynomial . These verify Ideal criteria and intersections of ideals. Also , , implies and hence for every ; thus is radical. Vacuous quantification gives .
Sources
Source comparison: Milne, Algebraic Geometry, v6.10, §2e pp. 40–42. Conventions here distinguish arbitrary affine algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties.
Zero loci and vanishing ideals form a Galois connection
Statement
For and an ideal , iff . Both and reverse inclusion. Moreover in the Zariski topology, and .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: An algebraically closed field , a subset , and an ideal .
Zero loci use a universal condition on equations (Classical affine algebraic sets, including the empty boundaries).
Vanishing ideals use a universal condition on points (The classical vanishing ideal).
Every closed zero locus can be defined by an ideal (A classical zero locus depends only on the generated ideal and its radical).
Zero loci are exactly the Zariski closed sets (Classical affine zero loci form the Zariski closed sets).
Proof
says that for every and every , . Interchanging these two universal quantifiers says precisely . Enlarging imposes more conditions on ; enlarging imposes more equations on . This proves both reversals.
Every point of lies in . If a closed set contains , step 1.1 gives and therefore . Thus is the smallest closed set containing . Applying this to the already closed set gives the last identity.
Sources
Source comparison: Milne, Algebraic Geometry, v6.10, Proposition 2.10 pp. 38–39, Proposition 2.14 p. 41, and Remark 2.23 p. 44. Conventions here distinguish arbitrary affine algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties.
Classical affine algebraic sets correspond to radical ideals, and irreducible sets to prime ideals
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Choice, inherited from the Nullstellensatz route. For every ideal , . Together with for algebraic , these are inverse inclusion-reversing bijections between radical ideals and algebraic sets. Nonempty irreducible algebraic sets correspond precisely to proper prime ideals, and points to maximal ideals. The empty set corresponds to . For the same correspondence identifies radical ideals of with closed subsets of ; in particular .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: An algebraically closed field , AC, an ideal , and an affine algebraic set . In the relative assertion let be an ideal of .
Under AC and algebraic closure, (Strong Nullstellensatz: I(V(I)) equals the radical of I).
The zero-locus/ideal connection reverses inclusion and closes algebraic sets (Zero loci and vanishing ideals form a Galois connection).
Zero loci are closed under finite unions (Classical affine zero loci form the Zariski closed sets).
Prime ideals are proper and satisfy the product test (Prime ideals and maximal ideals in a commutative ring).
Every maximal ideal has a unique coordinate point (Over an algebraically closed field, every maximal ideal is an evaluation ideal).
Ideals of a quotient correspond to ideals containing its kernel (Correspondence theorem: ideals of correspond to ideals of containing ).
Taking radicals commutes with quotient correspondence (Radicals and quotient correspondence).
Proof
The ring is a finite-variable polynomial ring over algebraically closed , so the strong Nullstellensatz applies with the assumed AC and gives . The other composite is the identity on closed sets by F2. For radical the first composite is also the identity, proving the stated inverse bijections and their inclusion reversal.
If is nonempty irreducible and , then . Irreducibility forces one of these closed sets to be , hence or . Also because has a point. Thus is prime.
Conversely suppose is prime. Then is nonempty, since . If with proper closed subsets, choose and ; these exist by the injective reversing correspondence in step 1.1. The product vanishes on , contradicting primality. Thus is irreducible. For any prime , the elementary implication makes radical, so step 1.1 realizes it by such an .
For a point , evaluation onto has kernel . A proper ideal strictly containing this kernel would contain an with ; subtracting in the kernel puts a nonzero constant in that ideal, hence 1. Thus the kernel is maximal. Conversely F5 writes each maximal ideal as , whose locus is exactly . The unit ideal has empty locus, and the empty set has vanishing ideal .
Let be the quotient and . Its inverse image contains , so its zero locus lies in and equals . Polynomial vanishing upstairs gives . Passing to the quotient using F6 and F7 yields . This also proves the relative closed-set correspondence.
Sources
Source comparison: Milne, Algebraic Geometry, v6.10, 2.13–2.17, 2.20, 2.27–2.28 and §2i, pp. 41–49. Conventions here distinguish arbitrary affine algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties.
A classical affine variety
Definition
Over an algebraically closed field , a classical affine variety is a nonempty affine algebraic set which is irreducible in its Zariski topology: if with closed in , then or . The empty algebraic set is not a variety; a singleton, including , is irreducible. This convention reserves “algebraic set” for the possibly reducible or empty case.
Sources
Source comparison: Milne, Algebraic Geometry, v6.10, §2h p. 45. Conventions here distinguish arbitrary affine algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties.
Irreducibility is equivalent to the nonempty-open intersection criterion
Statement
For a nonempty topological space , irreducibility is equivalent to the intersection of every two nonempty open subsets being nonempty. Every nonempty open subspace of an irreducible space is itself irreducible and dense. This applies to the classical Zariski spaces.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A nonempty topological space . For the inheritance assertions assume irreducible and let be nonempty open.
Irreducibility excludes a union of two proper closed subsets (A classical affine variety).
Proof
Two disjoint nonempty opens give the proper closed cover . Conversely a proper closed cover gives disjoint nonempty opens . Taking complements proves both directions of the criterion.
If is nonempty open in irreducible , each nonempty open of meets by step 1.1. Thus no proper closed subset of contains , which says . If are nonempty opens of , they are opens of because is open, so they intersect. The criterion makes irreducible.
Sources
Source comparison: Milne, Algebraic Geometry, v6.10, §2h p. 45. Conventions here distinguish arbitrary affine algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties.
Every nonempty open of a classical affine variety is dense
Statement
Every nonempty open subset of an irreducible classical affine variety is dense. Every finite intersection of nonempty open subsets of is nonempty and dense; the intersection of the empty family is .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: An affine variety over algebraically closed , a nonempty open of , and a finite family of nonempty opens of .
Nonempty opens of an irreducible space are dense and irreducible, and two such opens meet (Irreducibility is equivalent to the nonempty-open intersection criterion).
Proof
The density assertion is F1 with the irreducible nonempty space . For a finite list , start with and set . If is nonempty open, F1 gives ; intersection preserves openness. Finite induction gives nonempty open.
F1 now makes dense. This includes , since is nonempty and its closure is itself.
Sources
Source comparison: Milne, Algebraic Geometry, v6.10, §2h p. 45. Conventions here distinguish arbitrary affine algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties.
The coordinate ring of a classical affine algebraic set
Definition
For any affine algebraic set , its coordinate ring is Write for the coordinate classes. The quotient operations and identity are those of The quotient ring with and For a two-sided ideal , the additive cosets form a ring with identity . The structure map sends to its constant class; all -algebras and maps are unital, with the zero algebra allowed. Thus , where . Since is radical by The classical vanishing ideal, is reduced: implies and hence , so . The finite coordinate classes generate it as a -algebra.
Sources
Source comparison: Milne, Algebraic Geometry, v6.10, §2i p. 48. Conventions here distinguish arbitrary affine algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties.
A classical affine variety has a domain coordinate ring, and conversely
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Choice, inherited from the Nullstellensatz route. For an affine algebraic set , is a classical affine variety if and only if is a nonzero integral domain.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: AC, an algebraically closed field , and an affine algebraic set .
Nonempty irreducible algebraic sets correspond to prime vanishing ideals (Classical affine algebraic sets correspond to radical ideals, and irreducible sets to prime ideals).
The coordinate ring is the quotient by the vanishing ideal (The coordinate ring of a classical affine algebraic set).
A quotient is a domain exactly when the ideal is prime ( is an integral domain if and only if is a prime ideal).
Proof
If is a variety, F1 makes prime. The polynomial ring is commutative, so F3 applied to and the quotient in F2 says is a nonzero domain.
If is a nonzero domain, F3 makes prime, and F1 makes nonempty irreducible. In particular the zero ring is excluded on both sides.
Sources
Source comparison: Milne, Algebraic Geometry, v6.10, Proposition 2.27 and §2i, pp. 45–48. Conventions here distinguish arbitrary affine algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties.
