Lemma 29.51.7. Let X, Y be integral schemes. Let f : X \to Y be locally of finite type. Assume f is dominant. The following are equivalent:
the extension R(Y) \subset R(X) has transcendence degree 0,
the extension R(Y) \subset R(X) is finite,
there exist nonempty affine opens U \subset X and V \subset Y such that f(U) \subset V and f|_ U : U \to V is finite, and
the generic point of X is the only point of X mapping to the generic point of Y.
If f is separated or if f is quasi-compact, then these are also equivalent to
there exists a nonempty affine open V \subset Y such that f^{-1}(V) \to V is finite.
Proof.
Choose any affine opens \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(A) = U \subset X and \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R) = V \subset Y such that f(U) \subset V. Then R and A are domains by definition. The ring map R \to A is of finite type (Lemma 29.15.2). By Lemma 29.8.6 the generic point of X maps to the generic point of Y hence R \to A is injective. Let K = R(Y) be the fraction field of R and L = R(X) the fraction field of A. Then L/K is a finitely generated field extension. Hence we see that (1) is equivalent to (2).
Suppose (2) holds. Let x_1, \ldots , x_ n \in A be generators of A over R. By assumption there exist nonzero polynomials P_ i(X) \in R[X] such that P_ i(x_ i) = 0. Let f_ i \in R be the leading coefficient of P_ i. Then we conclude that R_{f_1 \ldots f_ n} \to A_{f_1 \ldots f_ n} is finite, i.e., (3) holds. Note that (3) implies (2). So now we see that (1), (2) and (3) are all equivalent.
Let \eta be the generic point of X, and let \eta ' \in Y be the generic point of Y. Assume (4). Then \dim _\eta (X_{\eta '}) = 0 and we see that R(X) = \kappa (\eta ) has transcendence degree 0 over R(Y) = \kappa (\eta ') by Lemma 29.28.1. In other words (1) holds. Assume the equivalent conditions (1), (2) and (3). Suppose that x \in X is a point mapping to \eta '. As x is a specialization of \eta , this gives inclusions R(Y) \subset \mathcal{O}_{X, x} \subset R(X), which implies \mathcal{O}_{X, x} is a field, see Algebra, Lemma 10.36.19. Hence x = \eta . Thus we see that (1) β (4) are all equivalent.
It is clear that (5) implies (3) with no additional assumptions on f. What remains is to prove that if f is either separated or quasi-compact, then the equivalent conditions (1) β (4) imply (5). This follows from Lemma 29.51.5.
\square
Comments (0)
There are also: