Alphabeta Math
CounterexampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-6-sol)audited 2026-09-27
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.

A separated scheme whose point space is not Hausdorff

Statement refuted

Let k be a field. If a k-scheme is separated over k, then its underlying Zariski topological space is Hausdorff. In particular separatedness of Ak1 can be read off from the separation of its points by disjoint open sets.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A field k, the affine line Ak1=Spec⁡k[t] with structure morphism to Spec⁡k, and the two points (0) and (t) of Spec⁡k[t].

[F1]

Every morphism of affine schemes Spec⁡B→Spec⁡A is separated; in particular Ak1→Spec⁡k is separated. (Affine schemes and affine morphisms are separated)

[F2]

The comparison between separatedness and Hausdorffness goes through the scheme-theoretic product: a nonempty open subset of Spec⁡k[t] is the complement of a closed set V(f) with f≠0, the generic point (0) lies in every such complement, so every two nonempty open subsets meet, and closedness of the diagonal in X×SX says nothing about pairs of distinct points of ∣X∣. (Separated is not Zariski Hausdorff)

Counterexample

1.1

The affine line Ak1=Spec⁡k[t] is affine over Spec⁡k, so by [F1] the structure morphism is separated. The points (0) and (t) of Spec⁡k[t] are distinct: (0) is the generic point, and the maximal ideal (t) is a proper nonzero prime.

F1algebra
1.2

Let U⊆Spec⁡k[t] be a nonempty open subset. Its complement is a proper closed subset, hence of the form V(f) for some nonzero f∈k[t]; since k[t] is a domain, a nonzero polynomial is not in the prime ideal (0), so (0)∉V(f) and therefore (0)∈U. Thus (0) belongs to every nonempty open subset.

F2algebra
2.1

Let U1 and U2 be open neighbourhoods of the distinct points (0) and (t). Since U2 is nonempty, step 1.2 gives (0)∈U2, and (0)∈U1 by definition; hence U1∩U2∋(0) is nonempty.

step 1.1step 1.2
3.1

Step 2.1 shows that no two distinct points of Spec⁡k[t] have disjoint open neighbourhoods, so ∣Ak1∣ is not Hausdorff, while step 1.1 shows that Ak1 is separated over k; the implication asserted in the statement is therefore false.

F2step 1.1step 2.1∎

Remarks

The prime-spectrum page records the same non-Hausdorff phenomenon for Spec⁡Z as A generic point and a distinct specialization cannot be separated in the Zariski topology. Here the example is placed next to the separatedness of Ak1, which is what makes the failure of the topological analogy visible: the two notions live in different categories, the scheme-theoretic product and the product of topological spaces.

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

8 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