Polynomial functions on an affine algebraic set are its coordinate ring
Statement
Evaluation induces an isomorphism of -algebras from to the algebra of polynomial functions , including .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: An affine algebraic set over an algebraically closed field .
The coordinate ring is (The coordinate ring of a classical affine algebraic set).
Evaluation is a unital homomorphism determined by coordinates (Universal property of : a coefficient homomorphism and the image of determine a unique ring homomorphism).
A ring modulo the kernel maps isomorphically onto the image (First isomorphism theorem for rings: ).
Proof
Give all functions pointwise operations. Evaluating a polynomial at each point defines a unital -algebra homomorphism , by iterated polynomial evaluation, since sums and products evaluate to sums and products. Its image is exactly the polynomial functions. Its kernel consists exactly of the polynomials vanishing on every point, namely .
F3 gives by , and constants show it is an isomorphism over . When is empty there is one function, its function algebra is the zero ring, and ; the same quotient identification applies.
Sources
Source comparison: Milne, Algebraic Geometry, v6.10, §2i p. 48. Conventions here distinguish arbitrary affine algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties.
A principal open subset of a classical affine variety
Definition
For an affine algebraic set and , the principal open is Evaluation is independent of a polynomial representative by Polynomial functions on an affine algebraic set are its coordinate ring. The complement is the relatively closed zero locus of that representative. In particular and . The notation applies to reducible and empty algebraic sets as well as varieties.
Sources
Source comparison: Milne, Algebraic Geometry, v6.10, §2i p. 49. Conventions here distinguish arbitrary affine algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties.
Principal opens form a basis and multiply under intersection
Statement
The principal opens form an open basis on every affine algebraic set , and .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: An affine algebraic set over algebraically closed , elements , and an open .
A closed subset of X is given by simultaneous polynomial equations (Classical affine zero loci form the Zariski closed sets).
D(f) is the set where f is nonzero (A principal open subset of a classical affine variety).
Proof
For , in the field exactly when both factors are nonzero. This proves the intersection identity, including or and .
If is open, then exactly when some does not vanish at . Hence . Each member is open and contained in . This gives a principal neighbourhood of each point of , and the empty gives the empty union.
Sources
Source comparison: Milne, Algebraic Geometry, v6.10, Proposition 2.37, p. 49. Conventions here distinguish arbitrary affine algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties.
A regular function on an open subset of a classical affine variety
Definition
Let be open in an affine algebraic set and . A function is regular if for each there are an open neighbourhood of and with for every such that there. Write for these functions. The quotient need only hold locally; no single fraction on all of is required. On the empty open the unique empty function is regular. Constants are regular by .
Sources
Source comparison: Milne, Algebraic Geometry, v6.10, Definition 3.8, p. 61. Conventions here distinguish arbitrary affine algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties.
Classical regular functions satisfy locality and unique gluing
Statement
Regular functions on opens in an affine algebraic set form unital -algebras, have restriction homomorphisms, and glue uniquely from every compatible open cover. Regularity can be checked on an open cover.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: An open in an affine algebraic set over algebraically closed . For gluing, an open cover and regular functions agreeing on overlaps.
Regularity means having a quotient expression near each point (A regular function on an open subset of a classical affine variety).
Proof
Near a given point, intersect the neighbourhoods on which and with nowhere zero. Then , , and on this intersection; the denominators are nonzero there. Constants are . Pointwise ring laws therefore give a -algebra, including the zero function algebra on the empty open.
Restricting a quotient expression to its intersection with a smaller open preserves regularity. Pointwise sums, products and constants restrict to themselves, so restriction is a unital algebra homomorphism; iterated restrictions agree.
Given and regular with equal restrictions on every overlap, the union of their function graphs is a function : for a fixed point all available values coincide. On it equals , hence near each point it has the quotient expression of that section. Thus it is regular. A function with these restrictions must have that same value at every point, proving uniqueness. For the empty cover of the empty open its graph is empty.
Sources
Source comparison: Milne, Algebraic Geometry, v6.10, Proposition 3.9, p. 61. Conventions here distinguish arbitrary affine algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties.
Regular functions on a principal open are the principal localization
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Choice, inherited from the Nullstellensatz route. For every affine algebraic set , and , the map is an isomorphism of unital -algebras. If , then in the reduced ring , and both sides are zero rings.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: AC, an algebraically closed field , an affine algebraic set , , and .
Relative Nullstellensatz gives for every ideal of (Classical affine algebraic sets correspond to radical ideals, and irreducible sets to prime ideals).
Equality of polynomial functions on all of is equality in (Polynomial functions on an affine algebraic set are its coordinate ring).
Principal opens form a basis (Principal opens form a basis and multiply under intersection).
Regular sections have local quotient expressions (A regular function on an open subset of a classical affine variety).
Regular sections form algebras (Classical regular functions satisfy locality and unique gluing).
A map inverting the denominators extends uniquely to the localization (Universal property of localisation: maps that invert factor uniquely through ).
A fraction is zero when some allowed denominator annihilates its numerator (Equality, vanishing, and the kernel of the localisation map).
An ideal membership has a finite sum expression (In a commutative ring, consists of finite sums , and ).
Proof
Restriction is a unital algebra map. The function is regular on , so F6 extends restriction to the displayed map. If maps to zero, vanishes on ; hence vanishes everywhere on , since outside . F2 gives in , and F7 makes the fraction zero. This proves injectivity without cancellation in .
Fix . At each point take a local expression and refine its neighbourhood to by F3. The inclusion gives by F1. Thus for some . On , set and ; then and .
Consider the set of all pairs obtained in step 1.2; their opens cover and are contained in it. Thus vanishes on the simultaneous zero locus of the . By F1, . F8 supplies finitely many of these pairs and with , for some . No compactness theorem or simultaneous choice of neighbourhoods is needed.
For and each selected pair, if then ; if then both and are zero. Hence . Division by the nonzero scalar shows that maps to . This proves surjectivity.
If is empty, is the zero function on , hence zero in by F2. Localizing at 0 is the zero ring by F7; the empty domain has one function and its algebra is zero. If , the same construction gives global sections and . Together with injectivity and surjectivity this proves all cases.
Sources
Source comparison: Milne, Algebraic Geometry, v6.10, Lemma 3.10 and Proposition 3.11, pp. 61–62. Conventions here distinguish arbitrary affine algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties.
A classical affine algebraic set has a unique finite irredundant decomposition
Statement
Assume also Dependent Choice for the cited minimal-prime existence theorem. Assume the Axiom of Choice, inherited from the Nullstellensatz route. Every affine algebraic set has a finite irredundant decomposition into nonempty irreducible closed subsets, unique up to permutation. These are its maximal irreducible closed subsets. The empty set has the empty decomposition.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: AC and DC, an algebraically closed field , and an affine algebraic set .
A finite-variable polynomial ring over a Noetherian ring is Noetherian (If is Noetherian then is Noetherian for every ).
Finite generation of every ideal implies the Noetherian condition (A commutative ring is Noetherian exactly when every ideal is finitely generated, exactly when its ideals satisfy the ascending chain condition, and exactly when every nonempty set of ideals has a maximal member).
A radical ideal in a Noetherian ring is the intersection of finitely many minimal primes, with the empty intersection for the unit ideal (A radical ideal in a Noetherian ring is a finite intersection of minimal primes).
Prime ideals correspond to irreducible closed sets; radical ideals are recovered from their loci (Classical affine algebraic sets correspond to radical ideals, and irreducible sets to prime ideals).
Finite unions are algebraic (Classical affine zero loci form the Zariski closed sets).
Proof
Every ideal of the field is either 0 or : a nonzero member is invertible, putting 1 in the ideal. These ideals are generated by 0 and 1, respectively, so F2 makes Noetherian and F1 makes Noetherian, including . Apply F3 to the radical ideal , with its stipulated DC cost, to obtain its distinct minimal primes with .
