The Stacks project

31.3 Morphisms and associated points

Let $f : X \to S$ be a morphism of schemes. Let $\mathcal{F}$ be a sheaf of $\mathcal{O}_ X$-modules. If $s \in S$ is a point, then it is often convenient to denote $\mathcal{F}_ s$ the $\mathcal{O}_{X_ s}$-module one gets by pulling back $\mathcal{F}$ by the morphism $i_ s : X_ s \to X$. Here $X_ s$ is the scheme theoretic fibre of $f$ over $s$. In a formula

\[ \mathcal{F}_ s = i_ s^*\mathcal{F} \]

Of course, this notation clashes with the already existing notation for the stalk of $\mathcal{F}$ at a point $x \in X$ if $f = \text{id}_ X$. However, the notation is often convenient, as in the formulation of the following lemma.

Lemma 31.3.1. Let $f : X \to S$ be a morphism of schemes. Let $\mathcal{F}$ be a quasi-coherent sheaf on $X$ which is flat over $S$. Let $\mathcal{G}$ be a quasi-coherent sheaf on $S$. Then we have

\[ \text{Ass}_ X(\mathcal{F} \otimes _{\mathcal{O}_ X} f^*\mathcal{G}) \supset \bigcup \nolimits _{s \in \text{Ass}_ S(\mathcal{G})} \text{Ass}_{X_ s}(\mathcal{F}_ s) \]

and equality holds if $S$ is locally Noetherian (for the notation $\mathcal{F}_ s$ see above).

Proof. Let $x \in X$ and let $s = f(x) \in S$. Set $B = \mathcal{O}_{X, x}$, $A = \mathcal{O}_{S, s}$, $N = \mathcal{F}_ x$, and $M = \mathcal{G}_ s$. Note that the stalk of $\mathcal{F} \otimes _{\mathcal{O}_ X} f^*\mathcal{G}$ at $x$ is equal to the $B$-module $M \otimes _ A N$. Hence $x \in \text{Ass}_ X(\mathcal{F} \otimes _{\mathcal{O}_ X} f^*\mathcal{G})$ if and only if $\mathfrak m_ B$ is in $\text{Ass}_ B(M \otimes _ A N)$. Similarly $s \in \text{Ass}_ S(\mathcal{G})$ and $x \in \text{Ass}_{X_ s}(\mathcal{F}_ s)$ if and only if $\mathfrak m_ A \in \text{Ass}_ A(M)$ and $\mathfrak m_ B/\mathfrak m_ A B \in \text{Ass}_{B \otimes \kappa (\mathfrak m_ A)}(N \otimes \kappa (\mathfrak m_ A))$. Thus the lemma follows from Algebra, Lemma 10.65.5. $\square$

Comments (2)

Comment #2782 by on

I find the notation unfortunate for the following reason:

If then is the stalk at . Now take to be the identity, and then you have a clash of notations. Also more generally, I think that a notation like should be reserved for stalks of sheaves.

I suggest to write what is now.

Comment #2891 by on

Although you are right, I've chosen not to change the notation for now. I looked around and in most places where is used, we say explicitly what we mean. Also, as long as it is clear that is a point of a different space than , confusion is unlikely to occur. I've fixed the problem with this particular lemma by explaining the notation clearly. Thanks! See changes here.

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 05DA. Beware of the difference between the letter 'O' and the digit '0'.