Mixing
On non-representability of certain hom schemes
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
8
down vote
favorite
Let $k$ be an algebraically closed field. It is well-known that the isom-sheaf Isom$(mathbbA^1_k,mathbbA^1_k)$ is not representable by an algebraic space. (To be clear, the functor Isom$(mathbbA^1,mathbbA^1)$ associates to a $k$-scheme $S$, the set of isomorphisms $mathbbA^1_Sto mathbbA^1_S$ of $S$-schemes.)
Now, I expect that the non-representability of this isom-functor implies the non-representability of many hom-functors. My question is about how to make this precise.
Let X be a (positive-dimensional) variety and let $f:mathbbA^1_kto X$ be a finite morphism. How does one show that the hom-functor $mathrmHom_k(mathbbA^1_k,X)$ is not representable by an algebraic space?
What have I tried? Well, there is a natural morphism Isom$(mathbbA^1,mathbbA^1) to mathrmHom(mathbbA^1_k,X)$ which sends $g$ to $fcirc g$. My expectation is that this is an open or closed immersion of functors. But how to make this precise?
ag.algebraic-geometry complex-geometry schemes hilbert-schemes
asked 8 hours ago
Anne F.
412
New contributor
Anne F. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
8
down vote
favorite
Let $k$ be an algebraically closed field. It is well-known that the isom-sheaf Isom$(mathbbA^1_k,mathbbA^1_k)$ is not representable by an algebraic space. (To be clear, the functor Isom$(mathbbA^1,mathbbA^1)$ associates to a $k$-scheme $S$, the set of isomorphisms $mathbbA^1_Sto mathbbA^1_S$ of $S$-schemes.)
Now, I expect that the non-representability of this isom-functor implies the non-representability of many hom-functors. My question is about how to make this precise.
Let X be a (positive-dimensional) variety and let $f:mathbbA^1_kto X$ be a finite morphism. How does one show that the hom-functor $mathrmHom_k(mathbbA^1_k,X)$ is not representable by an algebraic space?
What have I tried? Well, there is a natural morphism Isom$(mathbbA^1,mathbbA^1) to mathrmHom(mathbbA^1_k,X)$ which sends $g$ to $fcirc g$. My expectation is that this is an open or closed immersion of functors. But how to make this precise?
ag.algebraic-geometry complex-geometry schemes hilbert-schemes
asked 8 hours ago
Anne F.
412
New contributor
Anne F. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Probably stupid question: Isn't $textIsom(mathbbA^1_k,mathbbA^1_k)$ just $mathbbA^1_krtimesmathbbG_m,k$? That looks representable (by a scheme!) to me...?
– Will Chen
8 hours ago
3
@WillChen What you write down is true on $k$-points. It is not however true that the scheme you write down represents the isom-functor. A proof can be found for instance after Claim 3.1 in arxiv.org/pdf/math/0602646.pdf
– Anne F.
8 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
8
down vote
favorite
up vote
8
down vote
favorite
Let $k$ be an algebraically closed field. It is well-known that the isom-sheaf Isom$(mathbbA^1_k,mathbbA^1_k)$ is not representable by an algebraic space. (To be clear, the functor Isom$(mathbbA^1,mathbbA^1)$ associates to a $k$-scheme $S$, the set of isomorphisms $mathbbA^1_Sto mathbbA^1_S$ of $S$-schemes.)
Now, I expect that the non-representability of this isom-functor implies the non-representability of many hom-functors. My question is about how to make this precise.
Let X be a (positive-dimensional) variety and let $f:mathbbA^1_kto X$ be a finite morphism. How does one show that the hom-functor $mathrmHom_k(mathbbA^1_k,X)$ is not representable by an algebraic space?
What have I tried? Well, there is a natural morphism Isom$(mathbbA^1,mathbbA^1) to mathrmHom(mathbbA^1_k,X)$ which sends $g$ to $fcirc g$. My expectation is that this is an open or closed immersion of functors. But how to make this precise?
ag.algebraic-geometry complex-geometry schemes hilbert-schemes
asked 8 hours ago
Anne F.
412
New contributor
Anne F. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Let $k$ be an algebraically closed field. It is well-known that the isom-sheaf Isom$(mathbbA^1_k,mathbbA^1_k)$ is not representable by an algebraic space. (To be clear, the functor Isom$(mathbbA^1,mathbbA^1)$ associates to a $k$-scheme $S$, the set of isomorphisms $mathbbA^1_Sto mathbbA^1_S$ of $S$-schemes.)
Now, I expect that the non-representability of this isom-functor implies the non-representability of many hom-functors. My question is about how to make this precise.
Let X be a (positive-dimensional) variety and let $f:mathbbA^1_kto X$ be a finite morphism. How does one show that the hom-functor $mathrmHom_k(mathbbA^1_k,X)$ is not representable by an algebraic space?
What have I tried? Well, there is a natural morphism Isom$(mathbbA^1,mathbbA^1) to mathrmHom(mathbbA^1_k,X)$ which sends $g$ to $fcirc g$. My expectation is that this is an open or closed immersion of functors. But how to make this precise?
ag.algebraic-geometry complex-geometry schemes hilbert-schemes
ag.algebraic-geometry complex-geometry schemes hilbert-schemes
asked 8 hours ago
Anne F.
412
New contributor
Anne F. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 8 hours ago
Anne F.
412
New contributor
Anne F. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 8 hours ago
Anne F.
412
New contributor
Anne F. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 8 hours ago
Anne F.
412
asked 8 hours ago
Anne F.
412
412
New contributor
Anne F. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Anne F. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Anne F. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Probably stupid question: Isn't $textIsom(mathbbA^1_k,mathbbA^1_k)$ just $mathbbA^1_krtimesmathbbG_m,k$? That looks representable (by a scheme!) to me...?
– Will Chen
8 hours ago
3
@WillChen What you write down is true on $k$-points. It is not however true that the scheme you write down represents the isom-functor. A proof can be found for instance after Claim 3.1 in arxiv.org/pdf/math/0602646.pdf
– Anne F.
8 hours ago
add a comment |Â
Probably stupid question: Isn't $textIsom(mathbbA^1_k,mathbbA^1_k)$ just $mathbbA^1_krtimesmathbbG_m,k$? That looks representable (by a scheme!) to me...?
– Will Chen
8 hours ago
3
@WillChen What you write down is true on $k$-points. It is not however true that the scheme you write down represents the isom-functor. A proof can be found for instance after Claim 3.1 in arxiv.org/pdf/math/0602646.pdf
– Anne F.
8 hours ago
Probably stupid question: Isn't $textIsom(mathbbA^1_k,mathbbA^1_k)$ just $mathbbA^1_krtimesmathbbG_m,k$? That looks representable (by a scheme!) to me...?
– Will Chen
8 hours ago
Probably stupid question: Isn't $textIsom(mathbbA^1_k,mathbbA^1_k)$ just $mathbbA^1_krtimesmathbbG_m,k$? That looks representable (by a scheme!) to me...?
– Will Chen
8 hours ago
3
3
@WillChen What you write down is true on $k$-points. It is not however true that the scheme you write down represents the isom-functor. A proof can be found for instance after Claim 3.1 in arxiv.org/pdf/math/0602646.pdf
– Anne F.
8 hours ago
@WillChen What you write down is true on $k$-points. It is not however true that the scheme you write down represents the isom-functor. A proof can be found for instance after Claim 3.1 in arxiv.org/pdf/math/0602646.pdf
– Anne F.
8 hours ago
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
Welcome, new contributor. Let $k$ be a field. Let $Y$ be a finite type, separated $k$-scheme such that the $k$-algebra $mathcalO_Y(Y)$ is a $k$-vector space of infinite dimension. For instance, this holds for every finite type, affine $k$-scheme of positive dimension. Let $X$ be a finite type, separated $k$-scheme that is not everywhere finite, étale over $textSpec(k)$. The Hom functor $textHom_k-textSch(Y,X)$ is limit preserving because the Yoneda functor of $X$ is limit preserving. Thus, if the Hom functor is representable, it is representable by a $k$-scheme that is locally finite type. The claim is that the Hom functor is not representable by a $k$-scheme that is locally finite type.
