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 be a field. If a -scheme is separated over , then its underlying Zariski topological space is Hausdorff. In particular separatedness of can be read off from the separation of its points by disjoint open sets.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A field , the affine line with structure morphism to , and the two points and of .
Every morphism of affine schemes is separated; in particular is separated. (Affine schemes and affine morphisms are separated)
The comparison between separatedness and Hausdorffness goes through the scheme-theoretic product: a nonempty open subset of is the complement of a closed set with , the generic point lies in every such complement, so every two nonempty open subsets meet, and closedness of the diagonal in says nothing about pairs of distinct points of . (Separated is not Zariski Hausdorff)
Counterexample
The affine line is affine over , so by [F1] the structure morphism is separated. The points and of are distinct: is the generic point, and the maximal ideal is a proper nonzero prime.
Let be a nonempty open subset. Its complement is a proper closed subset, hence of the form for some nonzero ; since is a domain, a nonzero polynomial is not in the prime ideal , so and therefore . Thus belongs to every nonempty open subset.
Let and be open neighbourhoods of the distinct points and . Since is nonempty, step 1.2 gives , and by definition; hence is nonempty.
Step 2.1 shows that no two distinct points of have disjoint open neighbourhoods, so is not Hausdorff, while step 1.1 shows that is separated over ; the implication asserted in the statement is therefore false.
Remarks
The prime-spectrum page records the same non-Hausdorff phenomenon for 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 , 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
- Ravi Vakil, The Rising Sea, Exercise 11.3.B, printed p.308 (standard reference, not scraped)
- The Stacks Project, Schemes, Section 26.21 introduction, printed pp.39-40 (standard reference, not scraped)