Proposition 69.3.10. Let $S$ be a scheme. Let $f : X \to Y$ be a morphism of algebraic spaces over $S$. The following are equivalent:

**Proof.**
Assume (1). Let $T$ be a scheme and let $y \in Y(T)$. We have to show that $T \times _ Y X$ is limit preserving over $T$ in the sense of Definition 69.3.1. Hence we are reduced to proving that if $X$ is an algebraic space which is locally of finite presentation over $S$ as an algebraic space, then it is limit preserving as a functor $X : (\mathit{Sch}/S)_{fppf}^{opp} \to \textit{Sets}$. To see this choose a presentation $X = U/R$, see Spaces, Definition 64.9.3. It follows from Morphisms of Spaces, Definition 66.28.1 that both $U$ and $R$ are schemes which are locally of finite presentation over $S$. Hence by Limits, Proposition 32.6.1 we have

whenever $T = \mathop{\mathrm{lim}}\nolimits _ i T_ i$ in $(\mathit{Sch}/S)_{fppf}$. It follows that the presheaf

is limit preserving. Hence by Lemma 69.3.7 its sheafification $X = U/R$ is limit preserving too.

Assume (2). Choose a scheme $V$ and a surjective étale morphism $V \to Y$. Next, choose a scheme $U$ and a surjective étale morphism $U \to V \times _ Y X$. By Lemma 69.3.5 the transformation of functors $V \times _ Y X \to V$ is limit preserving. By Morphisms of Spaces, Lemma 66.39.8 the morphism of algebraic spaces $U \to V \times _ Y X$ is locally of finite presentation, hence limit preserving as a transformation of functors by the first part of the proof. By Lemma 69.3.3 the composition $U \to V \times _ Y X \to V$ is limit preserving as a transformation of functors. Hence the morphism of schemes $U \to V$ is locally of finite presentation by Limits, Proposition 32.6.1 (modulo a set theoretic remark, see last paragraph of the proof). This means, by definition, that (1) holds.

Set theoretic remark. Let $U \to V$ be a morphism of $(\mathit{Sch}/S)_{fppf}$. In the statement of Limits, Proposition 32.6.1 we characterize $U \to V$ as being locally of finite presentation if for *all* directed inverse systems $(T_ i, f_{ii'})$ of affine schemes over $V$ we have $U(T) = \mathop{\mathrm{colim}}\nolimits V(T_ i)$, but in the current setting we may only consider affine schemes $T_ i$ over $V$ which are (isomorphic to) an object of $(\mathit{Sch}/S)_{fppf}$. So we have to make sure that there are enough affines in $(\mathit{Sch}/S)_{fppf}$ to make the proof work. Inspecting the proof of (2) $\Rightarrow $ (1) of Limits, Proposition 32.6.1 we see that the question reduces to the case that $U$ and $V$ are affine. Say $U = \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(A)$ and $V = \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(B)$. By construction of $(\mathit{Sch}/S)_{fppf}$ the spectrum of any ring of cardinality $\leq |B|$ is isomorphic to an object of $(\mathit{Sch}/S)_{fppf}$. Hence it suffices to observe that in the "only if" part of the proof of Algebra, Lemma 10.127.3 only $A$-algebras of cardinality $\leq |B|$ are used.
$\square$

## 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.

## Comments (2)

Comment #2298 by Eric Ahlqvist on

Comment #2324 by Johan on