Lemma 101.29.3. Let \mathcal{X} be an algebraic stack such that \mathcal{I}_\mathcal {X} \to \mathcal{X} is quasi-compact. Then there exists a well-ordered index set I and for every i \in I a reduced locally closed substack \mathcal{U}_ i \subset \mathcal{X} such that
each \mathcal{U}_ i is a gerbe,
we have |\mathcal{X}| = \bigcup _{i \in I} |\mathcal{U}_ i|,
T_ i = |\mathcal{X}| \setminus \bigcup _{i' < i} |\mathcal{U}_{i'}| is closed in |\mathcal{X}| for all i \in I, and
|\mathcal{U}_ i| is open in T_ i.
We can moreover arrange it so that either (a) |\mathcal{U}_ i| \subset T_ i is dense, or (b) \mathcal{U}_ i is quasi-compact. In case (a), if we choose \mathcal{U}_ i as large as possible (see proof for details), then the stratification is canonical.
Proof.
Let T \subset |\mathcal{X}| be a nonempty closed subset. We are going to find (resp. choose) for every such T a reduced locally closed substack \mathcal{U}(T) \subset \mathcal{X} with |\mathcal{U}(T)| \subset T open dense (resp. nonempty quasi-compact). Namely, by Properties of Stacks, Lemma 100.10.1 there exists a unique reduced closed substack \mathcal{X}' \subset \mathcal{X} such that T = |\mathcal{X}'|. Note that \mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{X}'} = \mathcal{I}_\mathcal {X} \times _\mathcal {X} \mathcal{X}' by Lemma 101.5.6. Hence \mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{X}'} \to \mathcal{X}' is quasi-compact as a base change, see Lemma 101.7.3. Therefore Proposition 101.29.1 implies there exists a dense maximal (see proof proposition) open substack \mathcal{U} \subset \mathcal{X}' which is a gerbe. In case (a) we set \mathcal{U}(T) = \mathcal{U} (this is canonical) and in case (b) we simply choose a nonempty quasi-compact open \mathcal{U}(T) \subset \mathcal{U}, see Properties of Stacks, Lemma 100.4.9 (we can do this for all T simultaneously by the axiom of choice).
Using transfinite recursion we construct for every ordinal \alpha a closed subset T_\alpha \subset |\mathcal{X}|. For \alpha = 0 we set T_0 = |\mathcal{X}|. Given T_\alpha set
T_{\alpha + 1} = T_\alpha \setminus |\mathcal{U}(T_\alpha )|.
If \beta is a limit ordinal we set
T_\beta = \bigcap \nolimits _{\alpha < \beta } T_\alpha .
We claim that T_\alpha = \emptyset for all \alpha large enough. Namely, assume that T_\alpha \not= \emptyset for all \alpha . Then we obtain an injective map from the class of ordinals into the set of subsets of |\mathcal{X}| which is a contradiction.
The claim implies the lemma. Namely, let
I = \{ \alpha \mid \mathcal{U}_\alpha \not= \emptyset \} .
This is a well-ordered set by the claim. For i = \alpha \in I we set \mathcal{U}_ i = \mathcal{U}_\alpha . So \mathcal{U}_ i is a reduced locally closed substack and a gerbe, i.e., (1) holds. By construction T_ i = T\alpha if i = \alpha \in I, hence (3) holds. Also, (4) and (a) or (b) hold by our choice of \mathcal{U}(T) as well. Finally, to see (2) let x \in |\mathcal{X}|. There exists a smallest ordinal \beta with x \not\in T_\beta (because the ordinals are well-ordered). In this case \beta has to be a successor ordinal by the definition of T_\beta for limit ordinals. Hence \beta = \alpha + 1 and x \in |\mathcal{U}(T_\alpha )| and we win.
\square
Comments (0)