Processing math: 100%

The Stacks project

Theorem 10.29.10 (Chevalley's Theorem). Suppose that R \to S is of finite presentation. The image of a constructible subset of \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(S) in \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R) is constructible.

Proof. Write S = R[x_1, \ldots , x_ n]/(f_1, \ldots , f_ m). We may factor R \to S as R \to R[x_1] \to R[x_1, x_2] \to \ldots \to R[x_1, \ldots , x_{n-1}] \to S. Hence we may assume that S = R[x]/(f_1, \ldots , f_ m). In this case we factor the map as R \to R[x] \to S, and by Lemma 10.29.6 we reduce to the case S = R[x]. By Lemma 10.29.1 suffices to show that if T = (\bigcup _{i = 1\ldots n} D(f_ i)) \cap V(g_1, \ldots , g_ m) for f_ i , g_ j \in R[x] then the image in \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R) is constructible. Since finite unions of constructible sets are constructible, it suffices to deal with the case n = 1, i.e., when T = D(f) \cap V(g_1, \ldots , g_ m).

Note that if c \in R, then we have

\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R) = V(c) \amalg D(c) = \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R/(c)) \amalg \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R_ c),

and correspondingly \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R[x]) = V(c) \amalg D(c) = \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R/(c)[x]) \amalg \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R_ c[x]). The intersection of T = D(f) \cap V(g_1, \ldots , g_ m) with each part still has the same shape, with f, g_ i replaced by their images in R/(c)[x], respectively R_ c[x]. Note that the image of T in \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R) is the union of the image of T \cap V(c) and T \cap D(c). Using Lemmas 10.29.5 and 10.29.6 it suffices to prove the images of both parts are constructible in \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R/(c)), respectively \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R_ c).

Let us assume we have T = D(f) \cap V(g_1, \ldots , g_ m) as above, with \deg (g_1) \leq \deg (g_2) \leq \ldots \leq \deg (g_ m). We are going to use induction on m, and on the degrees of the g_ i. Let d_1 = \deg (g_1), i.e., g_1 = c x^{d_1} + l.o.t with c \in R not zero. Cutting R up into the pieces R/(c) and R_ c we either lower the degree of g_1 (and this is covered by induction) or we reduce to the case where c is invertible. If c is invertible, and m > 1, then write g_2 = c' x^{d_2} + l.o.t. In this case consider g_2' = g_2 - (c'/c) x^{d_2 - d_1} g_1. Since the ideals (g_1, g_2, \ldots , g_ m) and (g_1, g_2', g_3, \ldots , g_ m) are equal we see that T = D(f) \cap V(g_1, g_2', g_3\ldots , g_ m). But here the degree of g_2' is strictly less than the degree of g_2 and hence this case is covered by induction.

The bases case for the induction above are the cases (a) T = D(f) \cap V(g) where the leading coefficient of g is invertible, and (b) T = D(f). These two cases are dealt with in Lemmas 10.29.9 and 10.29.7. \square


Comments (4)

Comment #4613 by Noah Olander on

I think this is a regular induction, not a descending induction.

Comment #5091 by Runyu on

Do we assume to be noetherian here? If we assume so, we do not need to say "finite presentation", if not, why would a locally closdled set look like ?

Comment #5300 by on

No we do not assume is Noetherian. Please read earlier in the section to find the answer to your question.

There are also:

  • 6 comment(s) on Section 10.29: Images of ring maps of finite presentation

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked.

In your comment you can use Markdown and LaTeX style mathematics (enclose it like $\pi$). A preview option is available if you wish to see how it works out (just click on the eye in the toolbar).

Unfortunately JavaScript is disabled in your browser, so the comment preview function will not work.

All contributions are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.