Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-07
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.

Scheme-theoretic image of a quasi-compact morphism

Statement

Assume the Axiom of Choice (The Axiom of Choice). Let f:X→Y be a quasi-compact morphism of schemes and put I=ker⁡(OY→f∗OX). Then I is a quasi-coherent ideal sheaf, and the closed subscheme V(I) is the scheme-theoretic image of f. For every open W⊆Y, its restriction V(I)∩W is the scheme-theoretic image of f−1(W)→W.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The Axiom of Choice and a quasi-compact morphism f:X→Y.

[F1]

A morphism is quasi-compact when inverse images of quasi-compact opens are quasi-compact Quasi-compact and quasi-separated morphisms.

[F2]

Under AC, for a scheme, quasi-coherent ideal sheaves and closed subschemes are in mutually inverse correspondence Quasi-coherent ideals and closed subschemes.

[F3]

Localization of modules is exact, so it preserves kernels; it also commutes with finite products, including the empty product. Localisation of modules is exact

[F4]

For an affine scheme Spec⁡B and b∈B, the structure-sheaf sections on D(b) are Bb. Sections and restrictions on distinguished opens of an affine scheme

Proof

technique · direct
1.1givenF1choose

Let V=Spec⁡A be an affine open of Y. By [F1], f−1(V) is quasi-compact, so its affine-open cover has a finite subcover U1,…,Un; when f−1(V) is empty, take the finite empty cover. The finite-subcover step and the correspondence used below are licensed by the given AC.

2.1step 1.1F3F4

Write Ui=Spec⁡Bi and let φi:A→Bi be induced by f∣Ui. The sheaf condition makes Γ(f−1(V),OX) inject into ∏iBi, so the kernel of A→Γ(f−1(V),OX) equals the ideal IV=ker⁡(A→∏iBi). For g∈A, the opens Ui∩f−1(D(g))=DUi(φi(g)) cover f−1(D(g)), and [F4] identifies their section rings with (Bi)φi(g). The sheaf condition therefore makes the kernel of Ag→Γ(f−1(D(g)),OX) equal to ker⁡(Ag→∏i(Bi)φi(g)). By [F3], localizing the exact sequence 0→IV→A→∏iBi identifies this kernel with (IV)g: localization commutes with the finite product. The same argument includes the empty cover, for which both kernels are the whole source ring.

3.1step 2.1

Thus I∣V is the ideal sheaf associated to IV on every affine V, so I is quasi-coherent.

4.1F2step 3.1

By [F2], I defines a closed subscheme V(I). On each affine V, the map A→∏iBi factors through A/IV, so f factors through it. If a closed subscheme defined on V by J⊆A also receives f, then J⊆IV; hence V(IV) factors through that competing closed subscheme. This proves minimality.

5.1F2step 3.1∎

Repeating the kernel computation on an open W⊆Y gives the restriction of I to W. The correspondence in [F2] therefore identifies V(I)∩W with the scheme-theoretic image of f−1(W)→W.

Depends on

Used by

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