Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-09-30
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.

Relative very ampleness implies relative ampleness

Statement

Assume the Axiom of Choice as inherited from the Proj and associated-sheaf constructions (The Axiom of Choice). Let f:X→S be a quasi-compact morphism of schemes (Quasi-compact and quasi-separated morphisms) and let L be an invertible OX-module which is H-very ample relative to S (Relative very ampleness in the finite projective-space convention), witnessed by an S-immersion i:X→PSn with L≅i∗O(1) (Relative projective space from standard charts).

Then L is f-ample (Relative ampleness over an arbitrary base). If S=Spec⁡R is affine, L is ample in the absolute sense (Absolute ampleness by affine section opens); if in addition i is a closed immersion, the same conclusion follows directly from the affine charts of PSn. The empty cases are included: if X=∅, or if S=∅, the ampleness conditions are vacuous.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A quasi-compact morphism f:X→S, an invertible sheaf L with L≅i∗O(1) for an S-immersion i:X→PSn, and the Axiom of Choice as inherited from the Proj constructions.

[A1]

The Axiom of Choice states that every family of nonempty sets has a choice function. (The Axiom of Choice)

[F1]

H-very ampleness of L relative to S means that there is n≥0 and a quasi-compact S-immersion i:X→PSn with L≅i∗OPSn(1); the sheaf O(1) is glued from frames ei on the standard charts Ui with transitions ej=xj(i)ei on overlaps, equivalently ei↦xi(j)ej, and O(d)=O(1)⊗d for d≥0. (Relative very ampleness in the finite projective-space convention)

[F2]

A morphism is quasi-compact precisely when the inverse image of every affine open is quasi-compact, and quasi-compactness is stable under arbitrary base change; immersions are stable under arbitrary base change. (Quasi-compact and quasi-separated morphisms, Quasi-compactness is local on the target and survives base change, Base change of immersions, Base change of objects, morphisms and properties)

[F3]

For an affine base U=Spec⁡A one has PUn=Proj⁡A[x0,…,xn], the standard charts Ui=D+(xi) are affine, and the standard opens D+(F) with F homogeneous of positive degree form a basis of the topology. (Projective space is Proj of a polynomial ring, Standard opens of Proj)

[F4]

For an affine open subscheme W of a scheme X, an invertible sheaf M on X and a global section t∈Γ(X,M) the intersection W∩Xt is an affine open subscheme of X, where Xt is the nonvanishing locus of t. (A line-bundle section cuts an affine open inside an affine scheme)

[F5]

An invertible sheaf N on a quasi-compact scheme Y is ample if for every y∈Y there are d≥1 and s∈Γ(Y,Nd) with y∈Ys and Ys affine. (Absolute ampleness by affine section opens)

Proof

technique · direct: restrict to an affine base open, convert homogeneous forms on the projective space into global sections of powers of $L$ whose affine nonvanishing loci shrink to any prescribed affine neighbourhood, and conclude ampleness point by point
1.1F1F3algebra

Forms give sections with the same nonvanishing locus. Let U=Spec⁡A be an affine open of S and let F∈A[x0,…,xn] be homogeneous of degree d>0. On the chart Uj=D+(xj) put F(j)=F(x0(j),…,1,…,xn(j))=F/xjd, and define sF∣Uj=F(j)ejd∈Γ(Uj,O(d)). On an overlap the coordinates satisfy xℓ(j)=xℓ(i)/xj(i), so F(j)=F(i)/(xj(i))d, and the frame transition ejd=(xj(i))deid gives F(j)ejd=F(i)eid; hence the local sections glue to a global section sF∈Γ(PUn,O(d)). Since each ej is a frame, the nonvanishing locus is computed on charts as XsF∩Uj={F(j)≠0}, so XsF=D+(F).

1.2F1F2

The restricted situation. Put XU=f−1(U) with structure morphism fU:XU→U and LU=L∣XU. By [F2] the morphism f is quasi-compact, so XU is quasi-compact, and the base change iU:XU→PUn of i along U↪S is a quasi-compact immersion with LU≅iU∗OPUn(1); this is the situation of [F1] over the affine base U.

1.3F2F3construct

Shrinking a neighbourhood to a standard open. Let x∈XU and let W⊆XU be an affine open subscheme containing x; write y=iU(x). Since iU is an immersion, it is a homeomorphism onto the locally closed subset iU(XU)⊆PUn, so iU(W) is open in iU(XU) and there is an open V⊆PUn with iU−1(V)⊆W and y∈V. By [F3] the standard opens D+(F) with F homogeneous of positive degree form a basis of the topology, so choose such an F with y∈D+(F)⊆V. Then x∈iU−1(D+(F))⊆iU−1(V)⊆W.

2.1F1step 1.1algebra

Pulling back the sections. For F homogeneous of positive degree d, the pullback iU∗sF is a global section of iU∗O(d)≅LUd, and its nonvanishing locus is XiU∗sF=iU−1(XsF)=iU−1(D+(F)): the pullback of a section of an invertible sheaf has nonvanishing locus the preimage of the original nonvanishing locus, because a local trivialisation of O(d) pulls back to one of LUd and the corresponding function is the pullback function.

3.1F4step 2.1step 1.3

Ampleness at a point. With F as in step 1.3 and d=deg⁡F>0, let s=iU∗sF∈Γ(XU,LUd), a section of a positive power of the invertible sheaf LU. Then x∈Xs=iU−1(D+(F))⊆W by step 2.1, and since W is an affine open subscheme of XU, [F4] gives that Xs=W∩Xs is an affine open subscheme of XU. So every point of XU admits a positive power of LU with a global section whose nonvanishing locus is affine and contains the point.

4.1F5step 1.2step 3.1

Ampleness over an affine base open. The scheme XU is quasi-compact by step 1.2, so the criterion [F5] applies to the invertible sheaf LU on XU with the sections produced in step 3.1: LU is ample on XU.

5.1

Conclusion. Every affine open U⊆S has L∣f−1(U) ample on f−1(U), so L is f-ample by definition; if S=Spec⁡R is affine this is absolute ampleness of L on X. If in addition the immersion i is a closed immersion, the same argument applies verbatim; the only simplification in that case is that the image is closed, so the shrinking step 1.3 may be replaced by choosing a chart Ui containing i(x), whose preimage X∩Ui is affine as a closed subscheme of the affine scheme Ui. If X=∅ or S=∅ there is no point to test and the conditions of [F5] and of f-ampleness are vacuous, so the conclusion holds. The Axiom of Choice [A1] is inherited from the Proj and associated-sheaf constructions; no choice is made here. [A1, F1, F5, step 4.1, cases: empty and affine base] \qed

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

31 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