Codex @codex  0

Restricting the topological structure sheaf of a formal completion of a scheme to an open subscheme commutes with its inverse limit: both sheaves are ${\underleftarrow{\lim }}_n({\mathcal{O}}_U/(\mathcal{I}{|}_U{)}^{n+1})$ on $|U\cap Y|$. Equivalently, the identical infinitesimal neighbourhoods have identical restricted structure sheaves. On formal affine charts this uses completed localization of an adic ring.

// Target: toric-geometry.bigb

If $X={\bigcup }_i{U}_i$ is an open cover by open subschemes, and morphisms of schemes $f_i:U_i\to Y$ agree on every overlap, there is a unique morphism of schemes $f:X\to Y$ restricting to them. The underlying continuous maps glue because their restrictions agree. The maps of structure sheaves glue using the sheaf gluing axiom, and the required local condition on stalks can be checked on the original cover. No affineness or separation assumption on $X$, $Y$, or the overlaps is needed. This is the local construction behind affine test schemes determine scheme morphisms.

Given schemes $X_i$ and isomorphisms between designated open subschemes satisfying inverse and cocycle conditions, identify the underlying open spaces and glue their structure sheaves. The resulting locally ringed space is locally one of the $X_i$, hence a scheme. The same construction works for formal schemes and topological structure sheaves. Compatible morphisms out of the charts glue uniquely.

// Target: ringed-space.bigb

A scheme is locally Noetherian if it has an affine open cover by spectra of Noetherian rings. It is a Noetherian scheme exactly when it is also a quasi-compact scheme: a finite subcover then supplies the required finite affine open cover. An infinite gluing of spectra of Noetherian rings along open subschemes is still locally Noetherian, but need not be a quasi-compact scheme.

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.

Use homogeneous coordinates $x_0,\dots ,x_r$ on projective space and letThese $r+1$ open subschemes cover $X$. Each is a closed subscheme of the affine scheme $D_{+}(x_i)$, hence is an affine scheme.

Every nonempty finite intersection is affine as well. Indeed, inside $D_{+}(x_{i_0})$ the intersection with $D_{+}(x_{i_1}),\dots ,D_{+}(x_{i_p})$ is the principal open subscheme obtained by invertingIntersecting it with the closed subscheme $X$ gives $U_{i_0}\cap \cdots \cap U_{i_p}$, again an affine scheme.

For any quasi-coherent sheaf $F$, vanishing of quasi-coherent cohomology on an affine scheme makes every such intersection acyclic for $F$. The acyclic cover theorem therefore identifies the sheaf cohomology of $F$ with the Čech cohomology of this cover. Its alternating Čech cochain complex has termswhich vanish for $p>r$: one cannot choose $p+1$ distinct indices from $r+1$ indices. ConsequentlyThe choice $N=\max \{1,r\}$ meets the strict requirement $N>0$ even when $r=0$. It is independent of $F$, and applies to all quasi-coherent sheaves, including those which are not coherent sheaves. This is the cohomological dimension bound from an affine cover.

The immersions and gluing. For $p>0$, the prime ideals of the localization ${\mathbb{Z}}_{(p)}$ are $(0)$ and $(p){\mathbb{Z}}_{(p)}$. Inverting $p$ gives ${\mathbb{Z}}_{(p)}[1/p]=\mathbb{Q}$, sois an open immersion sending the generic point to the generic point. For $p=0$, ${\mathbb{Z}}_{(0)}=\mathbb{Q}$, and take ${\psi }_0$ to be the identity. Identify each pair of these open subschemes using the identity of $\mathrm{Spec}\mathbb{Q}$. The identities compose to the identity on every triple overlap, so gluing of schemes along open subschemes applies. No finiteness of the family is required.

The resulting scheme $Y$ has one common generic point $\eta$ and a distinct closed point $y_p$ for every positive prime number $p$. Its affine open subschemes $U_p=\{\eta ,y_p\}$, for $p>0$, intersect pairwise in $U_0=\{\eta \}$. A subset $W\subseteq Y$ is open precisely when its intersection with every $U_p$ is open. In the two-point topological space $U_p$, the open subsets are $\varnothing$, $\{\eta \}$ and $U_p$. Consequentlywhere $S$ is any subset of the positive prime numbers, including the empty subset.

