Lemma 29.56.4. A composition of morphisms with universally bounded fibres is a morphism with universally bounded fibres. More precisely, assume that $n$ bounds the degrees of the fibres of $f : X \to Y$ and $m$ bounds the degrees of $g : Y \to Z$. Then $nm$ bounds the degrees of the fibres of $g \circ f : X \to Z$.

Proof. Let $f : X \to Y$ and $g : Y \to Z$ have universally bounded fibres. Say that $\deg (X_ y/\kappa (y)) \leq n$ for all $y \in Y$, and that $\deg (Y_ z/\kappa (z)) \leq m$ for all $z \in Z$. Let $z \in Z$ be a point. By assumption the scheme $Y_ z$ is finite over $\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(\kappa (z))$. In particular, the underlying topological space of $Y_ z$ is a finite discrete set. The fibres of the morphism $f_ z : X_ z \to Y_ z$ are the fibres of $f$ at the corresponding points of $Y$, which are finite discrete sets by the reasoning above. Hence we conclude that the underlying topological space of $X_ z$ is a finite discrete set as well. Thus $X_ z$ is an affine scheme (this is a nice exercise; it also follows for example from Properties, Lemma 28.29.1 applied to the set of all points of $X_ z$). Write $X_ z = \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(A)$, $Y_ z = \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(B)$, and $k = \kappa (z)$. Then $k \to B \to A$ and we know that (a) $\dim _ k(B) \leq m$, and (b) for every maximal ideal $\mathfrak m \subset B$ we have $\dim _{\kappa (\mathfrak m)}(A/\mathfrak mA) \leq n$. We claim this implies that $\dim _ k(A) \leq nm$. Note that $B$ is the product of its localizations $B_{\mathfrak m}$, for example because $Y_ z$ is a disjoint union of $1$-point schemes, or by Algebra, Lemmas 10.53.2 and 10.53.6. So we see that $\dim _ k(B) = \sum _{\mathfrak m} \dim _ k(B_{\mathfrak m})$ and $\dim _ k(A) = \sum _{\mathfrak m} \dim _ k(A_{\mathfrak m})$ where in both cases $\mathfrak m$ runs over the maximal ideals of $B$ (not of $A$). By the above, and Nakayama's Lemma (Algebra, Lemma 10.20.1) we see that each $A_{\mathfrak m}$ is a quotient of $B_{\mathfrak m}^{\oplus n}$ as a $B_{\mathfrak m}$-module. Hence $\dim _ k(A_{\mathfrak m}) \leq n \dim _ k(B_{\mathfrak m})$. Putting everything together we see that

$\dim _ k(A) = \sum \nolimits _{\mathfrak m} \dim _ ta (A_{\mathfrak m}) \leq \sum \nolimits _{\mathfrak m} n \dim _ k(B_{\mathfrak m}) = n \dim _ k(B) \leq nm$

as desired. $\square$

## Comments (2)

Comment #5538 by Michael on

It looks like there is a typo here. $(A_{\mathfrak{m}})$ should be $\dim_k(A_{\mathfrak{m}})$ and similiarly for $B$. There is a total of three occurrences.

## 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 03J6. Beware of the difference between the letter 'O' and the digit '0'.