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.
Zariski's Main Theorem: open immersion followed by a finite morphism
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Choice. Let be a separated morphism of finite type with finite fibres (quasi-finite in the classical sense) between classical varieties over an algebraically closed field. Then factors as with an open immersion and finite. This is the exact classical form of Zariski's Main Theorem used by the later items of this page.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: AC, the algebraically closed field , and the separated finite-type quasi-finite morphism of classical varieties.
In the classical register, a morphism has finite fibres exactly when it is quasi-finite: every closed-point fibre is a finite set, empty fibres allowed (Quasi-finite classical morphisms, Classical algebraic prevarieties, regular maps, and varieties).
The local classical Zariski Main bridge: for a separated finite-type morphism with finite fibres between classical varieties, allowing reduced reducible or empty varieties, the relative integral closures of the affine charts glue to a finite classical morphism , and the evaluation maps glue to an open immersion with (Classical Zariski Main from relative integral-closure neighbourhoods). AC is consumed there through the algebraic Zariski Main localisation and the standard-smooth suppliers.
The conclusion is finite in the sense of the page's affine-local finite-morphism definition (Finite morphisms of classical varieties).
Proof
The morphism of the statement is separated of finite type with finite fibres, so it is quasi-finite in the sense of [F1]; its source and target are classical varieties in the register of [F1] and [F2], with a finite affine atlas making them quasi-compact, and separatedness giving quasi-separatedness. These are exactly the hypotheses of the bridge [F2], which allows reduced reducible or empty varieties and assumes no quasi-projectivity, normality, separability, or smoothness.
Applying [F2], the relative integral closures of the affine coordinate rings glue to a finite classical morphism , and the evaluation maps glue to an open immersion satisfying . By [F3] the map is finite in the page's sense, and is an open immersion, so is the asserted factorization. This is the exact classical form of Zariski's Main Theorem used below: an open immersion followed by a finite morphism.
Depends on
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
24 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 (2025 version), Ch. 8 §e: Theorems 8.45-8.46 (Zariski's Main Theorem, local form) (standard reference, not scraped)
- The Stacks Project, Section 37.43 Zariski's Main Theorem (Lemmas 37.43.1-37.43.3) (standard reference, not scraped)
- Ravi Vakil, The Rising Sea: Foundations of Algebraic Geometry (November 18, 2017 public draft), §29.6 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Grothendieck and Dieudonne, EGA IV part 4 (Publications mathematiques de l'IHES 32), §18.12.12-18.12.15 (standard reference, not scraped)