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.
Irreducible affine varieties are birational exactly when their function fields are isomorphic
Statement
Let and be classical affine varieties. Then and are birationally equivalent if and only if their function fields are isomorphic as extensions of .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Classical affine varieties and .
A birational map is a rational map admitting a rational inverse (Birational maps and birational equivalence of classical affine varieties).
Dominant rational maps correspond exactly to injective -homomorphisms (Dominant rational maps to an affine variety correspond to injective homomorphisms of function fields).
Proof
Suppose is birational, with inverse . By [L2], both maps induce injective pullbacks and . Because pullback is functorial, and . Since the two compositions are identity rational maps by [L1], the two field homomorphisms are inverse isomorphisms.
Conversely, let be a field isomorphism. By [L2], the map comes from a dominant rational map , and comes from a dominant rational map . Applying [L2] again to the compositions shows that and induce the identity on function fields, so they are the identity rational maps. Hence is birational.
Steps 1.1 and 1.2 prove that and are birationally equivalent exactly when as -extensions.
Depends on
Used by
- Birational quasi-finite maps to normal targets are open immersions Corollary
- The normalization is unique up to unique isomorphism Corollary
- The normalization of an irreducible affine variety is finite Corollary
- The cusp normalization is bijective but not an isomorphism Counterexample
- A finite birational morphism onto a normal variety is an isomorphism Lemma
- Normalization is finite, surjective and birational Theorem
Dependency tree · two levels
12 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
- J. S. Milne, Algebraic Geometry, Proposition 5.39 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Donu Arapura, Notes on Basic Algebraic Geometry, §3.1-§3.2 (standard reference, not scraped)