Lemma 35.36.2. Let $\mathcal{P}$ be a property of morphisms of schemes over a base. Let $\tau \in \{ fpqc, fppf, {\acute{e}tale}, smooth, syntomic\}$. Suppose that

1. $\mathcal{P}$ is stable under any base change (see Schemes, Definition 26.18.3),

2. if $Y_ j \to V_ j$, $j = 1, \ldots , m$ have $\mathcal{P}$, then so does $\coprod Y_ j \to \coprod V_ j$, and

3. for any surjective morphism of affines $X \to S$ which is flat, flat of finite presentation, étale, smooth or syntomic depending on whether $\tau$ is fpqc, fppf, étale, smooth, or syntomic, any descent datum $(V, \varphi )$ relative to $X$ over $S$ such that $\mathcal{P}$ holds for $V \to X$ is effective.

Then morphisms of type $\mathcal{P}$ satisfy descent for $\tau$-coverings.

Proof. Let $S$ be a scheme. Let $\mathcal{U} = \{ \varphi _ i : U_ i \to S\} _{i \in I}$ be a $\tau$-covering of $S$. Let $(X_ i, \varphi _{ii'})$ be a descent datum relative to $\mathcal{U}$ and assume that each morphism $X_ i \to U_ i$ has property $\mathcal{P}$. We have to show there exists a scheme $X \to S$ such that $(X_ i, \varphi _{ii'}) \cong (U_ i \times _ S X, can)$.

Before we start the proof proper we remark that for any family of morphisms $\mathcal{V} : \{ V_ j \to S\}$ and any morphism of families $\mathcal{V} \to \mathcal{U}$, if we pullback the descent datum $(X_ i, \varphi _{ii'})$ to a descent datum $(Y_ j, \varphi _{jj'})$ over $\mathcal{V}$, then each of the morphisms $Y_ j \to V_ j$ has property $\mathcal{P}$ also. This is true because of assumption (1) that $\mathcal{P}$ is stable under any base change and the definition of pullback (see Definition 35.34.9). We will use this without further mention.

First, let us prove the lemma when $S$ is affine. By Topologies, Lemma 34.9.8, 34.7.4, 34.4.4, 34.5.4, or 34.6.4 there exists a standard $\tau$-covering $\mathcal{V} : \{ V_ j \to S\} _{j = 1, \ldots , m}$ which refines $\mathcal{U}$. The pullback functor $DD(\mathcal{U}) \to DD(\mathcal{V})$ between categories of descent data is fully faithful by Lemma 35.35.11. Hence it suffices to prove that the descent datum over the standard $\tau$-covering $\mathcal{V}$ is effective. By assumption (2) we see that $\coprod Y_ j \to \coprod V_ j$ has property $\mathcal{P}$. By Lemma 35.34.5 this reduces us to the covering $\{ \coprod _{j = 1, \ldots , m} V_ j \to S\}$ for which we have assumed the result in assumption (3) of the lemma. Hence the lemma holds when $S$ is affine.

Assume $S$ is general. Let $V \subset S$ be an affine open. By the properties of site the family $\mathcal{U}_ V = \{ V \times _ S U_ i \to V\} _{i \in I}$ is a $\tau$-covering of $V$. Denote $(X_ i, \varphi _{ii'})_ V$ the restriction (or pullback) of the given descent datum to $\mathcal{U}_ V$. Hence by what we just saw we obtain a scheme $X_ V$ over $V$ whose canonical descent datum with respect to $\mathcal{U}_ V$ is isomorphic to $(X_ i, \varphi _{ii'})_ V$. Suppose that $V' \subset V$ is an affine open of $V$. Then both $X_{V'}$ and $V' \times _ V X_ V$ have canonical descent data isomorphic to $(X_ i, \varphi _{ii'})_{V'}$. Hence, by Lemma 35.35.11 again we obtain a canonical morphism $\rho ^ V_{V'} : X_{V'} \to X_ V$ over $S$ which identifies $X_{V'}$ with the inverse image of $V'$ in $X_ V$. We omit the verification that given affine opens $V'' \subset V' \subset V$ of $S$ we have $\rho ^ V_{V''} = \rho ^ V_{V'} \circ \rho ^{V'}_{V''}$.

By Constructions, Lemma 27.2.1 the data $(X_ V, \rho ^ V_{V'})$ glue to a scheme $X \to S$. Moreover, we are given isomorphisms $V \times _ S X \to X_ V$ which recover the maps $\rho ^ V_{V'}$. Unwinding the construction of the schemes $X_ V$ we obtain isomorphisms

$V \times _ S U_ i \times _ S X \longrightarrow V \times _ S X_ i$

compatible with the maps $\varphi _{ii'}$ and compatible with restricting to smaller affine opens in $X$. This implies that the canonical descent datum on $U_ i \times _ S X$ is isomorphic to the given descent datum and we win. $\square$

Comment #4899 by Robot0079 on

In 3rd paragraph, we can't reduced to the single morphism-case unless adding some local property on P, since in general coproduct of morphisms satisfying P doesn't satisfy P anymore.

Comment #5176 by on

Thanks very much. The text following Definition 35.36.1 exactly warns the reader for the pitfall you point out in your comment! Fixed here.

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).