Lemma 110.75.1. There exists an affine formal algebraic space which is not McQuillan.

## 110.75 Affine formal algebraic spaces

Let $K$ be a field and let $(V_ i)_{i \in I}$ be a directed inverse system of nonzero vector spaces over $K$ with surjective transition maps and with $\mathop{\mathrm{lim}}\nolimits V_ i = 0$, see Section 110.3. Let $R_ i = K \oplus V_ i$ as $K$-algebra where $V_ i$ is an ideal of square zero. Then $R_ i$ is an inverse system of $K$-algebras with surjective transition maps with nilpotent kernels and with $\mathop{\mathrm{lim}}\nolimits R_ i = K$. The affine formal algebraic space $X = \mathop{\mathrm{colim}}\nolimits \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R_ i)$ is an example of an affine formal algebraic space which is not McQuillan.

**Proof.**
See discussion above.
$\square$

Let $0 \to W_ i \to V_ i \to K \to 0$ be a system of exact sequences as in Section 110.3. Let $A_ i = K[V_ i]/(ww'; w, w' \in W_ i)$. Then there is a compatible system of surjections $A_ i \to K[t]$ with nilpotent kernels and the transition maps $A_ i \to A_ j$ are surjective with nilpotent kernels as well. Recall that $V_ i$ is free over $K$ with basis given by $s \in S_ i$. Then, if the characteristic of $K$ is zero, the degree $d$ part of $A_ i$ is free over $K$ with basis given by $s^ d$, $s \in S_ i$ each of which map to $t^ d$. Hence the inverse system of the degree $d$ parts of the $A_ i$ is isomorphic to the inverse system of the vector spaces $V_ i$. As $\mathop{\mathrm{lim}}\nolimits V_ i = 0$ we conclude that $\mathop{\mathrm{lim}}\nolimits A_ i = K$, at least when the characteristic of $K$ is zero. This gives an example of an affine formal algebraic space whose “regular functions” do not separate points.

Lemma 110.75.2. There exists an affine formal algebraic space $X$ whose regular functions do not separate points, in the following sense: If we write $X = \mathop{\mathrm{colim}}\nolimits X_\lambda $ as in Formal Spaces, Definition 87.9.1 then $\mathop{\mathrm{lim}}\nolimits \Gamma (X_\lambda , \mathcal{O}_{X_\lambda })$ is a field, but $X_{red}$ has infinitely many points.

**Proof.**
See discussion above.
$\square$

Let $K$, $I$, and $(V_ i)$ be as above. Consider systems

where $\Lambda $ is an augmented $K$-algebra, $J_ i \subset \Lambda $ for $i \in I$ is an ideal of square zero, $(M_ i) \to (V_ i)$ is a map of inverse systems of $K$-vector spaces such that $M_ i \to V_ i$ is surjective for each $i$, such that $M_ i$ has a $\Lambda $-module structure, such that the transition maps $M_ i \to M_ j$, $i > j$ are $\Lambda $-linear, and such that $J_ j M_ i \subset \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(M_ i \to M_ j)$ for $i > j$. Claim: There exists a system as above such that $M_ j = M_ i/J_ j M_ i$ for all $i > j$.

If the claim is true, then we obtain a representable morphism

of affine formal algebraic spaces whose source is not McQuillan but the target is. Here $\Lambda /J_ i \oplus M_ i$ has the usual $\Lambda /J_ i$-algebra structure where $M_ i$ is an ideal of square zero. Representability translates exactly into the condition that $M_ i/J_ jM_ i = M_ j$ for $i > j$. The source of the morphism is not McQuillan as the projections $\mathop{\mathrm{lim}}\nolimits _{i \in I} M_ i \to M_ i$ are not be surjective. This is true because the maps $\mathop{\mathrm{lim}}\nolimits V_ i \to V_ i$ are not surjective and we have the surjection $M_ i \to V_ i$. Some details omitted.

Proof of the claim. First, note that there exists at least one system, namely

Given a system $\Phi $ we will prove there exists a morphism of systems $\Phi \to \Phi '$ (morphisms of systems defined in the obvious manner) such that $\mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(M_ i/J_ j M_ i \to M_ j)$ maps to zero in $M'_ i/J'_ j M'_ i$. Once this is done we can do the usual trick of setting $\Phi _ n = (\Phi _{n - 1})'$ inductively for $n \geq 1$ and taking $\Phi = \mathop{\mathrm{colim}}\nolimits \Phi _ n$ to get a system with the desired properties. Details omitted.

Construction of $\Phi '$ given $\Phi $. Consider the set $U$ of triples $u = (i, j, \xi )$ where $i > j$ and $\xi \in \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(M_ i \to M_ j)$. We will let $s, t : U \to I$ denote the maps $s(i, j, \xi ) = i$ and $t(i, j, \xi ) = j$. Then we set $\xi _ u \in M_{s(u)}$ the third component of $u$. We take

with augmentation $\Lambda ' \to K$ given by the augmentation of $\Lambda $ and sending $x_ u$ to zero. We take $J'_ k = J_ k \Lambda ' + (x_{u,\ t(u) \geq k})$. We set

As transition maps $M'_ i \to M'_ j$ for $i > j$ we use the given map $M_ i \to M_ j$ and we send $\epsilon _{i, u}$ to $\epsilon _{j, u}$. The map $M'_ i \to V_ i$ induces the given map $M_ i \to V_ i$ and sends $\epsilon _{i, u}$ to zero. Finally, we let $\Lambda '$ act on $M'_ i$ as follows: for $\lambda \in \Lambda $ we act by the $\Lambda $-module structure on $M_ i$ and via the augmentation $\Lambda \to K$ on $\epsilon _{i, u}$. The element $x_ u$ acts as $0$ on $M_ i$ for all $i$. Finally, we define

and we set all other products $x_{u'} \epsilon _{i, u}$ equal to zero. The displayed formula makes sense because $s(u) \geq i$ and $\xi _ u \in M_{s(u)}$. The main things the check are $J'_ j M'_ i \subset M'_ i$ maps to zero in $M'_ j$ for $i > j$ and that $\mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(M_ i \to M_ j)$ maps to zero in $M'_ i/J_ j M'_ i$. The reason for the last fact is that $\xi = x_{(i, j, \xi )} \epsilon _{i, (i, j, \xi )} \in J'_ j M'_ i$ for any $\xi \in \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(M_ i \to M_ j)$. We omit the details.

Lemma 110.75.3. There exists a representable morphism $f : X \to Y$ of affine formal algebraic spaces with $Y$ McQuillan, but $X$ not McQuillan.

**Proof.**
See discussion above.
$\square$

## 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 (2)

Comment #1557 by Matthew Emerton on

Comment #1575 by Johan on