If the Hom functor is representable by a locally finite type $k$-scheme, then after base change to the algebraic closure of $k$, also the Hom scheme of the base change is representable by a scheme that is (ed. locally) finite type over the algebraic closure. Thus, without loss of generality, assume that $k$ is algebraically closed. Since $X$ is not everywhere étale, there exists a $k$-point $x$ of $X$ at which the $k$-vector space $Omega_X/k,xotimes_mathcalO_X,x k = mathfrakm_X,x/mathfrakm_X,x^2$ has positive dimension as a $k$-vector space.
Denote by $$c_x:Yto X$$ the constant $k$-morphism with image $x$. Then the Zariski tangent space to the Hom functor at $c_x$ equals $$textHom_mathcalO_Y(c_x^*Omega_X/k,mathcalO_Y) = mathcalO_Y otimes_k left(mathfrakm_X,x/mathfrakm_X,x^2right).$$ This is a $k$-vector space of infinite dimension. If the Hom scheme were representable by a locally finite type $k$-scheme, then the Zariski tangent space at $c_x$ would be a finite-dimension $k$-vector space. Thus, the Hom scheme is not representable.
2
Thank you for this clear answer. I did not realise that the argument which proves Isom($mathbbA^1,mathbbA^1)$ is not representable actually adapts to this more general setting. Very nice. (Small typo in second paragraph: "is finite type over the algebraic closure" should be "is locally of finite type over the algebraic closure".)
– Anne F.
5 hours ago
@AnneF. Thank you for catching the typo.
– Jason Starr
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
Welcome, new contributor. Let $k$ be a field. Let $Y$ be a finite type, separated $k$-scheme such that the $k$-algebra $mathcalO_Y(Y)$ is a $k$-vector space of infinite dimension. For instance, this holds for every finite type, affine $k$-scheme of positive dimension. Let $X$ be a finite type, separated $k$-scheme that is not everywhere finite, étale over $textSpec(k)$. The Hom functor $textHom_k-textSch(Y,X)$ is limit preserving because the Yoneda functor of $X$ is limit preserving. Thus, if the Hom functor is representable, it is representable by a $k$-scheme that is locally finite type. The claim is that the Hom functor is not representable by a $k$-scheme that is locally finite type.
If the Hom functor is representable by a locally finite type $k$-scheme, then after base change to the algebraic closure of $k$, also the Hom scheme of the base change is representable by a scheme that is (ed. locally) finite type over the algebraic closure. Thus, without loss of generality, assume that $k$ is algebraically closed. Since $X$ is not everywhere étale, there exists a $k$-point $x$ of $X$ at which the $k$-vector space $Omega_X/k,xotimes_mathcalO_X,x k = mathfrakm_X,x/mathfrakm_X,x^2$ has positive dimension as a $k$-vector space.
Denote by $$c_x:Yto X$$ the constant $k$-morphism with image $x$. Then the Zariski tangent space to the Hom functor at $c_x$ equals $$textHom_mathcalO_Y(c_x^*Omega_X/k,mathcalO_Y) = mathcalO_Y otimes_k left(mathfrakm_X,x/mathfrakm_X,x^2right).$$ This is a $k$-vector space of infinite dimension. If the Hom scheme were representable by a locally finite type $k$-scheme, then the Zariski tangent space at $c_x$ would be a finite-dimension $k$-vector space. Thus, the Hom scheme is not representable.
2
Thank you for this clear answer. I did not realise that the argument which proves Isom($mathbbA^1,mathbbA^1)$ is not representable actually adapts to this more general setting. Very nice. (Small typo in second paragraph: "is finite type over the algebraic closure" should be "is locally of finite type over the algebraic closure".)
– Anne F.
5 hours ago
@AnneF. Thank you for catching the typo.
