The Stacks project

Lemma 28.3.3. Let $X$ be a scheme. The following are equivalent.

  1. The scheme $X$ is irreducible.

  2. There exists an affine open covering $X = \bigcup _{i \in I} U_ i$ such that $I$ is not empty, $U_ i$ is irreducible for all $i \in I$, and $U_ i \cap U_ j \not= \emptyset $ for all $i, j \in I$.

  3. The scheme $X$ is nonempty and every nonempty affine open $U \subset X$ is irreducible.

Proof. Assume (1). By Schemes, Lemma 26.11.1 we see that $X$ has a unique generic point $\eta $. Then $X = \overline{\{ \eta \} }$. Hence $\eta $ is an element of every nonempty affine open $U \subset X$. This implies that $U = \overline{\{ \eta \} }$ and that any two nonempty affines meet. Thus (1) implies both (2) and (3).

Assume (2). Suppose $X = Z_1 \cup Z_2$ is a union of two closed subsets. For every $i$ we see that either $U_ i \subset Z_1$ or $U_ i \subset Z_2$. Pick some $i \in I$ and assume $U_ i \subset Z_1$ (possibly after renumbering $Z_1$, $Z_2$). For any $j \in I$ the open subset $U_ i \cap U_ j$ is dense in $U_ j$ and contained in the closed subset $Z_1 \cap U_ j$. We conclude that also $U_ j \subset Z_1$. Thus $X = Z_1$ as desired.

Assume (3). Choose an affine open covering $X = \bigcup _{i \in I} U_ i$. We may assume that each $U_ i$ is nonempty. Since $X$ is nonempty we see that $I$ is not empty. By assumption each $U_ i$ is irreducible. Suppose $U_ i \cap U_ j = \emptyset $ for some pair $i, j \in I$. Then the open $U_ i \amalg U_ j = U_ i \cup U_ j$ is affine, see Schemes, Lemma 26.6.8. Hence it is irreducible by assumption which is absurd. We conclude that (3) implies (2). The lemma is proved. $\square$


Comments (1)

Comment #7536 by Marco Baracchini on

I think we have to add a bar over in the second line of the proof:

you proved that is in for each open affine in , then , then each open affine set is dense in .

Since open affine are basis for the topology, each open non empty set is dense in , then each open non empty set in is dense in and we conclude that is irreducible for each open (why do we require affine?) set of .

There are also:

  • 3 comment(s) on Section 28.3: Integral, irreducible, and reduced 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Your email address will not be published.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 01OM. Beware of the difference between the letter 'O' and the digit '0'.