Definition 28.10.1. Let $X$ be a scheme.

## 28.10 Dimension

The dimension of a scheme is just the dimension of its underlying topological space.

As a scheme has a sober underlying topological space (Schemes, Lemma 26.11.1) we may compute the dimension of $X$ as the supremum of the lengths $n$ of chains

of irreducible closed subsets of $X$, or as the supremum of the lengths $n$ of chains of specializations

of points of $X$.

Lemma 28.10.2. Let $X$ be a scheme. The following are equal

The dimension of $X$.

The supremum of the dimensions of the local rings of $X$.

The supremum of $\dim _ x(X)$ for $x \in X$.

**Proof.**
Note that given a chain of specializations

of points of $X$ all of the points $\xi _ i$ correspond to prime ideals of the local ring of $X$ at $\xi _0$ by Schemes, Lemma 26.13.2. Hence we see that the dimension of $X$ is the supremum of the dimensions of its local rings. In particular $\dim _ x(X) \geq \dim (\mathcal{O}_{X, x})$ as $\dim _ x(X)$ is the minimum of the dimensions of open neighbourhoods of $x$. Thus $\sup _{x \in X} \dim _ x(X) \geq \dim (X)$. On the other hand, it is clear that $\sup _{x \in X} \dim _ x(X) \leq \dim (X)$ as $\dim (U) \leq \dim (X)$ for any open subset of $X$. $\square$

Lemma 28.10.3. Let $X$ be a scheme. Let $Y \subset X$ be an irreducible closed subset. Let $\xi \in Y$ be the generic point. Then

where the codimension is as defined in Topology, Definition 5.11.1.

**Proof.**
By Topology, Lemma 5.11.2 we may replace $X$ by an affine open neighbourhood of $\xi $. In this case the result follows easily from Algebra, Lemma 10.26.3.
$\square$

Lemma 28.10.4. Let $X$ be a scheme. Let $x \in X$. Then $x$ is a generic point of an irreducible component of $X$ if and only if $\dim (\mathcal{O}_{X, x}) = 0$.

**Proof.**
This follows from Lemma 28.10.3 for example.
$\square$

Lemma 28.10.5. A locally Noetherian scheme of dimension $0$ is a disjoint union of spectra of Artinian local rings.

**Proof.**
A Noetherian ring of dimension $0$ is a finite product of Artinian local rings, see Algebra, Proposition 10.60.7. Hence an affine open of a locally Noetherian scheme $X$ of dimension $0$ has discrete underlying topological space. This implies that the topology on $X$ is discrete. The lemma follows easily from these remarks.
$\square$

Lemma 28.10.6. Let $X$ be a scheme of dimension zero. The following are equivalent

$X$ is quasi-separated,

$X$ is separated,

$X$ is Hausdorff,

every affine open is closed.

In this case the connected components of $X$ are points and every quasi-compact open of $X$ is affine. In particular, if $X$ is quasi-compact, then $X$ is affine.

**Proof.**
As the dimension of $X$ is zero, we see that for any affine open $U \subset X$ the space $U$ is profinite and satisfies a bunch of other properties which we will use freely below, see Algebra, Lemma 10.26.5. We choose an affine open covering $X = \bigcup U_ i$.

If (4) holds, then $U_ i \cap U_ j$ is a closed subset of $U_ i$, hence quasi-compact, hence $X$ is quasi-separated, by Schemes, Lemma 26.21.6, hence (1) holds.

If (1) holds, then $U_ i \cap U_ j$ is a quasi-compact open of $U_ i$ hence closed in $U_ i$. Then $U_ i \cap U_ j \to U_ i$ is an open immersion whose image is closed, hence it is a closed immersion. In particular $U_ i \cap U_ j$ is affine and $\mathcal{O}(U_ i) \to \mathcal{O}_ X(U_ i \cap U_ j)$ is surjective. Thus $X$ is separated by Schemes, Lemma 26.21.7, hence (2) holds.

Assume (2) and let $x, y \in X$. Say $x \in U_ i$. If $y \in U_ i$ too, then we can find disjoint open neighbourhoods of $x$ and $y$ because $U_ i$ is Hausdorff. Say $y \not\in U_ i$ and $y \in U_ j$. Then $y \not\in U_ i \cap U_ j$ which is an affine open of $U_ j$ and hence closed in $U_ j$. Thus we can find an open neighbourhood of $y$ not meeting $U_ i$ and we conclude that $X$ is Hausdorff, hence (3) holds.

Assume (3). Let $U \subset X$ be affine open. Then $U$ is closed in $X$ by Topology, Lemma 5.12.4. This proves (4) holds.

Assume $X$ satisfies the equivalent conditions (1) – (4). We prove the final statements of the lemma. Say $x, y \in X$ with $x \not= y$. Since $y$ does not specialize to $x$ we can choose $U \subset X$ affine open with $x \in U$ and $y \not\in U$. Then we see that $X = U \amalg (X \setminus U)$ is a decomposistion into open and closed subsets which shows that $x$ and $y$ do not belong to the same connected component of $X$. Next, assume $U \subset X$ is a quasi-compact open. Write $U = U_1 \cup \ldots \cup U_ n$ as a union of affine opens. We will prove by induction on $n$ that $U$ is affine. This immediately reduces us to the case $n = 2$. In this case we have $U = (U_1 \setminus U_2) \amalg (U_1 \cap U_2) \amalg (U_2 \setminus U_1)$ and the arguments above show that each of the pieces is affine. $\square$

## 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 (0)