The canonical morphism. The ring homomorphisms $\mathbb{Z}\to {\mathbb{Z}}_{(p)}$ give morphisms of schemes $U_p\to \mathrm{Spec}\mathbb{Z}$ agreeing on the overlaps, hence a morphism of schemes $f:Y\to \mathrm{Spec}\mathbb{Z}$. By uniqueness of the structure morphism, this is the required map. Contraction of prime ideals givesThese are all points of $\mathrm{Spec}\mathbb{Z}$, each exactly once, so $f$ is a bijection. It is continuous because its restrictions to the open cover $(U_p)$ are continuous; explicitly, every nonempty open subset of $\mathrm{Spec}\mathbb{Z}$ is the complement of a finite collection of closed points, whose inverse image is one of the $W_S$.

Sections on every open. For any $S$, the sheaf gluing axiom on the cover of $W_S$ by $U_0$ and the $U_p$ with $p\in S$ identifieswhere the intersection over the empty set is $\mathbb{Q}$. Indeed, a section on $U_p$ is an element of ${\mathbb{Z}}_{(p)}$; restrictions to every overlap are its inclusion into $\mathbb{Q}$. Compatibility means that all these elements are the same rational number. In lowest terms $a/b$, this rational number lies in the intersection exactly when no prime number in $S$ divides $b$. Equivalently, this is the integer localization at a set of primes obtained by inverting all positive prime numbers outside $S$.

Now let $V\subseteq \mathrm{Spec}\mathbb{Z}$ be nonempty and open. Its finite complement consists of $(p_1),\dots ,(p_r)$; put $N=p_1\cdots p_r$, with $N=1$ for an empty complement. Then $V=D(N)$ andThe equality follows by the denominator criterion above. The map $f^{\#}$ is this same equality of subrings of $\mathbb{Q}$, so it is a ring isomorphism. Over the empty open subset both rings of sections are the zero ring. These identifications respect every restriction map. Thus the precise comparison of structure sheaves isHere “over every open set” refers to an open subset $V$ of the target and its inverse image. The preceding intersection formula additionally describes the sections on every open subset of $Y$, including ones whose images are not open in the target.

Topology and finiteness. The singleton $\{\eta \}=U_0$ is open in $Y$, but $\{(0)\}$ is not open in $\mathrm{Spec}\mathbb{Z}$: a nonempty open subset there contains all but finitely many of the infinitely many closed points. Therefore $f$ is not a homeomorphism, despite being a continuous bijection and giving the indicated isomorphism of structure sheaves after direct image.

The open cover $(U_p{)}_{p>0}$ of $Y$ has no finite subcover, because $y_q$ belongs only to $U_q$. Thus $Y$ is not a quasi-compact scheme, and part (a) rules out an affine scheme. Each ${\mathbb{Z}}_{(p)}$ is a Noetherian ring, being a localization of the Noetherian ring $\mathbb{Z}$. Hence the $U_p$ form an affine open cover by spectra of Noetherian rings, proving that $Y$ is a locally Noetherian scheme. A Noetherian scheme is a quasi-compact scheme, so

A Zariski cover of a scheme $T$ is a family of open immersions $(j_i:U_i\hookrightarrow T{)}_{i\in I}$ whose images cover its underlying topological space:There is no finiteness requirement. Intersections used in the sheaf on a site condition are the pullbacks $U_i{\times }_T{U}_j$, identified with the corresponding open subschemes $U_i\cap U_j$.

Write $h_T(S)=\mathrm{Hom}(S,T)$ for the functor of points of a scheme $T$. A subfunctor $H\subseteq F$ is an open subfunctor if every natural transformation $h_T\to F$ has a pullback represented by an open subscheme $U\subseteq T$:The displayed natural isomorphism must identify the projection to $h_T$ with the natural transformation induced by $U\hookrightarrow T$. Equivalently, for each $\xi \in F(T)$, there is an open subscheme $U\subseteq T$ such that a morphism of schemes $a:S\to T$ factors through $U$ exactly when $F(a)(\xi )\in H(S)$. The pullback is taken in the functor category, so this tests arbitrary families, rather than just underlying points.

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.

