Lemma 66.15.1. Let $S$ be a scheme. Let $f : X \to Y$ be a morphism of algebraic spaces over $S$. Assume that $f$ is surjective and finite, and assume that $X$ is affine. Then $Y$ is affine.

## 66.15 Characterizing affine spaces

This section is the analogue of Limits, Section 31.11.

**Proof.**
We may and do view $f : X \to Y$ as a morphism of algebraic space over $\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(\mathbf{Z})$ (see Spaces, Definition 61.16.2). Note that a finite morphism is affine and universally closed, see Morphisms of Spaces, Lemma 63.45.7. By Morphisms of Spaces, Lemma 63.9.8 we see that $Y$ is a separated algebraic space. As $f$ is surjective and $X$ is quasi-compact we see that $Y$ is quasi-compact.

By Lemma 66.11.3 we can write $X = \mathop{\mathrm{lim}}\nolimits X_ a$ with each $X_ a \to Y$ finite and of finite presentation. By Lemma 66.5.10 we see that $X_ a$ is affine for $a$ large enough. Hence we may and do assume that $f : X \to Y$ is finite, surjective, and of finite presentation.

By Proposition 66.8.1 we may write $Y = \mathop{\mathrm{lim}}\nolimits Y_ i$ as a directed limit of algebraic spaces of finite presentation over $\mathbf{Z}$. By Lemma 66.7.1 we can find $0 \in I$ and a morphism $X_0 \to Y_0$ of finite presentation such that $X_ i = X_0 \times _{Y_0} Y_ i$ for $i \geq 0$ and such that $X = \mathop{\mathrm{lim}}\nolimits _ i X_ i$. By Lemma 66.6.7 we see that $X_ i \to Y_ i$ is finite for $i$ large enough. By Lemma 66.6.4 we see that $X_ i \to Y_ i$ is surjective for $i$ large enough. By Lemma 66.5.10 we see that $X_ i$ is affine for $i$ large enough. Hence for $i$ large enough we can apply Cohomology of Spaces, Lemma 65.17.1 to conclude that $Y_ i$ is affine. This implies that $Y$ is affine and we conclude. $\square$

Proposition 66.15.2. Let $S$ be a scheme. Let $f : X \to Y$ be a morphism of algebraic spaces over $S$. Assume that $f$ is surjective and integral, and assume that $X$ is affine. Then $Y$ is affine.

**Proof.**
We may and do view $f : X \to Y$ as a morphism of algebraic spaces over $\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(\mathbf{Z})$ (see Spaces, Definition 61.16.2). Note that integral morphisms are affine and universally closed, see Morphisms of Spaces, Lemma 63.45.7. By Morphisms of Spaces, Lemma 63.9.8 we see that $Y$ is a separated algebraic space. As $f$ is surjective and $X$ is quasi-compact we see that $Y$ is quasi-compact.

Consider the sheaf $\mathcal{A} = f_*\mathcal{O}_ X$. This is a quasi-coherent sheaf of $\mathcal{O}_ Y$-algebras, see Morphisms of Spaces, Lemma 63.11.2. By Lemma 66.9.1 we can write $\mathcal{A} = \mathop{\mathrm{colim}}\nolimits _ i \mathcal{F}_ i$ as a filtered colimit of finite type $\mathcal{O}_ Y$-modules. Let $\mathcal{A}_ i \subset \mathcal{A}$ be the $\mathcal{O}_ Y$-subalgebra generated by $\mathcal{F}_ i$. Since the map of algebras $\mathcal{O}_ Y \to \mathcal{A}$ is integral, we see that each $\mathcal{A}_ i$ is a finite quasi-coherent $\mathcal{O}_ Y$-algebra. Hence

is a finite morphism of algebraic spaces. Here $\underline{\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}}$ is the construction of Morphisms of Spaces, Lemma 63.20.7. It is clear that $X = \mathop{\mathrm{lim}}\nolimits _ i X_ i$. Hence by Lemma 66.5.10 we see that for $i$ sufficiently large the scheme $X_ i$ is affine. Moreover, since $X \to Y$ factors through each $X_ i$ we see that $X_ i \to Y$ is surjective. Hence we conclude that $Y$ is affine by Lemma 66.15.1. $\square$

The following corollary of the result above can be found in [CLO].

Lemma 66.15.3. Let $S$ be a scheme. Let $X$ be an algebraic space over $S$. If $X_{red}$ is a scheme, then $X$ is a scheme.

**Proof.**
Let $U' \subset X_{red}$ be an open affine subscheme. Let $U \subset X$ be the open subspace corresponding to the open $|U'| \subset |X_{red}| = |X|$. Then $U' \to U$ is surjective and integral. Hence $U$ is affine by Proposition 66.15.2. Thus every point is contained in an open subscheme of $X$, i.e., $X$ is a scheme.
$\square$

Lemma 66.15.4. Let $S$ be a scheme. Let $f : X \to Y$ be a morphism of algebraic spaces over $S$. Assume $f$ is integral and induces a bijection $|X| \to |Y|$. Then $X$ is a scheme if and only if $Y$ is a scheme.

**Proof.**
An integral morphism is representable by definition, hence if $Y$ is a scheme, so is $X$. Conversely, assume that $X$ is a scheme. Let $U \subset X$ be an affine open. An integral morphism is closed and $|f|$ is bijective, hence $|f|(|U|) \subset |Y|$ is open as the complement of $|f|(|X| \setminus |U|)$. Let $V \subset Y$ be the open subspace with $|V| = |f|(|U|)$, see Properties of Spaces, Lemma 62.4.8. Then $U \to V$ is integral and surjective, hence $V$ is an affine scheme by Proposition 66.15.2. This concludes the proof.
$\square$

Lemma 66.15.5. Let $S$ be a scheme. Let $f : X \to B$ and $B' \to B$ be morphisms of algebraic spaces over $S$. Assume

$B' \to B$ is a closed immersion,

$|B'| \to |B|$ is bijective,

$X \times _ B B' \to B'$ is a closed immersion, and

$X \to B$ is of finite type or $B' \to B$ is of finite presentation.

Then $f : X \to B$ is a closed immersion.

**Proof.**
Assumptions (1) and (2) imply that $B_{red} = B'_{red}$. Set $X' = X \times _ B B'$. Then $X' \to X$ is closed immersion and $X'_{red} = X_{red}$. Let $U \to B$ be an étale morphism with $U$ affine. Then $X' \times _ B U \to X \times _ B U$ is a closed immersion of algebraic spaces inducing an isomorphism on underlying reduced spaces. Since $X' \times _ B U$ is a scheme (as $B' \to B$ and $X' \to B'$ are representable) so is $X \times _ B U$ by Lemma 66.15.3. Hence $X \to B$ is representable too. Thus we reduce to the case of schemes, see Morphisms, Lemma 28.43.7.
$\square$

## 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 (1)

Comment #1792 by Matthieu Romagny on