Put . F4 makes each nonempty irreducible. A point outside every admits nonzero there; the finite product belongs to every and is nonzero at the point. Thus ; the reverse inclusion follows because every element of the intersection vanishes on each . So . For , the intersection is and the union empty. Distinct minimal primes are incomparable; F4 therefore makes the incomparable.
An irreducible nonempty closed set covered by finitely many closed sets must be contained in one: repeatedly split the cover as the first member and the union of the others; if is not contained in the first, irreducibility puts it in the remaining union. For a one-member cover this ends immediately; a zero-member cover cannot cover nonempty . Thus every irreducible closed subset of is contained in some , and incomparability makes the precisely the maximal ones. It also prevents removal of an from the cover.
If is another finite irredundant irreducible closed decomposition, step 3.1 puts each inside an and that inside some . Irredundancy forces (otherwise could be removed), so . Reversing the two covers shows their members coincide. After removal of duplicate indexing, this is uniqueness up to permutation.
Sources
Source comparison: Milne, Algebraic Geometry, v6.10, Propositions 2.27, 2.31 and Corollary 2.32, pp. 45–47. Conventions here distinguish arbitrary affine algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties.
A reduced finitely generated -algebra
Definition
A reduced finite-type -algebra is a commutative unital -algebra admitting a finite list such that every element is a polynomial in that list with coefficients from , and such that , , implies . With the terminology of The nilradical and reduced rings and Subalgebra generated by a subset, algebras of finite type, and module-finite algebras, equivalently finite type means admitting a surjection . The zero algebra is included. “Module-finite” instead means finitely generated as a -module; finite type does not impose that condition.
Sources
Source comparison: Milne, Algebraic Geometry, v6.10, §3e pp. 65–66. Conventions here distinguish arbitrary affine algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties.
Classical affine points are maximal ideals
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Choice, inherited from the Nullstellensatz route. For every affine algebraic set and , the map is a bijection from to the maximal ideals of . Its residue-field map is the canonical -isomorphism given by evaluation. Both sets are empty when is empty.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: AC, an algebraically closed field , and an affine algebraic set with coordinate ring .
Evaluation in the polynomial ring has maximal kernel (Evaluation at a point has kernel (x_1-a_1, ..., x_n-a_n)).
Ideals of the quotient correspond to ideals upstairs containing (Correspondence theorem: ideals of correspond to ideals of containing ).
Maximal ideals upstairs are uniquely the coordinate-point ideals (Over an algebraically closed field, every maximal ideal is an evaluation ideal).
Closed algebraic sets satisfy (Classical affine algebraic sets correspond to radical ideals, and irreducible sets to prime ideals).
Proof
At , evaluation on kills and hence defines evaluation on ; constants make it surjective. Its kernel is maximal by the same argument as F2, or by correspondence with the maximal evaluation ideal upstairs. Two points with equal kernels have equal inverse images upstairs, and F4 makes the points equal.
If is maximal in , its inverse image in is maximal by F3. F4 identifies it with the evaluation ideal at a unique . Since it contains , . Thus . Evaluation induces a bijection : equality of values is exactly equality modulo the kernel, and every constant is attained. It preserves all operations. For , has no proper, hence no maximal, ideals.
Sources
Source comparison: Milne, Algebraic Geometry, v6.10, Example 2.13, 2.20, and §3e, pp. 41, 43, 65. Conventions here distinguish arbitrary affine algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties.
Global regular functions on a classical affine variety are its coordinate ring
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Choice, inherited from the Nullstellensatz route. For every affine algebraic set , the canonical map is an isomorphism. This includes varieties and the empty set.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: AC, an algebraically closed field , and an affine algebraic set .
Proof
Apply F1 to . Then , so the displayed isomorphism is . The maps , , and , , are mutually inverse algebra maps.
The composite sends to its function on , which is exactly the canonical map in the statement. If is empty both algebras are the zero ring by the empty case of F1.
Sources
Source comparison: Milne, Algebraic Geometry, v6.10, Proposition 3.11 final paragraph, p. 62. Conventions here distinguish arbitrary affine algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties.
A morphism from an open subset of a classical affine variety to an affine variety
Definition
Let be open in an affine algebraic set and let be an affine algebraic set. A set map is a morphism over if for every . For a map whose target is an open subset of an affine algebraic set, the phrase locally regular morphism means a continuous map pulling regular functions on each target open back to regular functions on its inverse image. An isomorphism between open subsets of affine algebraic sets is a bijection for which the map and its inverse are locally regular morphisms. Continuity and this local pullback property for the affine-target definition will be established in the next lemma; they are not assumed in the affine-target test.
Sources
Source comparison: Milne, Algebraic Geometry, v6.10, §3d and Proposition 3.26, pp. 64–67. Conventions here distinguish arbitrary affine algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties.
Images and set-theoretic fibres of classical regular maps
Definition
For a morphism , its image is , and its fibre over is the set . These are set-theoretic notions. A fibre can be empty. No assertion that images are closed is part of this definition; a fibre here is not a scheme fibre or an ideal quotient.
Sources
Source comparison: Milne, Algebraic Geometry, v6.10, §2j pp. 49–50. Conventions here distinguish arbitrary affine algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties.
A classical morphism pulls Zariski closed sets back to closed sets
Statement
An affine-target morphism pulls every Zariski closed subset of back to a relatively closed subset of , hence is continuous. The zero set of every regular function on any open of an affine algebraic set is relatively closed. For every open and every regular function on , is regular on .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: An algebraically closed field , an open in an affine algebraic set , an affine algebraic target , and a morphism in the global-pullback definition.
Closed subsets of Y are simultaneous coordinate polynomial zero loci (Classical affine zero loci form the Zariski closed sets).
Regular functions are locally quotients of polynomial functions (A regular function on an open subset of a classical affine variety).
Global regular functions pull back to regular functions (A morphism from an open subset of a classical affine variety to an affine variety).
Proof
If is regular on an open and , write near with nowhere zero. Intersect that neighbourhood with ; it is a neighbourhood of where is nowhere zero. Thus the nonvanishing set of is open, and its zero set is relatively closed in .
Write . Each coordinate polynomial restricted to is globally regular (its denominator is 1), so F3 makes its pullback regular. Therefore is the intersection of their closed zero sets by step 1.1. This proves continuity, including empty and full closed sets.
For , take a neighbourhood of where with nowhere zero. On the open , are regular and the latter is nowhere zero. Near , write them as with nonzero. Shrink further to where using step 1.1. Then is a valid local quotient, proving the local pullback property.
Sources
Source comparison: Milne, Algebraic Geometry, v6.10, §3d and Proposition 3.26, pp. 64–67. Conventions here distinguish arbitrary affine algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties.
Classical affine morphisms are contravariantly equivalent to coordinate-ring homomorphisms
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Choice, inherited from the Nullstellensatz route. For affine algebraic sets , pullback gives a natural bijection It reverses composition and preserves identities. Restricted to nonempty irreducible sets, this is an antiequivalence with nonzero finite-type domain -algebras: every such domain is a coordinate ring. Empty algebraic sets and zero unital algebras are allowed in the displayed bijection.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: AC, an algebraically closed field , affine algebraic sets , and, for the object realization, a nonzero finite-type domain -algebra .
Global regular functions identify with coordinate rings (Global regular functions on a classical affine variety are its coordinate ring).
A morphism is defined by pullback of global regular functions (A morphism from an open subset of a classical affine variety to an affine variety).
Coordinate-ring elements are polynomial functions (Polynomial functions on an affine algebraic set are its coordinate ring).
A homomorphism is uniquely determined by its values on coefficients and variables (Universal property of : a coefficient homomorphism and the image of determine a unique ring homomorphism).
A map killing an ideal factors uniquely through its quotient (A ring homomorphism whose kernel contains a two-sided ideal factors uniquely through the quotient ring).
A prime presentation ideal defines a nonempty irreducible set with exactly that vanishing ideal (Classical affine algebraic sets correspond to radical ideals, and irreducible sets to prime ideals).
Finite-type algebras admit finite polynomial presentations (Subalgebra generated by a subset, algebras of finite type, and module-finite algebras).
