Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedprecheck pass
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.

Blowups restrict to open subschemes of the base

Statement

Assume the Axiom of Choice as inherited from the relative Proj construction. Let j ⁣:U→X be an open subscheme of a scheme X, let I be a quasi-coherent ideal sheaf on X and let I∣U be its restriction. Then there is a canonical isomorphism of U-schemes Bl⁡I∣UU→Bl⁡IX×XU, equivalently an isomorphism of the open subscheme π−1(U) of Bl⁡IX with Bl⁡I∣UU over U; these isomorphisms are compatible with inclusions of opens.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A scheme X, an open subscheme j ⁣:U→X (Open immersions of schemes), a quasi-coherent ideal sheaf I⊆OX (Quasi-coherent ideal sheaves) with restriction I∣U=j∗I, and the blowup π ⁣:Bl⁡IX→X of (Blowup of a scheme along an ideal sheaf), whose Rees algebra is R(I)=⨁n≥0In.

[F1]

Relative Proj commutes with arbitrary base change: For a morphism g ⁣:S′→S and a quasi-coherent graded OS-algebra A, with A′=g∗A graded by (A′)d=g∗Ad, there is a canonical isomorphism of S′-schemes Proj⁡SA×SS′≅Proj⁡S′A′, natural in S′→S, compatible with the relative twists. No flatness and no finite-generation hypothesis is required.

[F2]

Rees algebra sheaf of a finite type ideal: For a quasi-coherent ideal sheaf I on a scheme X, the Rees algebra sheaf is R(I)=⨁n≥0In with degree-n piece In and multiplication induced by multiplication in OX; the construction is local on X and on an affine chart Spec⁡A with I=I~ it restricts to the sheaf associated to ⨁n≥0In.

[F3]

Scheme pullback preserves quasi-coherence: Pullback of a quasi-coherent module along a morphism of schemes is quasi-coherent, and on affine opens with f(U)⊆V, U=Spec⁡B, V=Spec⁡A and F∣V=M~ one has f∗F∣U≅(B⊗AM)~.

[F4]

Base change of immersions: Open immersions remain open immersions after arbitrary base change.

[F5]

Base change of objects, morphisms and properties: The base change of f ⁣:X→S along h ⁣:S′→S is X×SS′ with second projection as structure map, and the formulas preserve identities and composition.

[F6]

Blowup of a scheme along an ideal sheaf: For a scheme X and a quasi-coherent ideal sheaf of finite type with zero scheme Z, the blowup is Bl⁡IX=Proj⁡XR(I) with structural morphism to X and relative twists.

Proof

1.1F2F3

The pullback along j of the Rees algebra is the Rees algebra of the restricted ideal: j∗R(I)≅R(I∣U) as graded OU-algebras. Indeed, restriction to the open subscheme U is exact and commutes with tensor products, so j∗(In)≅(j∗I)n=(I∣U)n for every n≥0, and these identifications are compatible with the multiplications inherited from OX and OU; the graded pieces of both sides are quasi-coherent by [F3], and I∣U is again quasi-coherent (of finite type when I is).

2.1F1F6step 1.1

Applying [F1] to the morphism j ⁣:U→X and the graded algebra A=R(I) gives a canonical isomorphism of U-schemes Bl⁡IX×XU=Proj⁡XR(I)×XU≅Proj⁡U(j∗R(I))≅Proj⁡UR(I∣U)=Bl⁡I∣UU, where the last equality is the definition of the blowup of U along I∣U; the isomorphism is compatible with the relative twists.

3.1F4F5step 2.1

The first projection Bl⁡IX×XU→Bl⁡IX is the base change of the open immersion j along π, hence an open immersion by [F4], and its underlying image is the open subset π−1(U). Identifying the fibre product with this open subscheme via that open immersion turns the isomorphism of step 2.1 into an isomorphism π−1(U)→Bl⁡I∣UU over U.

4.1F1F5step 3.1∎

The isomorphisms are compatible with inclusions of opens: for open subschemes U′⊆U⊆X one has (Bl⁡IX×XU)×UU′=Bl⁡IX×XU′ by [F5], and the isomorphism of [F1] is natural in the base morphism, so the identifications for U and for U′ restrict to one another; the same naturality makes the passage to π−1(U) of step 3.1 compatible with the inclusion π−1(U′)⊆π−1(U).

Remarks

For an ideal not of finite type, the notation here extends Blowup of a scheme along an ideal sheaf by using Proj⁡X(⨁n≥0In) directly. Its graded algebra is quasi-coherent by the affine ideal-power calculation of Rees algebra sheaf of a finite type ideal, and no finite generation is required by Relative Proj of a graded quasi-coherent algebra.

  • The statement is written for a quasi-coherent ideal sheaf; the finite type hypothesis of Blowup of a scheme along an ideal sheaf is not needed for either side of the comparison and is preserved under restriction when it is imposed.
  • The identifications are canonical: on the overlaps of two open subschemes the two blowups agree because both restrict the same graded algebra R(I).

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

47 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