– Jason Starr
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
Welcome, new contributor. Let $k$ be a field. Let $Y$ be a finite type, separated $k$-scheme such that the $k$-algebra $mathcalO_Y(Y)$ is a $k$-vector space of infinite dimension. For instance, this holds for every finite type, affine $k$-scheme of positive dimension. Let $X$ be a finite type, separated $k$-scheme that is not everywhere finite, étale over $textSpec(k)$. The Hom functor $textHom_k-textSch(Y,X)$ is limit preserving because the Yoneda functor of $X$ is limit preserving. Thus, if the Hom functor is representable, it is representable by a $k$-scheme that is locally finite type. The claim is that the Hom functor is not representable by a $k$-scheme that is locally finite type.
If the Hom functor is representable by a locally finite type $k$-scheme, then after base change to the algebraic closure of $k$, also the Hom scheme of the base change is representable by a scheme that is (ed. locally) finite type over the algebraic closure. Thus, without loss of generality, assume that $k$ is algebraically closed. Since $X$ is not everywhere étale, there exists a $k$-point $x$ of $X$ at which the $k$-vector space $Omega_X/k,xotimes_mathcalO_X,x k = mathfrakm_X,x/mathfrakm_X,x^2$ has positive dimension as a $k$-vector space.
Denote by $$c_x:Yto X$$ the constant $k$-morphism with image $x$. Then the Zariski tangent space to the Hom functor at $c_x$ equals $$textHom_mathcalO_Y(c_x^*Omega_X/k,mathcalO_Y) = mathcalO_Y otimes_k left(mathfrakm_X,x/mathfrakm_X,x^2right).$$ This is a $k$-vector space of infinite dimension. If the Hom scheme were representable by a locally finite type $k$-scheme, then the Zariski tangent space at $c_x$ would be a finite-dimension $k$-vector space. Thus, the Hom scheme is not representable.
2
Thank you for this clear answer. I did not realise that the argument which proves Isom($mathbbA^1,mathbbA^1)$ is not representable actually adapts to this more general setting. Very nice. (Small typo in second paragraph: "is finite type over the algebraic closure" should be "is locally of finite type over the algebraic closure".)
– Anne F.
5 hours ago
@AnneF. Thank you for catching the typo.
– Jason Starr
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
Welcome, new contributor. Let $k$ be a field. Let $Y$ be a finite type, separated $k$-scheme such that the $k$-algebra $mathcalO_Y(Y)$ is a $k$-vector space of infinite dimension. For instance, this holds for every finite type, affine $k$-scheme of positive dimension. Let $X$ be a finite type, separated $k$-scheme that is not everywhere finite, étale over $textSpec(k)$. The Hom functor $textHom_k-textSch(Y,X)$ is limit preserving because the Yoneda functor of $X$ is limit preserving. Thus, if the Hom functor is representable, it is representable by a $k$-scheme that is locally finite type. The claim is that the Hom functor is not representable by a $k$-scheme that is locally finite type.
If the Hom functor is representable by a locally finite type $k$-scheme, then after base change to the algebraic closure of $k$, also the Hom scheme of the base change is representable by a scheme that is (ed. locally) finite type over the algebraic closure. Thus, without loss of generality, assume that $k$ is algebraically closed. Since $X$ is not everywhere étale, there exists a $k$-point $x$ of $X$ at which the $k$-vector space $Omega_X/k,xotimes_mathcalO_X,x k = mathfrakm_X,x/mathfrakm_X,x^2$ has positive dimension as a $k$-vector space.
Denote by $$c_x:Yto X$$ the constant $k$-morphism with image $x$. Then the Zariski tangent space to the Hom functor at $c_x$ equals $$textHom_mathcalO_Y(c_x^*Omega_X/k,mathcalO_Y) = mathcalO_Y otimes_k left(mathfrakm_X,x/mathfrakm_X,x^2right).$$ This is a $k$-vector space of infinite dimension. If the Hom scheme were representable by a locally finite type $k$-scheme, then the Zariski tangent space at $c_x$ would be a finite-dimension $k$-vector space. Thus, the Hom scheme is not representable.