Affine-target morphisms pull back locally regular functions on arbitrary opens (A classical morphism pulls Zariski closed sets back to closed sets).
Proof
If is a morphism, F1 and F2 identify as a map . Pointwise addition, multiplication and constants show it is a unital -algebra homomorphism.
Conversely let be a unital -algebra map, with and coordinate classes . Define . If then polynomial evaluation and the homomorphism laws give . Hence .
Every global regular function of is a polynomial in the by F1 and F3. Substitution in step 1.2 gives , a polynomial and hence regular function on . Thus is a morphism and its pullback is . If one starts with , its pulled-back coordinate values reconstruct exactly , so the constructions are inverses.
For composable morphisms, , so ; F8 ensures the composites are morphisms, and the identity pulls each function to itself. This also gives naturality of the bijection. If is empty there is one map to any and one unital homomorphism to . If is empty and nonempty there is neither a set map nor a unital map , since would force . Both empty gives one on each side.
Let be a nonzero finite-type domain. By F7 choose a surjection with kernel . It is proper since , and forces one image to be zero since is a domain; thus is prime. F6 gives a variety with . Its coordinate ring is the presentation quotient . Together with the bijection and composition law this proves the stated antiequivalence on domains.
Sources
Source comparison: Milne, Algebraic Geometry, v6.10, Propositions 3.24–3.26, pp. 66–67. Conventions here distinguish arbitrary affine algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties.
Classical affine algebraic sets and reduced finitely generated -algebras are contravariantly equivalent
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Choice, inherited from the Nullstellensatz route. Affine algebraic sets over algebraically closed , with locally regular morphisms, are contravariantly equivalent to reduced finite-type unital -algebras. Both object realization and full faithfulness hold, including the correspondence .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: AC and an algebraically closed field ; the categories of affine algebraic sets and of reduced finite-type unital -algebras, with zero algebras allowed.
Coordinate rings of algebraic sets are reduced and finite type (The coordinate ring of a classical affine algebraic set).
Reducedness excludes nonzero nilpotents and finite type supplies a polynomial presentation (A reduced finitely generated -algebra).
Radical ideals are exactly vanishing ideals of their zero loci (Classical affine algebraic sets correspond to radical ideals, and irreducible sets to prime ideals).
The morphism dictionary is a natural bijection for all algebraic sets (Classical affine morphisms are contravariantly equivalent to coordinate-ring homomorphisms).
Points are canonically the maximal ideals of the coordinate ring (Classical affine points are maximal ideals).
Proof
For every algebraic set , F1 places in the proposed algebra category, and F4 makes pullback a contravariant functor that is bijective on every hom-set. Thus it is fully faithful, including the empty cases already verified there.
Given a reduced finite-type algebra , choose a surjective presentation with kernel . If for , the image of is nilpotent and hence zero by reducedness, so . Therefore is radical. F3 gives , and the presentation identifies with . For , and .
The object realization can be made intrinsic: use the maximal ideals of , with the topology and regular functions transported from any presentation. F5 identifies the points, and the algebra isomorphism between two presentations gives inverse morphisms by F4. Their pullbacks are the prescribed identities on , so full faithfulness forces all such comparison maps and their composites to agree. Thus the realization is independent up to canonical isomorphism, and step 1.1 with step 1.2 proves the antiequivalence.
Sources
Source comparison: Milne, Algebraic Geometry, v6.10, §3e and Proposition 3.25, pp. 65–67. Conventions here distinguish arbitrary affine algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties.
Affine-source morphisms agreeing on a dense open agree everywhere
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Choice, inherited from the Nullstellensatz route. If are affine varieties and two morphisms agree on a dense open subset of , they agree everywhere.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: AC, affine varieties over algebraically closed , and morphisms agreeing on a dense open of .
Global regular functions on X are elements of its coordinate ring (Global regular functions on a classical affine variety are its coordinate ring).
Coordinate functions on Y pull back to regular functions (A morphism from an open subset of a classical affine variety to an affine variety).
Zero sets of regular functions on an open source are relatively closed (A classical morphism pulls Zariski closed sets back to closed sets).
Proof
Embed and write for its coordinates. The functions are global regular functions by F1 and F2. Their zero sets are closed by F3. The common dense open is contained in every such zero set, hence each zero set is all of .
Thus for every and every , . Equality of all coordinates is equality of the tuples, so . For the target has just the empty tuple and this conclusion is immediate as well.
Sources
Source comparison: Milne, Algebraic Geometry, v6.10, Proposition 3.26 and the separatedness calculation of §5c, pp. 67, 102. Conventions here distinguish arbitrary affine algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties.
Germs and the local ring of a classical affine variety
Definition
For a point of an affine algebraic set , a germ of a regular function at is a pair , where is an open neighbourhood of and , modulo equality on some open neighbourhood of contained in both domains. Write for the set of germs. Reflexivity uses ; symmetry reverses equality; transitivity intersects the two witness neighbourhoods, which still contain . Add and multiply representatives after restricting to their intersection. If either representative is replaced by an equivalent one, intersect the two equality neighbourhoods: there both sums and both products agree. Thus the operations are well-defined. The restriction and algebra laws of Classical regular functions satisfy locality and unique gluing on a common finite intersection give a unital -algebra; constants define its structure map. Evaluation of a germ at is well-defined by the same equality condition. Its local-ring property is proved in the following theorem.
Sources
Source comparison: Milne, Algebraic Geometry, v6.10, §3b, p. 60. Conventions here distinguish arbitrary affine algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties.
The classical affine local ring is localization at the point's maximal ideal
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Choice, inherited from the Nullstellensatz route. For in an affine variety , put and . The map is an isomorphism. The unique maximal ideal corresponds to germs vanishing at , and the residue field is canonically .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: AC, an affine variety over algebraically closed , a point , and .
The point ideal is maximal and its residue field is k (Classical affine points are maximal ideals).
Germs are equality classes on neighbourhoods, with well-defined operations and evaluation (Germs and the local ring of a classical affine variety).
Every neighbourhood of x contains a principal neighbourhood of x (Principal opens form a basis and multiply under intersection).
Inverting denominators produces a unique localization map (Universal property of localisation: maps that invert factor uniquely through ).
A fraction is zero if a permitted denominator annihilates its numerator (Equality, vanishing, and the kernel of the localisation map).
Localization at a prime is local with maximal ideal consisting of fractions whose numerator is in the prime ( is local with unique maximal ideal ).
A polynomial function zero on all of X is zero in A (Polynomial functions on an affine algebraic set are its coordinate ring).
Proof
Each has and the germ of on is its multiplicative inverse. F4 therefore defines the displayed map to the germ algebra. Every germ has a representative near with , so is in its image.
If has zero germ, vanishes on a neighbourhood of inside . F3 supplies containing inside this neighbourhood. On the numerator vanishes, and outside the factor vanishes. Hence as a function on , and F7 makes it zero in . Since , F5 gives in . Thus the map is injective.
The ideal is prime: if in the field , one factor evaluates to zero, and 1 does not. F6 applies and says the unique maximal ideal consists of with . Because , this is exactly the condition that its germ evaluates to zero. Evaluation is onto through constants and identifies its quotient with , giving the residue-field assertion.
Sources
Source comparison: Milne, Algebraic Geometry, v6.10, Corollary 3.12 and 3.17, pp. 62–64. Conventions here distinguish arbitrary affine algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties.
Every nonempty principal open is a classical affine variety
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Choice, inherited from the Nullstellensatz route. For an affine variety and , with its regular functions is isomorphic to the closed graph Its coordinate ring is canonically , a nonzero domain; hence is affine in this intrinsic realization.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: AC, an affine variety over algebraically closed , , and a nonzero element .
A variety has a nonzero domain coordinate ring and conversely (A classical affine variety has a domain coordinate ring, and conversely).
Regular functions on D(f) form A_f (Regular functions on a principal open are the principal localization).
Coordinate-ring maps describe affine morphisms (Classical affine morphisms are contravariantly equivalent to coordinate-ring homomorphisms).
