The Stacks project

Lemma 34.9.2. Let $T$ be a scheme. Let $\{ f_ i : T_ i \to T\} _{i \in I}$ be a family of morphisms of schemes with target $T$. The following are equivalent

  1. $\{ f_ i : T_ i \to T\} _{i \in I}$ is an fpqc covering,

  2. each $f_ i$ is flat and for every affine open $U \subset T$ there exist quasi-compact opens $U_ i \subset T_ i$ which are almost all empty, such that $U = \bigcup f_ i(U_ i)$,

  3. each $f_ i$ is flat and there exists an affine open covering $T = \bigcup _{\alpha \in A} U_\alpha $ and for each $\alpha \in A$ there exist $i_{\alpha , 1}, \ldots , i_{\alpha , n(\alpha )} \in I$ and quasi-compact opens $U_{\alpha , j} \subset T_{i_{\alpha , j}}$ such that $U_\alpha = \bigcup _{j = 1, \ldots , n(\alpha )} f_{i_{\alpha , j}}(U_{\alpha , j})$.

If $T$ is quasi-separated, these are also equivalent to

  1. each $f_ i$ is flat, and for every $t \in T$ there exist $i_1, \ldots , i_ n \in I$ and quasi-compact opens $U_ j \subset T_{i_ j}$ such that $\bigcup _{j = 1, \ldots , n} f_{i_ j}(U_ j)$ is a (not necessarily open) neighbourhood of $t$ in $T$.

Proof. We omit the proof of the equivalence of (1), (2), and (3). From now on assume $T$ is quasi-separated. We prove (4) implies (2). Let $U \subset T$ be an affine open. To prove (2) it suffices to show that for every $t \in U$ there exist finitely many quasi-compact opens $U_ j \subset T_{i_ j}$ such that $f_{i_ j}(U_ j) \subset U$ and such that $\bigcup f_{i_ j}(U_ j)$ is a neighbourhood of $t$ in $U$. By assumption there do exist finitely many quasi-compact opens $U'_ j \subset T_{i_ j}$ such that such that $\bigcup f_{i_ j}(U'_ j)$ is a neighbourhood of $t$ in $T$. Since $T$ is quasi-separated we see that $U_ j = U'_ j \cap f_{i_ j}^{-1}(U) = (f_{i_ j}|_{U'_ j})^{-1}(U)$ is quasi-compact by Schemes, Lemma 26.21.14. Thus (2) holds. Since it is clear that (2) implies (4) the proof is finished. $\square$


Comments (5)

Comment #8469 by Ryo Suzuki on

I think Lemma 03GI is used to deduce is quasi-compact. It might worth to note it explicitly.

Comment #8641 by Tony Scholl on

Here's an example to answer your question from 2021 on the blog: let , be the non-qs scheme from Example 01KL, and . Then the obvious morphism is flat and surjective, and (since is qc) trivially satisfies (4). But it isn't an fpqc covering: , so isn't the image of any qc open of .

Comment #8667 by on

Ah, yes, of course. Silly me! I will add this as an example soon.

There are also:

  • 8 comment(s) on Section 34.9: The fpqc topology

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 03L7. Beware of the difference between the letter 'O' and the digit '0'.