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.
Schemes Subschemes and Morphisms Locally of Finite Type — Examples
1 · Prerequisites
- Affine Schemes and the Structure Sheaf
- Binary Operations, Monoids, Groups and Subgroups
- Cardinal Arithmetic, Cofinality and the Alephs
- Categories, Functors and Natural Transformations
- Compactness
- Compactness in Metric Spaces
- Construction of the Natural Numbers
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Cauchy Sequences
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Dedekind Cuts
- Cosets, Index and Lagrange's Theorem
- Countability and Uncountability
- Finite Counting, Factorials and Binomial Coefficients
- Foundations of the Real Numbers for Analysis
- Group Homomorphisms and the Isomorphism Theorems
- Ideals, Quotient Rings and the Isomorphism Theorems for Rings
- Limits and Colimits
- Metric Spaces
- Modules, Submodules, Quotient Modules and the Isomorphism Theorems
- Noetherian Rings and Hilbert Basis
- Normal Subgroups and Quotient Groups
- Order, Zorn's Lemma, and the Axiom of Choice
- Ordinal Arithmetic and the First Uncountable Ordinal
- Ordinals, Cardinals, and Transfinite Recursion
- Polynomial Rings, the Division Algorithm and Roots
- Presheaves Sheaves Stalks and Sheafification
- Prime Spectra and Radicals
- Relations, Functions, and Quotients
- Rings, Subrings, Integral Domains and Fields
- Roots, Rational Powers, and Classical Inequalities
- Schemes Subschemes and Morphisms Locally of Finite Type
- Set Theory Beyond Choice: Recorded, Not Proved Here
- Sheaf Operations Exactness Ringed Spaces and Module Pullback
- Suprema and Infima
- Tensor Products of Modules
- The Field of Fractions and Localisation
- The ZFC Axioms and the Basic Set Constructions
- Topological Spaces and Continuity
- Zariski Topology on Prime Spectra
2 · Summary
These examples show how gluing produces familiar and nonseparated schemes, why nilpotent structure survives beyond topology, where finite type and finite presentation diverge, and how a dense open immersion has full scheme-theoretic image in an integral target.
3 · Logical flowchart
4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs
None yet.
5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements
The projective line from two affine charts
Example
Let be a field. Let and . Their principal opens and have coordinate rings and . The isomorphism glues and along these opens. With two charts there is no nontrivial triple-overlap cocycle; the resulting scheme is, by definition in this construction, the projective line ; equivalently, the notation here names precisely this two-chart gluing.
The affine line with doubled origin
Example
Let be a field. Glue two copies of by the identity on . The two copies of every nonzero point are identified, but the two closed points defined by the maximal ideal remain distinct. This is the affine line with doubled origin; it is retained as the standard later test case for separatedness.
Two infinitesimal structures at the origin
Example
Inside , the ideals and define and . Both have the single-point support , but the latter has a nonzero nilpotent class of , so these are distinct closed subschemes.
Reduction of the dual-number point
Example
Let be a field. For , the nilradical is . Hence . The underlying space has one point before and after reduction, but only the former has a nonzero nilpotent.
A closed subset has many scheme structures
Statement refuted
A closed subset of an affine scheme determines its closed subscheme structure.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A field .
Closed immersions into are classified, up to unique isomorphism over the target, by quotient rings Closed immersions into affine schemes are quotient spectra.
Counterexample
The ideals and in have the same radical , so their quotient-spectrum closed immersions have the same underlying closed subset .
The ring is reduced, whereas the nonzero class of in is nilpotent. Their quotient rings are therefore not isomorphic, so [F1] gives distinct closed subscheme structures with the same support.
Affine n-space over an arbitrary base
Example
On , define as . The structure map is finite type, generated by the variables, and these constructions agree under localization of , so glue over an arbitrary base. At the polynomial algebra is and .
An infinite disjoint union is locally but not globally finite type
Statement refuted
Every locally finite-type morphism is finite type.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A field .
A finite-type morphism is locally of finite type and quasi-compact Locally finite type and finite type morphisms.
Counterexample
Let and map it to . Each component is an affine finite-type chart, so the map is locally of finite type.
The inverse image of the one-point base is covered by the open components, and no finite subfamily covers . Thus the map is not quasi-compact; by [F1] it is not finite type.
Finite type need not mean finite presentation
Statement refuted
Every finite-type morphism is of finite presentation.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Let be a field, , and . The ideal is not finitely generated: a finite list of its elements involves only finitely many variables and cannot generate a later variable.
A finite-type morphism is locally defined by finite-type ring maps Locally finite type and finite type morphisms.
A locally finite-presentation morphism is locally defined by finitely presented ring maps Locally finite presentation morphisms.
Counterexample
The quotient map is generated as an -algebra by the empty set, so it is of finite type and its affine scheme morphism is finite type.
The source is the single point corresponding to . Every affine target neighbourhood contains some with . Modulo , such an is a nonzero scalar. The vector space has basis given by the classes of the , and localization at leaves it infinite-dimensional because acts on it by that nonzero scalar. Hence is not finitely generated over , so itself is not finitely generated. Thus is not finitely presented on any target neighbourhood of the source point. By [F2], the affine morphism is not locally of finite presentation and therefore not of finite presentation.
The scheme-theoretic image of a dense open immersion
Example
Let be an integral scheme and let be a dense open immersion. Then the scheme-theoretic image of is itself. This does not assume that is quasi-compact.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: An integral scheme and a dense open immersion .
Every nonempty affine open of an integral scheme is the spectrum of a domain Integral schemes.
The scheme-theoretic image, when it exists, is the smallest closed subscheme through which the morphism factors Scheme-theoretic image.
Verification
Let be a closed subscheme through which factors, and let be its ideal sheaf. On a nonempty affine open , every restricts to zero on the dense open .
Choose a nonempty principal open . By [F1], is a domain and ; the equality in gives for some , hence . Thus .
The same holds on every nonempty affine open, while the empty opens carry only the zero ideal. Hence , so every closed factorization of contains itself. By [F2], the smallest such factorization is .
Sources
- Ravi Vakil, Foundations of Algebraic Geometry, Section 5.5.4
- J. S. Milne, Algebraic Geometry, Example 5.9
- The Stacks Project, Schemes, Section 8
- The Stacks Project, Schemes, Section 12
- Ravi Vakil, Foundations of Algebraic Geometry, Section 7.3
- The Stacks Project, Morphisms of Schemes, Definition 15.1
- The Stacks Project, Morphisms of Schemes, Section 22
- The Stacks Project, Morphisms of Schemes, Lemma 29.6.7