A value for T defines a polynomial-ring map (Universal property of : a coefficient homomorphism and the image of determine a unique ring homomorphism).
An annihilated relation permits passage to the quotient (A ring homomorphism whose kernel contains a two-sided ideal factors uniquely through the quotient ring).
A map making f invertible factors through A_f (Universal property of localisation: maps that invert factor uniquely through ).
Prime ideals equal the vanishing ideals of their zero loci (Classical affine algebraic sets correspond to radical ideals, and irreducible sets to prime ideals).
Locally regular functions pull back under morphisms (A classical morphism pulls Zariski closed sets back to closed sets).
Every global regular function on an affine algebraic set belongs to its coordinate ring (Global regular functions on a classical affine variety are its coordinate ring).
Coordinate-ring elements are polynomial functions in the coordinate classes (Polynomial functions on an affine algebraic set are its coordinate ring).
Proof
In the classes of and are inverses. F6 defines sending to . Conversely F4 and F5 define by , since the relation maps to zero. The composites fix and on one side and send to itself on the other, hence are identities.
By F1, A is a domain. Since , fractions with powers of embed into its fraction field (a zero image forces the numerator zero). Thus , and hence , is a nonzero domain. The polynomial presentation of has prime kernel: the inverse image of 0 under its surjection is proper and satisfies the product test. F7 makes its zero locus precisely and its coordinate ring exactly . F1 therefore makes a variety.
The projection has image , and , , is its set-theoretic inverse. Projection is a morphism by the coordinate dictionary F3. The coordinate pullbacks for q are regular: those of X are polynomial restrictions and the last is , which belongs to F2. Every global regular function on Z is a polynomial in its coordinates by F9 and F10, so q is a morphism as well.
F8 upgrades these maps to pullback on all target opens. Viewing p as a map into the open has the same property, because any section on an open there is a section on the same open in X. Thus p and q are inverse locally regular morphisms. Finally is nonempty: otherwise f is the zero polynomial function, contrary to by F2.
Sources
Source comparison: Milne, Algebraic Geometry, v6.10, §3h pp. 71–72 and Proposition 3.11 pp. 61–62. Conventions here distinguish arbitrary affine algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties.
A classical affine open subset and its coordinate ring
Definition
An affine open subset of a classical affine variety is an open subset equipped with an isomorphism, in the locally regular sense, to a classical affine variety. Assume AC for the coordinate-ring and principal-open interfaces used here. Its coordinate algebra is ; any specified affine realization identifies this algebra with that realization’s coordinate ring. Two such identifications differ by the pullback of their transition isomorphism in Classical affine morphisms are contravariantly equivalent to coordinate-ring homomorphisms, so the algebra of functions on is independent of the realization. Nonempty principal opens have this property by Every nonempty principal open is a classical affine variety. Arbitrary opens are not declared affine.
Sources
Source comparison: Milne, Algebraic Geometry, v6.10, §3h pp. 71–72. Conventions here distinguish arbitrary affine algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties.
The function field of an irreducible classical affine variety
Definition
Assume AC for the domain-coordinate interface used here. For a classical affine variety , its function field is The coordinate ring is a nonzero integral domain by A classical affine variety has a domain coordinate ring, and conversely, so The field of fractions of an integral domain and is a field and embeds the integral domain give a field and the injective map . Elements have the form with ; they are called rational functions. Equality is iff . Fractions are field elements, not initially functions defined at every point.
Sources
Source comparison: Milne, Algebraic Geometry, v6.10, §2i p. 49 and §3k p. 74. Conventions here distinguish arbitrary affine algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties.
Regular functions on a nonempty open embed in the affine function field
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Choice, inherited from the Nullstellensatz route. For an affine variety and nonempty open , there is a canonical injective -algebra map . A quotient presentation on any nonempty open subdomain computes the same field element, and these embeddings commute with restrictions to nonempty opens.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: AC, an affine variety over algebraically closed , a nonempty open , and a regular function on .
Finite intersections of nonempty opens are nonempty and dense (Every nonempty open of a classical affine variety is dense).
Polynomial functions identify faithfully with elements of the coordinate ring (Polynomial functions on an affine algebraic set are its coordinate ring).
Every regular section is locally a quotient (A regular function on an open subset of a classical affine variety).
Regular functions admit pointwise algebra operations (Classical regular functions satisfy locality and unique gluing).
k(X) is the fraction field of the domain A (The function field of an irreducible classical affine variety).
Polynomial zero loci are Zariski closed (Classical affine zero loci form the Zariski closed sets).
Proof
For , choose a nonempty quotient neighbourhood with and nowhere zero on . Then in , so . If on another nonempty quotient neighbourhood , F1 says is nonempty dense. There pointwise. Its zero locus is closed, so it vanishes on X, and F2 gives in A. F5 therefore identifies the two fractions.
Define the image of s to be that uniquely determined fraction. Near a point in a common nonempty quotient neighbourhood for s and t, F4 gives the sum and product by cross multiplication; those are exactly the fraction-field operations. Constants map to themselves, so this is a -algebra map. If s maps to 0, every local quotient has by F5 and step 1.1, hence s vanishes on each quotient neighbourhood and therefore on all U. Thus the map is injective.
If is nonempty open, a quotient neighbourhood for is also a nonempty open subdomain of U. Step 1.1 shows that it computes the same fraction as s. This proves compatibility with restrictions and with every permitted nonempty quotient presentation.
Sources
Source comparison: Milne, Algebraic Geometry, v6.10, §3k p. 74; Definition 3.8 p. 61. Conventions here distinguish arbitrary affine algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties.
The function field is independent of the chosen nonempty principal affine open
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Choice, inherited from the Nullstellensatz route. For every nonempty affine open in an affine variety , restriction gives the canonical identification . In particular, for , and . The identifications commute with further nonempty affine-open restriction.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: AC, an affine variety over algebraically closed , and a nonempty affine open . For the principal case, is nonzero.
Nonempty open section algebras embed in k(X), compatibly with restriction (Regular functions on a nonempty open embed in the affine function field).
A embeds in its fraction field (The function field of an irreducible classical affine variety).
An injective map from a domain into a field extends uniquely to its fraction field (Every injective ring map from a domain into a field factors uniquely through its field of fractions).
Principal-open sections are A_f (Regular functions on a principal open are the principal localization).
Nonempty principal opens are affine (Every nonempty principal open is a classical affine variety).
Proof
Put , and . Restriction sends A into B, and the embedding of F1 sends each restricted polynomial a to . Thus with these specified maps, and B is a domain as a subring of a field.
F3 extends to an embedding . Its image contains every for , , since . Such fractions exhaust K by F2, so this extension is surjective and is the claimed isomorphism.
For , F4 and F5 identify B with the affine coordinate ring , so step 2.1 is the asserted principal-open identification. For a further nonempty affine open V, both restriction embeddings into K agree on sections by F1; their extensions agree on every ratio by the uniqueness in F3.
Sources
Source comparison: Milne, Algebraic Geometry, v6.10, §3k p. 74 and Proposition 3.32 p. 71. Conventions here distinguish arbitrary affine algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties.
A rational map as an equivalence class of morphisms on nonempty opens
Definition
For affine varieties , a representative of a rational map is a pair with nonempty open and a morphism. Two pairs represent the same rational map when their maps agree on some nonempty open subset of their common domain. A rational map is an equivalence class for this relation; its equivalence-relation well-definedness is supplied by The rational-map relation is transitive ↗. The domain of a representative need not be all of .
Sources
Source comparison: Milne, Algebraic Geometry, v6.10, §5l p. 117. Conventions here distinguish arbitrary affine algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties.
The rational-map relation is transitive
Statement
The relation used to define rational maps between affine varieties is reflexive, symmetric and transitive, hence is an equivalence relation.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Affine varieties over algebraically closed , and representatives with nonempty open domains in .
Representatives have nonempty open domains, and equivalence is agreement on some nonempty open (A rational map as an equivalence class of morphisms on nonempty opens).
