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.
Formal unramifiedness iff Omega vanishes
Statement
Let be a morphism of schemes. Then is formally unramified (Formally unramified morphism) if and only if (Sheaf of relative Kähler differentials). No finite-type, finite-presentation, flatness or separatedness hypothesis is imposed on , and no existence of lifts is asserted in either direction.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A morphism of schemes .
Formally unramified morphism: is formally unramified if for every square-zero thickening over and every -morphism there is at most one -morphism restricting to it; over affine opens this says that two -algebra maps into a ring with square-zero ideal that agree modulo are equal.
The diagonal ideal modulo its square is Omega: for a ring map and one has via .
Universal property of relative differential sheaves: for every -module the map is a bijection .
Affine charts recover the algebraic module of differentials: for an affine open lying over an affine open one has ; hence if and only if for all such charts.
Sheaf of relative Kähler differentials: an -derivation is additive, satisfies Leibniz, and kills the image of the structure map from .
Closed immersions of schemes and Schemes and morphisms over a base: a closed immersion with ideal sheaf is a square-zero thickening when ; a morphism is determined by its map of structure sheaves, so two morphisms of schemes are equal exactly when their sheaf maps are.
Proof
Assume ; we show that lifts are unique. Let be a square-zero thickening over and let be an -morphism with two -morphism lifts . Since and have the same underlying map on points, the direct images and are the same sheaf of rings pushed forward along this common map, and both and are maps ; the difference is a morphism of sheaves of abelian groups valued in , where , because and agree on after composition with . The sheaf is an -module through , and is an -derivation: it is additive, and for local sections of one has , since and . It kills the image of because and are -morphisms. By [F3] with and , , so , that is ; by [F6] . Hence is formally unramified.
Assume formally unramified; we show on every affine chart. Let be affine over an affine open , put with , and let be the quotient. The ideal has square zero, so is a square-zero thickening over ; the two -algebra maps and from to both compose with to the identity, so the -morphisms induced by agree on . By [F1] applied to this thickening, , and therefore the maps on global sections agree: . Hence in for all , that is , and [F2] gives .
Conclusion. Step 1.1 proves that implies that is formally unramified and step 1.2 that a formally unramified has on every affine chart, hence by [F4]. This proves the equivalence; nowhere were finiteness, flatness or separatedness used, and no lift was constructed, only used for uniqueness in step 1.1.
Depends on
- Formally unramified morphism
- The diagonal ideal modulo its square is Omega
- Universal property of relative differential sheaves
- The diagonal morphism
- Sheaf of relative Kähler differentials
- Affine charts recover the algebraic module of differentials
- Kernel sheaves are objectwise, while cokernels and images are sheafified
- Schemes and morphisms over a base
- Closed immersions of schemes
Used by
- Zero Frobenius tangent map does not imply formal etaleness Counterexample
- Unramified morphism Definition
- A closed point immersion is unramified Example
- Unramified residue extensions are finite separable Lemma
- Differential rank alone does not prove smoothness Remark
- An unramified morphism has an open diagonal Theorem
Dependency tree · two levels
32 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
- Stacks Algebra, Lemma 10.148.3 (tag 00UO) and Stacks More on Morphisms, Lemma 37.6.7 (standard reference, not scraped)