Welcome, new contributor. Let $k$ be a field. Let $Y$ be a finite type, separated $k$-scheme such that the $k$-algebra $mathcalO_Y(Y)$ is a $k$-vector space of infinite dimension. For instance, this holds for every finite type, affine $k$-scheme of positive dimension. Let $X$ be a finite type, separated $k$-scheme that is not everywhere finite, étale over $textSpec(k)$. The Hom functor $textHom_k-textSch(Y,X)$ is limit preserving because the Yoneda functor of $X$ is limit preserving. Thus, if the Hom functor is representable, it is representable by a $k$-scheme that is locally finite type. The claim is that the Hom functor is not representable by a $k$-scheme that is locally finite type.
If the Hom functor is representable by a locally finite type $k$-scheme, then after base change to the algebraic closure of $k$, also the Hom scheme of the base change is representable by a scheme that is (ed. locally) finite type over the algebraic closure. Thus, without loss of generality, assume that $k$ is algebraically closed. Since $X$ is not everywhere étale, there exists a $k$-point $x$ of $X$ at which the $k$-vector space $Omega_X/k,xotimes_mathcalO_X,x k = mathfrakm_X,x/mathfrakm_X,x^2$ has positive dimension as a $k$-vector space.
Denote by $$c_x:Yto X$$ the constant $k$-morphism with image $x$. Then the Zariski tangent space to the Hom functor at $c_x$ equals $$textHom_mathcalO_Y(c_x^*Omega_X/k,mathcalO_Y) = mathcalO_Y otimes_k left(mathfrakm_X,x/mathfrakm_X,x^2right).$$ This is a $k$-vector space of infinite dimension. If the Hom scheme were representable by a locally finite type $k$-scheme, then the Zariski tangent space at $c_x$ would be a finite-dimension $k$-vector space. Thus, the Hom scheme is not representable.
edited 3 hours ago
community wiki
2 revs
Jason Starr
2
Thank you for this clear answer. I did not realise that the argument which proves Isom($mathbbA^1,mathbbA^1)$ is not representable actually adapts to this more general setting. Very nice. (Small typo in second paragraph: "is finite type over the algebraic closure" should be "is locally of finite type over the algebraic closure".)
– Anne F.
5 hours ago
@AnneF. Thank you for catching the typo.
– Jason Starr
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
2
Thank you for this clear answer. I did not realise that the argument which proves Isom($mathbbA^1,mathbbA^1)$ is not representable actually adapts to this more general setting. Very nice. (Small typo in second paragraph: "is finite type over the algebraic closure" should be "is locally of finite type over the algebraic closure".)
– Anne F.
5 hours ago
@AnneF. Thank you for catching the typo.
– Jason Starr
3 hours ago
2
2
Thank you for this clear answer. I did not realise that the argument which proves Isom($mathbbA^1,mathbbA^1)$ is not representable actually adapts to this more general setting. Very nice. (Small typo in second paragraph: "is finite type over the algebraic closure" should be "is locally of finite type over the algebraic closure".)
– Anne F.
5 hours ago
Thank you for this clear answer. I did not realise that the argument which proves Isom($mathbbA^1,mathbbA^1)$ is not representable actually adapts to this more general setting. Very nice. (Small typo in second paragraph: "is finite type over the algebraic closure" should be "is locally of finite type over the algebraic closure".)
– Anne F.
5 hours ago
@AnneF. Thank you for catching the typo.
– Jason Starr
3 hours ago
@AnneF. Thank you for catching the typo.
– Jason Starr
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
Anne F. is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Anne F. is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Anne F. is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Anne F. is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f310715%2fon-non-representability-of-certain-hom-schemes%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Probably stupid question: Isn't $textIsom(mathbbA^1_k,mathbbA^1_k)$ just $mathbbA^1_krtimesmathbbG_m,k$? That looks representable (by a scheme!) to me...?
– Will Chen
8 hours ago
3
@WillChen What you write down is true on $k$-points. It is not however true that the scheme you write down represents the isom-functor. A proof can be found for instance after Claim 3.1 in arxiv.org/pdf/math/0602646.pdf
– Anne F.
8 hours ago