Finite intersections of nonempty opens of X are nonempty (Every nonempty open of a classical affine variety is dense).
Proof
A representative agrees with itself on the nonempty open U, proving reflexivity. If two maps agree on a nonempty open W, reversing the equality on that same W proves symmetry.
If on a nonempty open W and on a nonempty open V, F2 makes nonempty open in X. All three maps are defined there, and equality of their values gives there. This is the required transitivity witness by F1.
Sources
Source comparison: Milne, Algebraic Geometry, v6.10, §5l p. 117. Conventions here distinguish arbitrary affine algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties.
The candidate domain of a rational map
Definition
For a rational-map class , define its candidate domain by It is open and nonempty because every representative domain is open and the class contains a representative. At this point the definition is only a union of domains; it asserts neither a glued map nor maximality.
Sources
Source comparison: Milne, Algebraic Geometry, v6.10, §5l p. 117. Conventions here distinguish arbitrary affine algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties.
Dominant classical morphisms and rational maps
Definition
A morphism from a nonempty open in an affine variety to an affine variety is dominant when . A rational map is dominant when one representative is dominant. This does not depend on the representative. Indeed, if is dominant and is nonempty open, then for each nonempty open , is a nonempty open in by A classical morphism pulls Zariski closed sets back to closed sets and dominance. It meets by Every nonempty open of a classical affine variety is dense, so meets every such , proving dominant. If two representatives agree on a nonempty common open, restricting a dominant one to that open gives a dense image contained in the image of the other. Thus every representative is dominant. Conversely, if any restriction is dominant, the original image contains a dense subset and is dominant.
Sources
Source comparison: Milne, Algebraic Geometry, v6.10, Proposition 3.34 p. 72 and §§5k–l pp. 116–117. Conventions here distinguish arbitrary affine algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties.
Morphisms defined on an open source and agreeing on a dense open agree on their common domain
Statement
Let be nonempty opens of an affine variety , and let , be morphisms to an affine variety. If they agree on a nonempty open subset of , they agree on all of . More generally agreement on any subset dense in their common domain suffices.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Affine varieties over algebraically closed , nonempty opens , and morphisms , agreeing on a dense subset of or on a nonempty common open.
A nonempty open of an irreducible variety is dense, and finite such intersections are nonempty (Every nonempty open of a classical affine variety is dense).
Target coordinates pull back to regular functions (A morphism from an open subset of a classical affine variety to an affine variety).
A regular function on an open source has closed zero set (A classical morphism pulls Zariski closed sets back to closed sets).
Proof
Set . For target coordinates , each difference restricted to W is regular, so is closed in W. Since points of are determined by their coordinates, E is exactly the equalizer.
If the maps agree on a subset dense in W, its containing closed set E is all W. In particular any nonempty open of W is dense there by F1 (or by intersecting nonempty opens of X), so the nonempty-open hypothesis suffices. If , the intersection defining E is the whole W and the same conclusion holds.
Sources
Source comparison: Milne, Algebraic Geometry, v6.10, Lemma 5.6 and Proposition 5.8, pp. 102–103. Conventions here distinguish arbitrary affine algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties.
Compatible classical morphisms to an affine target glue over an open cover
Statement
For an open of an affine variety X and an open cover , compatible morphisms to a fixed affine target glue uniquely to a morphism .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: An affine variety over algebraically closed , an open cover of an open , an affine target , and morphisms agreeing on every overlap.
Compatible regular functions on a cover glue uniquely (Classical regular functions satisfy locality and unique gluing).
A set map to an affine target is a morphism when global regular functions pull back regularly (A morphism from an open subset of a classical affine variety to an affine variety).
Proof
Compatibility means for every point of each overlap. Thus the union of their graphs is a function restricting to each . Every value is in Y because it is the value of a local map into Y. For empty U and the empty cover this is the empty graph.
If , the functions are regular by F2 and agree on overlaps. F1 makes their glued function regular, and pointwise it is . Hence F2 makes a morphism. Any map with the required restrictions equals the same graph union, proving uniqueness.
Sources
Source comparison: Milne, Algebraic Geometry, v6.10, Proposition 3.9 p. 61 and §5d pp. 103–104. Conventions here distinguish arbitrary affine algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties.
A rational map to an affine target has a unique maximal open domain
Statement
The candidate domain of a rational map with affine target supports a unique morphism restricting to every representative. It is a representative of , and is the unique maximal representative domain.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A rational-map class for affine varieties over algebraically closed .
The candidate domain is the union of all representative domains (The candidate domain of a rational map).
Equivalence of representatives is an equivalence relation (The rational-map relation is transitive).
Equivalent maps agree on their entire common domain (Morphisms defined on an open source and agreeing on a dense open agree on their common domain).
Compatible morphisms on an open cover glue uniquely (Compatible classical morphisms to an affine target glue over an open cover).
Proof
Any two representatives belong to the same equivalence class, so F2 supplies agreement on a nonempty common open. F3 extends this to their whole overlap. Thus the representatives form a compatible open cover of the candidate domain D from F1. F4 glues them to a unique morphism .
The set D is nonempty open, and its glued map agrees with any given representative on that representative’s nonempty domain. Thus belongs to . Every representative domain is contained in D by its definition. Consequently D is maximal and any other maximal representative domain must equal D; F4 gives uniqueness of the map there as well.
Sources
Source comparison: Milne, Algebraic Geometry, v6.10, §5l p. 117. Conventions here distinguish arbitrary affine algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties.
Dominant rational maps compose on nonempty open domains
Statement
Dominant rational maps between affine varieties compose to a well-defined dominant rational map. Representatives and compose on . Composition is independent of representatives, associative, and has identity rational maps.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Affine varieties over algebraically closed and dominant rational maps represented by and . For associativity take a third dominant map represented by .
Dominance is independent of representatives and survives nonempty open restriction (Dominant classical morphisms and rational maps).
Morphisms are continuous and pull back local regular functions (A classical morphism pulls Zariski closed sets back to closed sets).
Equality on a nonempty open defines equality of rational maps (The rational-map relation is transitive).
Proof
Because is dominant and V is nonempty open, is nonempty; by F2 it is open in U and hence X. Local pullback in F2 shows is a morphism there. For a nonempty open , is a nonempty open of V, hence of Y, and dominance of gives a point of W mapping into it. Thus the composite meets every nonempty T and is dominant.
If agree on a nonempty open E and agree on a nonempty open H, F1 makes dominant. Therefore is nonempty open, contained in both composite domains. On it the two composite values agree by substitution. F3 identifies the resulting rational maps, proving representative independence.
For a third dominant representative , both parentheses are defined on . The inner inverse image is nonempty open by dominance of , and its inverse image under is nonempty open by dominance of . On this domain is the value for both parentheses. F3 and step 1.2 prove associativity. Identity maps have full domain and dense image, and their composites restrict to the original representative, hence give identity classes.
Sources
Source comparison: Milne, Algebraic Geometry, v6.10, §5k–l pp. 116–117. Conventions here distinguish arbitrary affine algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties.
Dominant maps pull back function fields functorially
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Choice, inherited from the Nullstellensatz route. A dominant rational map of affine varieties induces a canonical injective -homomorphism . It agrees with pullback of regular functions wherever defined, is independent of representatives, preserves identities, and reverses composition of dominant rational maps.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: AC, affine varieties over algebraically closed , and a dominant rational map .
Function fields are fraction fields of coordinate domains (The function field of an irreducible classical affine variety).
Regular functions on a nonempty open embed faithfully into the ambient function field (Regular functions on a nonempty open embed in the affine function field).
Dominant maps have dense images and remain dominant on nonempty open restrictions (Dominant classical morphisms and rational maps).
An injective domain map to a field extends uniquely to an injective map of fraction fields (Every injective ring map from a domain into a field factors uniquely through its field of fractions).
Dominant rational maps compose independently of representatives (Dominant rational maps compose on nonempty open domains).
Morphisms pull back regular functions on target opens (A classical morphism pulls Zariski closed sets back to closed sets).
