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.
Representable cdh sheaves and seminormalization
PDF p. 5: Proof of Lemma 2.4, HK18 Theorem 1.4
Statement
Let be a perfect field, and let be separated finite-type -schemes. Write and for its sheafification on the big cdh site of separated finite-type -schemes. Then there is a natural bijection If is seminormal, this identifies with .
A perfect field is one for which every algebraic extension is separable. A finite-type -scheme has a finite affine cover by spectra of finitely generated -algebras; separatedness means its diagonal is a closed immersion. The cdh topology and sheafification are those in Completely decomposed proper covers and the cdh topology, and the seminormalization is the subintegral map with seminormal source described in Seminormality and seminormalization. A subintegral map is integral, bijective on points and induces residue-field isomorphisms.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A perfect field and separated finite-type -schemes .
Goal: Establish the displayed bijection and its seminormal specialization.
The Huber–Kelly external input gives the displayed natural bijection for separated finite-type schemes over a noetherian Nagata base. It explicitly includes the spectrum of a perfect field among such bases. Huber–Kelly representable cdh sheafification input
For a finite-type scheme over a field, its seminormalization is subintegral, has seminormal source and is finite over the reduction. A reduced seminormal scheme admits no nontrivial finite subintegral morphism from a reduced scheme. Seminormality and seminormalization
A set-valued cdh sheaf sends finite subintegral morphisms of separated finite-type schemes to bijections. Cdh sheaves invert finite subintegral maps
Proof
The base satisfies the hypotheses of [F1], and satisfy its separated finite-type hypotheses. Applying [F1] gives the displayed natural bijection.
Suppose is seminormal. It is reduced by [F2], so its seminormalization is a finite subintegral map from a reduced scheme to . The finite-morphism criterion in [F2] makes an isomorphism. Precomposition with its inverse therefore identifies with .
The map also induces a bijection on sections of any cdh sheaf by [F3]; this records the descent compatibility used in the specialization. Combining steps 1.1 and 1.2 proves both assertions.
Depends on
Used by · 1
Dependency tree · 3 levels
Arrows run from prerequisites to the items that use them. External source nodes link directly to the cited text. The view shows up to three dependency steps; open a prerequisite to continue.
Sources
- Vector bundles on singular surfaces and threefolds · PDF p. 5, proof of Lemma 2.4
- Differential forms in positive characteristic, II: cdh-descent via functorial Riemann–Zariski spaces · Theorem 1.4, printed pp. 651–652