The Stacks project

Lemma 37.44.7. Let $U \to X$ be a surjective étale morphism of schemes. Assume $X$ is quasi-compact and quasi-separated. Then there exists a surjective integral morphism $Y \to X$, such that for every $y \in Y$ there is an open neighbourhood $V \subset Y$ such that $V \to X$ factors through $U$. In fact, we may assume $Y \to X$ is finite and of finite presentation.

Proof. Since $X$ is quasi-compact, there exist finitely many affine opens $U_ i \subset U$ such that $U' = \coprod U_ i \to X$ is surjective. After replacing $U$ by $U'$, we see that we may assume $U$ is affine. In particular $U \to X$ is separated (Schemes, Lemma 26.21.15). Then there exists an integer $d$ bounding the degree of the geometric fibres of $U \to X$ (see Morphisms, Lemma 29.56.9). We will prove the lemma by induction on $d$ for all quasi-compact and separated schemes $U$ mapping surjective and étale onto $X$. If $d = 1$, then $U = X$ and the result holds with $Y = U$. Assume $d > 1$.

We apply Lemma 37.42.2 and we obtain a factorization

\[ \xymatrix{ U \ar[rr]_ j \ar[rd] & & Y \ar[ld]^\pi \\ & X } \]

with $\pi $ integral and $j$ a quasi-compact open immersion. We may and do assume that $j(U)$ is scheme theoretically dense in $Y$. Note that

\[ U \times _ X Y = U \amalg W \]

where the first summand is the image of $U \to U \times _ X Y$ (which is closed by Schemes, Lemma 26.21.10 and open because it is étale as a morphism between schemes étale over $Y$) and the second summand is the (open and closed) complement. The image $V \subset Y$ of $W$ is an open subscheme containing $Y \setminus U$.

The étale morphism $W \to Y$ has geometric fibres of cardinality $< d$. Namely, this is clear for geometric points of $U \subset Y$ by inspection. Since $U \subset Y$ is dense, it holds for all geometric points of $Y$ for example by Lemma 37.44.3 (the degree of the fibres of a quasi-compact separated étale morphism does not go up under specialization). Thus we may apply the induction hypothesis to $W \to V$ and find a surjective integral morphism $Z \to V$ with $Z$ a scheme, which Zariski locally factors through $W$. Choose a factorization $Z \to Z' \to Y$ with $Z' \to Y$ integral and $Z \to Z'$ open immersion (Lemma 37.42.2). After replacing $Z'$ by the scheme theoretic closure of $Z$ in $Z'$ we may assume that $Z$ is scheme theoretically dense in $Z'$. After doing this we have $Z' \times _ Y V = Z$. Finally, let $T \subset Y$ be the induced reduced closed subscheme structure on $Y \setminus V$. Consider the morphism

\[ Z' \amalg T \longrightarrow X \]

This is a surjective integral morphism by construction. Since $T \subset U$ it is clear that the morphism $T \to X$ factors through $U$. On the other hand, let $z \in Z'$ be a point. If $z \not\in Z$, then $z$ maps to a point of $Y \setminus V \subset U$ and we find a neighbourhood of $z$ on which the morphism factors through $U$. If $z \in Z$, then we have a neighbourhood $\Omega \subset Z$ which factors through $W \subset U \times _ X Y$ and hence through $U$. This proves existence.

Assume we have found $Y \to X$ integral and surjective which Zariski locally factors through $U$. Choose a finite affine open covering $Y = \bigcup V_ j$ such that $V_ j \to X$ factors through $U$. We can write $Y = \mathop{\mathrm{lim}}\nolimits Y_ i$ with $Y_ i \to X$ finite and of finite presentation, see Limits, Lemma 32.7.3. For large enough $i$ we can find affine opens $V_{i, j} \subset Y_ i$ whose inverse image in $Y$ recovers $V_ j$, see Limits, Lemma 32.4.11. For even larger $i$ the morphisms $V_ j \to U$ over $X$ come from morphisms $V_{i, j} \to U$ over $X$, see Limits, Proposition 32.6.1. This finishes the proof. $\square$


Comments (5)

Comment #3639 by Brian Conrad on

In the parenthetical early in the 3rd paragraph of the proof, replace "quasi-compact etale" with "quasi-compact separated etale" (it is implicit in the Lemma invoked there, and also necessary as well), so earlier when is made affine it should have been noted (with cross-reference) that is thereby separated. In the 2nd to last line of this same paragraph, don't call the neighborhood of in by the name , since the notation already has an entirely different meaning in the overall proof.

Comment #5556 by Harry Gindi on

Separatedness of the morphism U'→X doesn't seem to follow from the referenced lemma. We know that U' is affine, but not necessarily that the map U'→X is affine (which is the hypothesis of 01S7). This would be true if X itself were separated (or at least has affine diagonal). Is the reference incorrect?

Comment #5557 by Harry Gindi on

Hey, I found the correct reference for the claim: It should be 01KN (a morphism from an affine scheme to a scheme is separated).


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 09Z0. Beware of the difference between the letter 'O' and the digit '0'.