Polynomial functions identify faithfully with coordinate-ring elements (Polynomial functions on an affine algebraic set are its coordinate ring).
The zero set of a polynomial function is closed (Classical affine zero loci form the Zariski closed sets).
Proof
Take a representative . Pullback maps into , and F2 embeds the latter into . If b has zero image, F2 says is the zero function on U. Its closed zero locus in Y contains the dense image of , so b vanishes everywhere on Y and is zero as a coordinate function. Thus the composite is injective and fixes k.
F4 extends that injection uniquely to by . Here has nonzero pullback by step 1.1, so the quotient is defined. If two representatives agree on a nonempty open, each pulled-back coordinate function agrees there; restriction compatibility and injectivity in F2 make their images in K equal. Uniqueness in F4 then identifies their field maps.
Let s be regular on a nonempty target open W, with a quotient expression on a nonempty subopen. By F3 the inverse image of that subopen is nonempty open. F6 pulls s back regularly there, and its value is . F2 identifies this fraction with the field element in step 2.1. By restriction compatibility, this also proves agreement on the whole nonempty inverse-image domain.
For a composable dominant rational map , F5 supplies a nonempty composition domain. For a coordinate function c on Z, substitution there gives . Step 3.1 identifies the right side with . F2 gives equality in k(X), and F4 extends it from coordinate-ring elements to all fractions. Thus . Identity pullback fixes every fraction.
Sources
Source comparison: Milne, Algebraic Geometry, v6.10, §5k and Proposition 5.38, pp. 116–117. Conventions here distinguish arbitrary affine algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties.
Dominant rational maps to an affine variety correspond to field embeddings
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Choice, inherited from the Nullstellensatz route. For affine varieties , pullback is a natural bijection between dominant rational maps and -field embeddings . The inverse is defined on a nonempty principal open by a common denominator for the images of finitely many coordinate generators.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: AC and affine varieties over algebraically closed . The reverse construction starts with an injective field homomorphism fixing .
Dominant rational maps have functorial injective field pullbacks (Dominant maps pull back function fields functorially).
D(d), for d nonzero, is affine with coordinate ring A_d (Every nonempty principal open is a classical affine variety).
Algebra maps of coordinate rings give unique affine morphisms (Classical affine morphisms are contravariantly equivalent to coordinate-ring homomorphisms).
Nonempty affine opens have the ambient function field (The function field is independent of the chosen nonempty principal affine open).
A proper closed subset of Y has a vanishing ideal strictly larger than I(Y) (Classical affine algebraic sets correspond to radical ideals, and irreducible sets to prime ideals).
Open-source morphisms with dense agreement agree on the common domain (Morphisms defined on an open source and agreeing on a dense open agree on their common domain).
Open regular sections embed faithfully and compatibly in the function field (Regular functions on a nonempty open embed in the affine function field).
Nonempty open subsets of an affine variety have nonempty intersection (Every nonempty open of a classical affine variety is dense).
Proof
Let fix k. Put and . Write with and . The finite product is nonzero since A is a domain; for put . Each is invertible in with inverse , so . F2 and F3 realize this algebra map as .
If the image of were contained in a proper closed , F5 would give a polynomial function vanishing on C: choose an element of . Then the coordinate dictionary makes in , hence in k(X), contrary to injectivity of . Thus is dominant. F4 identifies the source field with k(X); F1 and the equality on B show its field pullback equals on every ratio.
If two dominant rational maps have the same field pullback, take representatives on U and V. Their pullbacks of each y_i agree as elements of k(X), so the faithful open-section embedding F7 makes their values agree on . This intersection is nonempty by F8, hence the representatives determine the same rational map. Conversely equal rational maps have equal pullbacks by F1. Thus step 2.1 proves surjectivity and this argument proves injectivity.
Finally F1 gives identity preservation and reversal of composition, so the bijection is natural with respect to dominant rational composition. This construction asserts a dense image, and does not require an image-constructibility theorem.
Sources
Source comparison: Milne, Algebraic Geometry, v6.10, Proposition 5.38 p. 117; Proposition 3.34(a) p. 72. Conventions here distinguish arbitrary affine algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties.
Integral classical varieties in the compatible affine-atlas register
Definition
Under AC for the affine-coordinate and principal-open interfaces, an integral classical prevariety over is a nonempty irreducible topological space equipped with a finite cover by open charts homeomorphic to classical affine varieties, whose transition maps and inverse transition maps on overlaps are locally regular. The atlas is part of the data. On any open , a function is regular if in each chart it is regular on . A map is a morphism if it is continuous and pulls back regular functions on every target open to regular functions on its inverse image. Equivalently it passes this test locally in source and target charts. An integral classical variety is such a prevariety satisfying the separation axiom: the equalizer of any two morphisms from an affine variety into is closed. An affine open is an open subset isomorphic, with these functions, to an affine variety.
The chartwise tests are invariant under compatible refinement: on an overlap, A classical morphism pulls Zariski closed sets back to closed sets shows that locally regular transition maps pull local quotient functions back to regular functions, and Classical regular functions satisfy locality and unique gluing transfers the test in both directions. More explicitly, if a continuous map passes the affine-chart test, then for any target section on and any source point over , a target chart and a source chart give a neighbourhood where its pullback is regular. Locality makes the pullback regular on the whole inverse image. The converse is restriction of the global test. Affine targets satisfy the stated separation axiom: choose their finitely many coordinate functions; the equalizer is the intersection of the closed zero sets of the pulled-back coordinate differences. Thus a single affine chart gives an example of an integral classical variety. No theorem constructing a glued space from unspecified charts is asserted.
Sources
Source comparison: Milne, Algebraic Geometry, v6.10, Definitions 5.2, 5.7 and Proposition 5.4, pp. 100–102. Conventions here distinguish arbitrary affine algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties.
Compatible affine charts of an integral classical variety have one function field
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Choice, inherited from the Nullstellensatz route. All nonempty affine charts and all nonempty affine opens of an integral classical variety have canonically isomorphic fraction fields. These comparisons satisfy the cocycle identity on triple intersections and commute with restriction and isomorphisms. The resulting field is denoted .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: AC, an integral classical variety over algebraically closed with a compatible affine atlas, and nonempty affine opens of .
Transition maps identify the regular functions on chart overlaps (Integral classical varieties in the compatible affine-atlas register).
Two nonempty opens of an irreducible space meet, and every nonempty open remains irreducible (Irreducibility is equivalent to the nonempty-open intersection criterion).
Principal opens form a basis in each affine chart (Principal opens form a basis and multiply under intersection).
Nonempty principal opens of a chart are affine (Every nonempty principal open is a classical affine variety).
An affine variety and a nonempty affine open have the same function field (The function field is independent of the chosen nonempty principal affine open).
Equality of sections on a nonempty open determines equality of the associated fractions (Regular functions on a nonempty open embed in the affine function field).
Proof
Let U,V be two nonempty affine opens of X. Their overlap is nonempty by F2. F3 supplies a nonempty principal open in U. By F4 it is affine, and F1 identifies its locally regular structure with that inherited from V. Thus W is also an affine open of V. F5 identifies both k(U) and k(V) with k(W), defining a comparison .
For another choice , the intersection is nonempty open in U. Choose a nonempty principal open T of U in that intersection. It is affine with the inherited structure in W and . F5 says all field comparisons are restriction maps, and F6 says two fraction values that agree after restriction are equal. Both candidate comparisons therefore agree after passing to k(T), an isomorphic field, so they are equal.
For three nonempty affine opens U,V,Z, choose a nonempty principal open T of U inside , possible by applying F2 twice and then F3. By step 2.1 it may be used in every pairwise comparison. All three identifications then pass through k(T), so , is the identity, and . Restrictions commute by the same construction. An isomorphism of varieties carries common affine opens and their regular-function restrictions to common affine opens; its pullbacks commute pointwise with restrictions and hence with their field extensions. This proves compatibility with isomorphisms and defines a single field independent of the chosen chart.
Sources
Source comparison: Milne, Algebraic Geometry, v6.10, 3k p. 74, 5.10 p. 103, §5k p. 116. Conventions here distinguish arbitrary affine algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties.