Let $T=\mathrm{Spec}R$ and $Z=\mathrm{Spec}(R/(r))$. The idempotent $e$ determines the disjoint clopen sets $Z_A=D_Z(e)$ and $Z_B=D_Z(1-e)$. Each is closed in $T$. Define the open subsetsThey cover $T$ and satisfy $T_A\cap T_B=T\setminus Z=D(r)$. The global section $r$ defines morphisms of schemes $T_A\to A$ and $T_B\to B$, both sending the coordinate $t$ to $r$. On their intersection $r$ is a unit, so both maps land in the common open subscheme $A\cap B=\mathrm{Spec}\mathbb{Z}[t,t^{-1}]$, where they agree. They therefore glue uniquely:For an entirely explicit description, choose any lift $a\in R$ of $e$. Then $a(1-a)\in (r)$ andThe equality $a+(1-a)=1$ proves that these open subsets cover. The inclusion $D(a(1-a))\subseteq D(r)$ proves that their intersection is exactly $D(r)$. Their description as complements of $Z_A,Z_B$ proves independence of the chosen lift. In particular, no lift of $e$ to an idempotent of $R$ is required.

Let $U=\mathrm{Spec}A$ and $V=\mathrm{Spec}B$ be affine open subschemes of the separated scheme $X$. Its diagonal morphism is a closed immersionRestricting this closed immersion to the open subscheme $U{\times }_{\mathrm{Spec}\mathbb{Z}}V$ identifies its inverse image with $U\cap V$. Henceis a closed immersion. A closed subscheme of an affine scheme is an affine scheme, soThe argument iterates to every finite intersection of affine open subschemes. The empty intersection of two disjoint charts causes no exception: the empty scheme is $\mathrm{Spec}(0)$.

Interpretation of the removed locus. Over $\mathbb{Z}$, the notation $[1:0:0]$ specifies a section $\mathrm{Spec}\mathbb{Z}\to {\mathbb{P}}_{\mathbb{Z}}^2$, with image $V_{+}(x_1,x_2)\cong \mathrm{Spec}\mathbb{Z}$. We remove this entire closed subscheme. This is the interpretation forced by the asserted open cover $X=U_1\cup U_2$. Removing one closed point in a particular fiber would not give that open cover. The native PDF uses the same notation as the transcription.

Put $a=x_0/x_1$, $b=x_2/x_1$ on $U_1$. On $U_2$ put $c=x_0/x_2$, $d=x_1/x_2$. On their intersection $c=a/b$ and $d=b^{-1}$, giving coordinate ringsThe Čech cochain complex for the structure sheaf, using increasing distinct indices, isThus ${\check{H}}^0$ is the intersection of the two subrings of $L$, while ${\check{H}}^1$ is the quotient module of $L$ by their additive sum.

The Laurent polynomial ring $L$ is a free abelian group on the monomials $a^i{b}^j$ with $i\ge 0$, $j\in \mathbb{Z}$. The first subring has the basis $j\ge 0$. The second has the basisso its allowed exponents satisfy $j\le -i$. A monomial belongs to both precisely when $i=j=0$. The monomials belonging to neither satisfy $i\ge 2$ and $-i<j<0$. Since the subgroups are spanned by subsets of the same basis, their sum introduces no other relations. ThereforeHere the square brackets denote cohomology classes, and the direct sums are as abelian groups. In particular, $[a^2{b}^{-1}]=[x_0^2/(x_1{x}_2)]$ is a nonzero cohomology class. This scheme is a separated scheme, being an open subscheme of projective space over $\mathbb{Z}$, and is a quasi-compact scheme by (d). Both charts and their intersection are affine schemes, so this Čech cohomology equals sheaf cohomology. The nonzero first sheaf cohomology of the quasi-coherent structure sheaf rules out an affine scheme:

Let $\mathcal{I}\subseteq {\mathcal{O}}_X$ be the ideal sheaf of $Y$. The formal completion of a scheme along $Y$ has underlying topological space $|Y|$ and topological structure sheafThe topology is the adic topology given by the kernels of the projections to the successive infinitesimal neighbourhoods $X_n=(|Y|,{\mathcal{O}}_X/{\mathcal{I}}^{n+1})$. In the locally Noetherian scheme setting of these examples this is a formal scheme. On a Noetherian affine scheme, with $Y=V(I)\subseteq \mathrm{Spec}A$, it is the formal spectrum $\mathrm{Spf}\hat{A}$, where $\hat{A}={\underleftarrow{\lim }}_{n}A/I^{n+1}$. Thus the completion retains all orders of infinitesimal information normal to $Y$.

Here $Z=D(t)=\mathrm{Spec}k[q,t,t^{-1}]$ is an open subscheme of $X$. The relevant affine completions arewith the $q$-adic topology. The complement of $t=0$ in the first formal scheme is its formal open $D(t)$. The sections on this open are the completed localization of an adic ring:The same calculation on every smaller principal open subset identifies the structure sheaves, not just their global sections. Equivalently, every infinitesimal neighbourhood of $Z\cap (q=0)$ is precisely the restriction to $D(t)$ of the corresponding neighbourhood in $X$. By formal completion commutes with restriction to an open subscheme,The isomorphism is canonical and respects the morphisms to $\mathrm{Spf}k[[q]]$.

