Alphabeta Math
CounterexampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedjudge pass (gpt-6.1-sol)
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.

Normalization of a non-normal surface is not a point blowup

Statement refuted

False claim refuted: a normalization of a singular surface is a finite composition of point blowups, or more generally a proper modification that is an isomorphism outside a finite set of points.

Let k be any field of characteristic ≠2 and let S=Spec⁡k[x,y,z]/(x2−y2z)⊆Ak3. Write A=k[x,y,z]/(x2−y2z) and B=k[u,y], and let ν ⁣:Spec⁡B=Ak2⟶S,x↦yu,y↦y,z↦u2. Then:

  1. S is an integral surface, its Jacobian singular locus is the whole z-axis x=y=0, and S is not normal.
  2. The map ν is the finite birational normalization of S and is an isomorphism exactly over {y≠0}. Over every geometric point of the z-axis with z≠0, its fibre has two distinct points.
  3. Consequently ν is not a point blowup, not a finite composition of point blowups of S, and not any proper modification of S that is an isomorphism over the complement of a finite set of points: every point blowup is an isomorphism off its centre, whereas ν fails to be an isomorphism over infinitely many points of the z-axis.

The target is nonnormal, so this example records the failure of point-blowup factorization when the target regularity hypothesis is dropped. Normalization is a different operation from point blowups.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A field k of characteristic not two, the ring A=k[x,y,z]/(x2−y2z), the ring B=k[u,y], and the displayed map A→B.

[F1]

Normal scheme modifications and normalized point blowups: for an integral scheme, normalization is obtained on each affine open by taking the integral closure of its coordinate ring in the common function field and gluing these algebras.

[F2]

Integral closure in an extension ring and integrally closed domains: the integral closure of a domain in an extension ring is the set of elements integral over it; a domain is integrally closed when this closure in its fraction field is the domain itself.

[F3]

Finite morphisms of schemes: an affine morphism is finite when its target ring makes the source ring a finite module.

[F4]

Birational morphisms of integral finite-type schemes: a dominant morphism of integral finite-type k-schemes inducing an isomorphism of function fields is birational.

[F5]

Finite-variable polynomial algebras over fields are integrally closed: the polynomial ring k[u,y] is an integrally closed domain for every field k.

[F6]

The blowup is an isomorphism off the center: a blowup is an isomorphism over the complement of the subscheme being blown up.

[F7]

embedding dimension and regular local ring: a Noetherian local ring is regular when its embedding dimension, dim⁡κ(m)m/m2, equals its Krull dimension.

[F8]

Affine-domain dimension equals transcendence degree: the dimension of a finite-type domain over a field equals the transcendence degree of its fraction field.

Counterexample

1.1F7F8given

The polynomial x2−y2z is irreducible: over k(y,z) it is a quadratic in x and can factor only if z is a square, which it is not because its valuation at the prime (z) is one; Gauss's lemma then gives irreducibility over k[y,z]. Thus A is a domain, and k[y,z] embeds in it while x is algebraic over k(y,z), so its fraction field has transcendence degree two and S is a surface by [F8]. The partial derivatives are (2x,−2yz,−y2), whose common zero locus on S is exactly x=y=0. At the generic point P=(x,y) of this axis, z is invertible and AP≅k(z)[x,y](x,y)/(x2−zy2). Before localization this is a one-dimensional affine domain by [F8]; the chain (0)⊊(x,y) shows the local ring has dimension one. Its maximal ideal has cotangent-space basis the classes of x and y, since the relation is in (x,y)2; hence it is not regular by [F7].

2.1F1F2F3F4F5step 1.1

Let ψ:A→B be the displayed homomorphism. After inverting y, it is an isomorphism Ay≅k[y,y−1,u]=By, with inverse u=x/y; since A is a domain and y≠0, ψ is injective. Thus we identify A=k[y,yu,u2]⊆B and their fraction fields agree, so ν is birational by [F4]. The ring B=A[u] is generated as an A-module by 1,u, because u2=z∈A, so ν is finite by [F3]. The element u is integral over A by u2−z=0, but u∉A: modulo y, the image of A in B/(y)=k[u] is k[u2], which does not contain u. Hence A is not integrally closed and S is not normal. Since B is integrally closed by [F5], every element of the common fraction field integral over A is also integral over B and therefore lies in B; conversely every element of B is integral over A. Thus B is the integral closure of A, and [F1] identifies ν as the normalization.

3.1F1F2step 2.1

The inverse u=x/y proves that ν is an isomorphism over D(y). For a geometric point on the z-axis with z=z0≠0, the fibre is given by y=0 and u2=z0; it has two distinct points because the geometric residue field has characteristic not two. At the origin m=(x,y,z), the local ring Am is not integrally closed either: if u=a/s with a∈A and s∈A∖m, then su=a in B. Reducing modulo y gives q(u2)u=r(u2) in k[u], where q(u2) is the image of s and has nonzero constant term, while r(u2) is the image of a. The left side is a nonzero polynomial containing only odd powers of u, and the right side contains only even powers, a contradiction. Thus the normalization is not an isomorphism over any neighbourhood of the origin. Together with the two-point fibres this shows that its isomorphism locus is exactly D(y).

4.1F6step 3.1∎

By [F6], each point blowup is an isomorphism away from its centre. Therefore a finite composition of point blowups is an isomorphism over the complement of the finite set of images of its centres in S. Any proper modification that is an isomorphism outside a finite set has the same property. But [step 3.1] shows that ν is not an isomorphism over the complement of any finite set, since infinitely many points of the z-axis have fibres with two distinct geometric points. Hence it is not any of these point-blowup modifications.

Remarks

  • Over a non-algebraically closed field, a point of the z-axis with z0 a nonsquare may have one degree-two residue-field point in its fibre; after geometric base change it splits into two distinct points, which is enough to rule out an isomorphism.
  • The normalization is finite and birational, so it is a modification; what fails is exactly the description of its exceptional behaviour as finite point blowups.

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

54 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