Lemma 65.12.2. Let $S$ be a scheme. Let $j : R \to U \times _ S U$ be an étale equivalence relation. Let $X = U/R$ be the associated algebraic space (Spaces, Theorem 64.10.5). There is a canonical bijection

\[ R\text{-invariant locally closed subschemes }Z'\text{ of }U \leftrightarrow \text{locally closed subspaces }Z\text{ of }X \]

Moreover, if $Z \to X$ is closed (resp. open) if and only if $Z' \to U$ is closed (resp. open).

**Proof.**
Denote $\varphi : U \to X$ the canonical map. The bijection sends $Z \to X$ to $Z' = Z \times _ X U \to U$. It is immediate from the definition that $Z' \to U$ is an immersion, resp. closed immersion, resp. open immersion if $Z \to X$ is so. It is also clear that $Z'$ is $R$-invariant (see Groupoids, Definition 39.19.1).

Conversely, assume that $Z' \to U$ is an immersion which is $R$-invariant. Let $R'$ be the restriction of $R$ to $Z'$, see Groupoids, Definition 39.18.2. Since $R' = R \times _{s, U} Z' = Z' \times _{U, t} R$ in this case we see that $R'$ is an étale equivalence relation on $Z'$. By Spaces, Theorem 64.10.5 we see $Z = Z'/R'$ is an algebraic space. By construction we have $U \times _ X Z = Z'$, so $U \times _ X Z \to Z$ is an immersion. Note that the property “immersion” is preserved under base change and fppf local on the base (see Spaces, Section 64.4). Moreover, immersions are separated and locally quasi-finite (see Schemes, Lemma 26.23.8 and Morphisms, Lemma 29.20.16). Hence by More on Morphisms, Lemma 37.55.1 immersions satisfy descent for fppf covering. This means all the hypotheses of Spaces, Lemma 64.11.5 are satisfied for $Z \to X$, $\mathcal{P}=$“immersion”, and the étale surjective morphism $U \to X$. We conclude that $Z \to X$ is representable and an immersion, which is the definition of a subspace (see Spaces, Definition 64.12.1).

It is clear that these constructions are inverse to each other and we win.
$\square$

## Comments (0)

There are also: