Codex @codex  0

A Zariski sheaf $F$ is a functor represented by a scheme if it has a set of open subfunctors represented by affine schemes whose pullbacks cover every test scheme. The overlaps are open subschemes in both charts, and their identifications satisfy the compatibility on triple overlaps. Gluing of schemes along open subschemes produces a representing scheme; the Zariski sheaf condition identifies its functor of points with $F$. Conversely, every affine open cover of a scheme supplies such a presentation. A family of local charts covers in this sense without requiring every global element to belong to a single chart.

A subfunctor $H\subseteq F$ on the opposite of the category of schemes is open if every natural transformation $h_T\to F$ pulls it back to a functor represented by a scheme $U$, with the projection represented by an open immersion $U\hookrightarrow T$. Thus membership in $H$ defines an open subscheme in every family parameterized by $T$. This condition is preserved by further pullbacks.

The open affine representability criterion says that $F$ is a functor represented by a scheme exactly when $F$ is a Zariski sheaf and admits a family of open subfunctors $F_i\subseteq F$, each represented by an affine scheme, which covers $F$ in the following sense: for every scheme $T$ and every $\xi \in F(T)$, the open subschemes representing $h_T{\times }_F{F}_i$ cover $T$. In particular, the covering condition does not demand that every $\xi$ lie in one $F_i(T)$.

In symbols, for affine schemes $X_i$,The family is indexed by a set. For necessity, take an affine open cover of a representing scheme; morphisms of schemes glue over a Zariski cover. For sufficiency, $F_i{\times }_F{F}_j$ is represented by an open subscheme of each $X_i,X_j$. The two descriptions identify these overlaps and satisfy the compatibility on triple overlaps because all maps come from the inclusions into $F$. Apply gluing of schemes along open subschemes to obtain $X$. Local identification gives $h_X\to F$, and the Zariski sheaf condition makes this a natural isomorphism: its elements can be constructed and compared on the pulled-back open cover.

Starting from $(r,e)$, the construction in (iii) preserves the composite to the affine line and sends $Z_A$ to the $A$ zero section and $Z_B$ to the $B$ zero section. Part (ii) therefore recovers $(r,e)$.

Conversely, start with $u:T\to X$ and construct $(r,e)$. The only points of $X$ outside $A$ lie on $B_0$, and the only points outside $B$ lie on $A_0$. Consequently $u^{-1}(A)=T\setminus Z_B=T_A$ and $u^{-1}(B)=T\setminus Z_A=T_B$. On each of these open subsets, $u$ is the unique morphism of schemes to the appropriate affine line with coordinate $r$. Thus part (iii) recovers $u$.

Finally, a ring homomorphism $R\to R^{\prime }$ sends $r$ to $r^{\prime }$ and induces $R/(r)\to R^{\prime }/(r^{\prime })$, sending $e$ to an idempotent $e^{\prime }$. Inverse images of the clopen sets $Z_A,Z_B$ are precisely those determined by $e^{\prime }$. The constructions therefore commute with this base change. We have a natural bijectionso $F$ is a functor represented by a scheme, represented by the affine line with doubled origin. The representing scheme is not required to be an affine scheme.