The Stacks project

Example 26.14.3 (Affine space with zero doubled). Let $k$ be a field. Let $n \geq 1$. Let $X_1 = \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(k[x_1, \ldots , x_ n])$, let $X_2 = \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(k[y_1, \ldots , y_ n])$. Let $0_1 \in X_1$ be the point corresponding to the maximal ideal $(x_1, \ldots , x_ n) \subset k[x_1, \ldots , x_ n]$. Let $0_2 \in X_2$ be the point corresponding to the maximal ideal $(y_1, \ldots , y_ n) \subset k[y_1, \ldots , y_ n]$. Let $U_{12} = X_1 \setminus \{ 0_1\} $ and let $U_{21} = X_2 \setminus \{ 0_2\} $. Let $\varphi _{12} : U_{12} \to U_{21}$ be the isomorphism coming from the isomorphism of $k$-algebras $k[y_1, \ldots , y_ n] \to k[x_1, \ldots , x_ n]$ mapping $y_ i$ to $x_ i$ (which induces $X_1 \cong X_2$ mapping $0_1$ to $0_2$). Let $X$ be the scheme obtained from the glueing data $(X_1, X_2, U_{12}, U_{21}, \varphi _{12}, \varphi _{21} = \varphi _{12}^{-1})$. Via the slight abuse of notation introduced above the example we think of $X_1, X_2 \subset X$ as open subschemes. There is a morphism $f : X \to \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(k[t_1, \ldots , t_ n])$ which on $X_1$ (resp. $X_2$) corresponds to $k$ algebra map $k[t_1, \ldots , t_ n] \to k[x_1, \ldots , x_ n]$ (resp. $k[t_1, \ldots , t_ n] \to k[y_1, \ldots , y_ n]$) mapping $t_ i$ to $x_ i$ (resp. $t_ i$ to $y_ i$). It is easy to see that this morphism identifies $k[t_1, \ldots , t_ n]$ with $\Gamma (X, \mathcal{O}_ X)$. Since $f(0_1) = f(0_2)$ we see that $X$ is not affine.

Note that $X_1$ and $X_2$ are affine opens of $X$. But, if $n = 2$, then $X_1 \cap X_2$ is the scheme described in Example 26.9.3 and hence not affine. Thus in general the intersection of affine opens of a scheme is not affine. (This fact holds more generally for any $n > 1$.)

Another curious feature of this example is the following. If $n > 1$ there are many irreducible closed subsets $T \subset X$ (take the closure of any non closed point in $X_1$ for example). But unless $T = \{ 0_1\} $, or $T = \{ 0_2\} $ we have $0_1 \in T \Leftrightarrow 0_2 \in T$. Proof omitted.

Comments (2)

Comment #2799 by Kat Christianson on

In the last sentence of the first paragraph ("There is a morphism . . ."), there seems to be a very minor issue with indices: you write but then use the index to define the -algebra maps later in the sentence. I think replacing with " (resp. )" resolves the issue.

On an unrelated note, the "preview" button in this comment box seems not to be working for me. I'm not sure if this is the place to describe the issue, but in case it helps: I'm using Google Chrome (Version 61.0.3163.79) on Windows 10, and I tried disabling browser plugins with no success.

There are also:

  • 9 comment(s) on Section 26.14: Glueing schemes

Post a comment

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.

In order to prevent bots from posting comments, we would like you to prove that you are human. You can do this by filling in the name of the current tag in the following input field. As a reminder, this is tag 01JD. Beware of the difference between the letter 'O' and the digit '0'.