Birational maps and birational equivalence of classical varieties
Definition
Assume AC for the function-field and affine-atlas interfaces used here. For affine varieties, a dominant rational map is birational if there is a dominant rational map with and as rational-map classes. Composition here is Dominant rational maps compose on nonempty open domains, the proved composition on nonempty inverse-image domains. For integral classical varieties equipped with compatible affine atlases, birational equivalence means the existence of isomorphic nonempty open subsets. The following theorem identifies this with the inverse-rational-map definition in the affine case and with a -isomorphism of their function fields.
Sources
Source comparison: Milne, Algebraic Geometry, v6.10, §5l p. 117. Conventions here distinguish arbitrary affine algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties.
Classical integral varieties are birational exactly when their function fields are isomorphic over
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Choice, inherited from the Nullstellensatz route. Two integral classical varieties over algebraically closed are birationally equivalent exactly when their function fields are isomorphic over . For affine varieties this is also equivalent to the existence of mutually inverse dominant rational maps.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: AC and integral classical varieties over the same algebraically closed field , equipped with compatible affine atlases.
Field embeddings correspond bijectively to dominant rational maps of affine varieties (Dominant rational maps to an affine variety correspond to field embeddings).
Pullback reverses composition and preserves identities (Dominant maps pull back function fields functorially).
Rational agreement on a nonempty open extends over the common domain for affine targets (Morphisms defined on an open source and agreeing on a dense open agree on their common domain).
All nonempty affine opens of an integral variety have canonically the ambient field (Compatible affine charts of an integral classical variety have one function field).
Charts and their compatible affine subopens are open in the whole variety (Integral classical varieties in the compatible affine-atlas register).
Birational equivalence for integral varieties means isomorphic nonempty opens (Birational maps and birational equivalence of classical varieties).
Principal opens form a basis in an affine chart (Principal opens form a basis and multiply under intersection).
Nonempty principal opens are affine (Every nonempty principal open is a classical affine variety).
Proof
First let X,Y be affine and let be a k-isomorphism. F1 gives dominant rational maps and for and . F2 makes the pullbacks of their composites identity embeddings, and injectivity of the bijection in F1 forces both composites to be identity rational maps. Conversely mutually inverse dominant rational maps give inverse k-field embeddings by F2.
Choose representatives and of the inverse maps. Set and . Dominance makes both nonempty open. Their compositions agree rationally with the identities; F3 extends those identities over all U0 and V0. If , put . Then and , so . Conversely if , and , so . Thus the restrictions and are inverse morphisms. This produces the required nonempty open isomorphism.
Now let X,Y have compatible integral affine atlases and let their fields be k-isomorphic. Choose one nonempty affine chart in each. F4 transfers the field isomorphism to their chart fields, and steps 1.1–2.1 give isomorphic nonempty opens in these charts. By F5 these opens are open in the whole X and Y, so F6 makes X,Y birationally equivalent.
Conversely suppose is an isomorphism of nonempty opens of X,Y. Take a point x of U, a chart A containing x and a chart B containing h(x). The open contains x. F7 and F8 give a nonempty principal affine open W of A in it. Its image h(W) is open in Y and is affine via the isomorphism with W; its regular functions are identified with those on W. Taking fractions and applying F4 identifies k(X) with k(W), then with k(h(W)), then with k(Y), all over k. This proves the reverse direction and, together with steps 1.1–3.1, all claimed equivalences.
Sources
Source comparison: Milne, Algebraic Geometry, v6.10, Proposition 3.36 p. 74 and Proposition 5.39 p. 117. Conventions here distinguish arbitrary affine algebraic sets from nonempty irreducible varieties.
5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements
None yet.
Sources
- J. S. Milne, Algebraic Geometry v6.10, §2a, pp. 36–37
- J. S. Milne, Algebraic Geometry v6.10, §2a p. 36; Theorem 2.16 preamble p. 42
- J. S. Milne, Algebraic Geometry v6.10, Proposition 2.10, pp. 38–39
- J. S. Milne, Algebraic Geometry v6.10, §2e pp. 40–42
- J. S. Milne, Algebraic Geometry v6.10, Proposition 2.10 pp. 38–39, Proposition 2.14 p. 41, and Remark 2.23 p. 44
- J. S. Milne, Algebraic Geometry v6.10, 2.13–2.17, 2.20, 2.27–2.28 and §2i, pp. 41–49
- J. S. Milne, Algebraic Geometry v6.10, §2h p. 45
- J. S. Milne, Algebraic Geometry v6.10, §2i p. 48
- J. S. Milne, Algebraic Geometry v6.10, Proposition 2.27 and §2i, pp. 45–48
- J. S. Milne, Algebraic Geometry v6.10, §2i p. 49
- J. S. Milne, Algebraic Geometry v6.10, Proposition 2.37, p. 49
- J. S. Milne, Algebraic Geometry v6.10, Definition 3.8, p. 61
- J. S. Milne, Algebraic Geometry v6.10, Proposition 3.9, p. 61
- J. S. Milne, Algebraic Geometry v6.10, Lemma 3.10 and Proposition 3.11, pp. 61–62
- J. S. Milne, Algebraic Geometry v6.10, Propositions 2.27, 2.31 and Corollary 2.32, pp. 45–47
- J. S. Milne, Algebraic Geometry v6.10, §3e pp. 65–66
- J. S. Milne, Algebraic Geometry v6.10, Example 2.13, 2.20, and §3e, pp. 41, 43, 65
- J. S. Milne, Algebraic Geometry v6.10, Proposition 3.11 final paragraph, p. 62
- J. S. Milne, Algebraic Geometry v6.10, §3d and Proposition 3.26, pp. 64–67
- J. S. Milne, Algebraic Geometry v6.10, §2j pp. 49–50
- J. S. Milne, Algebraic Geometry v6.10, Propositions 3.24–3.26, pp. 66–67
- J. S. Milne, Algebraic Geometry v6.10, §3e and Proposition 3.25, pp. 65–67
- J. S. Milne, Algebraic Geometry v6.10, Proposition 3.26 and the separatedness calculation of §5c, pp. 67, 102
- J. S. Milne, Algebraic Geometry v6.10, §3b, p. 60
- J. S. Milne, Algebraic Geometry v6.10, Corollary 3.12 and 3.17, pp. 62–64
- J. S. Milne, Algebraic Geometry v6.10, §3h pp. 71–72 and Proposition 3.11 pp. 61–62
- J. S. Milne, Algebraic Geometry v6.10, §3h pp. 71–72
- J. S. Milne, Algebraic Geometry v6.10, §2i p. 49 and §3k p. 74
- J. S. Milne, Algebraic Geometry v6.10, §3k p. 74; Definition 3.8 p. 61
- J. S. Milne, Algebraic Geometry v6.10, §3k p. 74 and Proposition 3.32 p. 71
- J. S. Milne, Algebraic Geometry v6.10, §5l p. 117
- J. S. Milne, Algebraic Geometry v6.10, Proposition 3.34 p. 72 and §§5k–l pp. 116–117
- J. S. Milne, Algebraic Geometry v6.10, Lemma 5.6 and Proposition 5.8, pp. 102–103
- J. S. Milne, Algebraic Geometry v6.10, Proposition 3.9 p. 61 and §5d pp. 103–104
- J. S. Milne, Algebraic Geometry v6.10, §5k–l pp. 116–117
- J. S. Milne, Algebraic Geometry v6.10, §5k and Proposition 5.38, pp. 116–117
- J. S. Milne, Algebraic Geometry v6.10, Proposition 5.38 p. 117; Proposition 3.34(a) p. 72
- J. S. Milne, Algebraic Geometry v6.10, Definitions 5.2, 5.7 and Proposition 5.4, pp. 100–102
- J. S. Milne, Algebraic Geometry v6.10, 3k p. 74, 5.10 p. 103, §5k p. 116
- J. S. Milne, Algebraic Geometry v6.10, Proposition 3.36 p. 74 and Proposition 5.39 p. 117