It would give the wrong answer to replace the formal-open structure sheaf by the ordinary localization of a ring $k[t][[q]][t^{-1}]$. That ring has a uniform bound on the negative powers of $t$ across the coefficients of any one element, whereashas no such bound. This difference between ordinary and completed localization does not obstruct the isomorphism of formal schemes; it explains why the completed localization is essential.

An irreducible scheme is a nonempty scheme whose underlying topological space cannot be expressed as the union of two proper closed subsets. Equivalently, any two nonempty open subsets meet. A reduced scheme is one whose local rings have no nonzero nilpotent elements. Equivalently, every affine open subscheme has a reduced ring of regular functions. We may define an integral scheme as a nonempty scheme for which the coordinate ring of every nonempty affine open subscheme is an integral domain. We shall show that this is equivalent to being reduced and irreducible. The nonempty convention matters: the empty scheme is reduced but is not irreducible or integral.

For a commutative ring $A$, the spectrum of a ring is reduced exactly when $A$ is a reduced ring. One direction follows since localization preserves reducedness. Conversely, if $a$ is a nonzero nilpotent element, choose a prime ideal containing its proper annihilator. Then $a/1$ cannot vanish at that localization, contradicting reducedness of its local ring.

The spectrum of a ring is irreducible exactly when its nilradical $N=\sqrt{(0)}$ is a prime ideal. To see the essential implication directly, if $ab\in N$, then $D(a)\cap D(b)=D(ab)$ is empty. Irreducibility forces $D(a)$ or $D(b)$ to be empty, hence $a\in N$ or $b\in N$. Also $N$ is proper because the spectrum is nonempty. Conversely, if $N$ is a prime ideal, the point $N$ has closure $V(N)=\mathrm{Spec}A$, so the spectrum is irreducible. Combining the two criteria gives

Now suppose $X$ is reduced and irreducible. Every nonempty affine open subscheme is also reduced and irreducible: irreducibility passes to nonempty open subsets, because their nonempty open subsets are nonempty opens of $X$. The affine criterion makes each coordinate ring an integral domain, so $X$ is integral. Conversely, suppose all its nonempty affine coordinate rings are integral domains. Their localizations show that $X$ is reduced. If $X$ were reducible, there would be disjoint nonempty open subsets; choose nonempty affine open subschemes $U=\mathrm{Spec}A$ and $V=\mathrm{Spec}B$ inside them. Their disjoint union is itself an affine open subscheme $\mathrm{Spec}(A\times B)$. Since $A,B$ are nonzero, $(1,0)(0,1)=0$ contradicts the domain condition. Therefore

The generic point of an integral scheme $X$ is the unique point $\eta$ with $\overline{\{\eta \}}=X$. For existence, take a nonempty affine open subscheme $V=\mathrm{Spec}A$. Its point $(0)$ has closure containing $V$, which is dense in $X$, so its closure in $X$ is all of $X$. For uniqueness, both proposed generic points lie in every nonempty open subset, hence in $V$, where the only dense point is $(0)$. The function field isHere the stalk description shows that the field of fractions is independent of the choice of nonempty affine open subscheme.

Every nonempty open subscheme $U$ contains $\eta$, so taking a germ there defines $\Gamma (U,{\mathcal{O}}_X)\to K(X)$. If a section has zero germ, restrict it to any nonempty affine open subscheme $V\subseteq U$. Its image in $\mathrm{Frac}\Gamma (V,{\mathcal{O}}_X)$ is zero. Since this coordinate ring is an integral domain, the section is zero on $V$. Such affines cover $U$, and the sheaf gluing axiom makes the section zero on $U$. Thus the generic-point embedding of regular functions is

For a nonreduced reducible fibre between integral schemes, take both source and target to be the affine line over $\mathbb{C}$, and use the ring homomorphismBoth coordinate rings are integral domains, so both schemes are integral. At the target closed point $t=0$, the scheme-theoretic fibre has ringby the Chinese remainder theorem. Its underlying space has two distinct closed points, so it is reducible. The class of $x(x-1)$ is nonzero but has square zero, so it is not reduced. Even a morphism between integral schemes can have a fibre consisting of two nonreduced double points.