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.
Closed immersions are local on the target
Statement
Let be a morphism of schemes and let be an open cover. Then is a closed immersion if and only if the restriction is a closed immersion for every .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A morphism of schemes and an open cover , the restrictions carrying the restricted structure sheaves.
A morphism is a closed immersion if its underlying map is a homeomorphism onto a closed subset and the morphism is surjective. (Closed immersions of schemes)
Proof technique: direct.
Proof
Assume is a closed immersion and fix . The map restricts to a homeomorphism of onto , which is closed in . For with one has and has the same stalk at , namely ; the stalk map is the surjection of [F1]. Hence is surjective and the restriction is a closed immersion by [F1].
Conversely assume that every restriction is a closed immersion, hence injective on points. If , choose with ; then and injectivity gives . So is injective.
For each the set is closed in , since it is the image of the restriction , a homeomorphism onto a closed subset. A subset of whose intersection with every member of an open cover is closed is closed, so is closed in .
Let be closed. Then is closed in , so its image is closed in for every , using the first direction of [F1] for each restriction. Hence is closed in the closed subset , and is a homeomorphism.
Finally is surjective, because surjectivity of a morphism of sheaves is checked on stalks and at the stalk map is the stalk at of the surjective map of step 1.2.
Steps 1.2, 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 exhibit as a homeomorphism onto the closed subset with surjective structure map, so is a closed immersion by [F1]; the forward direction is step 1.1. ∎
Depends on
Used by
- A proper nonprojective scheme from glued projective spaces Counterexample
- Incidence projection has closed determinantal image Example
- The diagonal of the affine line Example
- A section of an invertible sheaf has a canonical zero subscheme Lemma
- Affine finite-type source immerses into relative projective space Lemma
- Affine morphisms are separated Lemma
- Closed immersions are affine quotients and survive base change Lemma
- Divisor ampleness and quasi-projectivity of group models Lemma
- Every scheme diagonal is an immersion Lemma
- Fpqc descent of properness components Lemma
- Properness is local on the target Lemma
- Pushouts of closed immersions exist Lemma
- Separated minimal union and translations Lemma
- Separatedness is local on the base Lemma
- Affine-overlap criterion for separatedness Theorem
- Effective Cartier divisors are closed subschemes cut out by regular equations Theorem
- High powers of an ample line bundle embed a proper scheme Theorem
- Line bundles of degree at least 2g+1 are very ample Theorem
- Strict transforms of closed subschemes are blowups of the subscheme Theorem
- The canonical map: base-point-freeness and the hyperelliptic exception Theorem
- Veronese embedding pulls O(1) back to O(d) Theorem
Dependency tree · two levels
3 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 26.4.2 (tag 01HL), printed p.5 (standard reference, not scraped)