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.
The doubled-origin diagonal is not closed
Statement refuted
For the affine line with doubled origin over a field , the diagonal image is a closed subset of , so that the diagonal of is at least set-theoretically closed.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A field and the affine line with doubled origin over , with its two charts , glued by the identity on , and with diagonal .
is obtained by gluing and by the identity on the complement of the origin; the two copies of every nonzero point are identified and the two closed points , remain distinct. Moreover is quasi-separated but not separated. (The affine line with doubled origin is not separated)
The diagonal satisfies , so it carries a point of to the pair . (The diagonal morphism)
For ring maps , one has ; in particular the product of two affine charts of is affine. (Affine fibre products are spectra of tensor products)
Counterexample
By [F3] the product is covered by the four open subschemes , , , , of which the cross term is , with the first projection and the second.
By [F2] the inverse image of under is , and the restriction of to it is the morphism whose composites with and are the two inclusions; under the identification of step 1.1 it is the morphism of affine schemes corresponding to the ring map with , , where is the glued .
The point is not in : its first projection is the closed point of and its second projection is the closed point of , and these are distinct points of by [F1]. Were for some , then and would force by [F2], a contradiction.
The image of the morphism of step 2.1 is the set : a point of has coordinate , so its image satisfies , and conversely a point of with lies in and is the image of the corresponding nonzero value of .
The set is dense in : the line is irreducible, so removing the single closed point given by leaves a nonempty open subset, which is dense. Hence , the maximal ideal of , lies in the closure of the image of inside the chart .
By steps 4.1 and 2.2 the diagonal image accumulates at a point of the chart that does not belong to it, so is not closed in . This is the concrete form of the failure of separatedness recorded in [F1]: for the doubled-origin line the diagonal is a locally closed subscheme whose closure is strictly larger than its image.
Depends on
Used by
Nothing in the library uses this result yet.
Dependency tree · two levels
12 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- The Stacks Project, Schemes, Lemma 26.21.7 and Example 26.21.8, printed p.41 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Ravi Vakil, The Rising Sea, Exercise 11.3.I, printed p.309 (standard reference, not scraped)