The Stacks project

30.26 Being proper over a base

This is just a short section to point out some useful features of closed subsets proper over a base and finite type, quasi-coherent modules with support proper over a base.

Lemma 30.26.1. Let $f : X \to S$ be a morphism of schemes which is locally of finite type. Let $Z \subset X$ be a closed subset. The following are equivalent

  1. the morphism $Z \to S$ is proper if $Z$ is endowed with the reduced induced closed subscheme structure (Schemes, Definition 26.12.5),

  2. for some closed subscheme structure on $Z$ the morphism $Z \to S$ is proper,

  3. for any closed subscheme structure on $Z$ the morphism $Z \to S$ is proper.

Proof. The implications (3) $\Rightarrow $ (2) and (1) $\Rightarrow $ (2) are immediate. Thus it suffices to prove that (2) implies (3). We urge the reader to find their own proof of this fact. Let $Z'$ and $Z''$ be closed subscheme structures on $Z$ such that $Z' \to S$ is proper. We have to show that $Z'' \to S$ is proper. Let $Z''' = Z' \cup Z''$ be the scheme theoretic union, see Morphisms, Definition 29.4.4. Then $Z'''$ is another closed subscheme structure on $Z$. This follows for example from the description of scheme theoretic unions in Morphisms, Lemma 29.4.6. Since $Z'' \to Z'''$ is a closed immersion it suffices to prove that $Z''' \to S$ is proper (see Morphisms, Lemmas 29.41.6 and 29.41.4). The morphism $Z' \to Z'''$ is a bijective closed immersion and in particular surjective and universally closed. Then the fact that $Z' \to S$ is separated implies that $Z''' \to S$ is separated, see Morphisms, Lemma 29.41.11. Moreover $Z''' \to S$ is locally of finite type as $X \to S$ is locally of finite type (Morphisms, Lemmas 29.15.5 and 29.15.3). Since $Z' \to S$ is quasi-compact and $Z' \to Z'''$ is a homeomorphism we see that $Z''' \to S$ is quasi-compact. Finally, since $Z' \to S$ is universally closed, we see that the same thing is true for $Z''' \to S$ by Morphisms, Lemma 29.41.9. This finishes the proof. $\square$

Definition 30.26.2. Let $f : X \to S$ be a morphism of schemes which is locally of finite type. Let $Z \subset X$ be a closed subset. We say $Z$ is proper over $S$ if the equivalent conditions of Lemma 30.26.1 are satisfied.

The lemma used in the definition above is false if the morphism $f : X \to S$ is not locally of finite type. Therefore we urge the reader not to use this terminology if $f$ is not locally of finite type.

Lemma 30.26.3. Let $f : X \to S$ be a morphism of schemes which is locally of finite type. Let $Y \subset Z \subset X$ be closed subsets. If $Z$ is proper over $S$, then the same is true for $Y$.

Proof. Omitted. $\square$

Lemma 30.26.4. Consider a cartesian diagram of schemes

\[ \xymatrix{ X' \ar[d]_{f'} \ar[r]_{g'} & X \ar[d]^ f \\ S' \ar[r]^ g & S } \]

with $f$ locally of finite type. If $Z$ is a closed subset of $X$ proper over $S$, then $(g')^{-1}(Z)$ is a closed subset of $X'$ proper over $S'$.

Proof. Observe that the statement makes sense as $f'$ is locally of finite type by Morphisms, Lemma 29.15.4. Endow $Z$ with the reduced induced closed subscheme structure. Denote $Z' = (g')^{-1}(Z)$ the scheme theoretic inverse image (Schemes, Definition 26.17.7). Then $Z' = X' \times _ X Z = (S' \times _ S X) \times _ X Z = S' \times _ S Z$ is proper over $S'$ as a base change of $Z$ over $S$ (Morphisms, Lemma 29.41.5). $\square$

Lemma 30.26.5. Let $S$ be a scheme. Let $f : X \to Y$ be a morphism of schemes which are locally of finite type over $S$.

  1. If $Y$ is separated over $S$ and $Z \subset X$ is a closed subset proper over $S$, then $f(Z)$ is a closed subset of $Y$ proper over $S$.

  2. If $f$ is universally closed and $Z \subset X$ is a closed subset proper over $S$, then $f(Z)$ is a closed subset of $Y$ proper over $S$.

  3. If $f$ is proper and $Z \subset Y$ is a closed subset proper over $S$, then $f^{-1}(Z)$ is a closed subset of $X$ proper over $S$.

Proof. Proof of (1). Assume $Y$ is separated over $S$ and $Z \subset X$ is a closed subset proper over $S$. Endow $Z$ with the reduced induced closed subscheme structure and apply Morphisms, Lemma 29.41.10 to $Z \to Y$ over $S$ to conclude.

Proof of (2). Assume $f$ is universally closed and $Z \subset X$ is a closed subset proper over $S$. Endow $Z$ and $Z' = f(Z)$ with their reduced induced closed subscheme structures. We obtain an induced morphism $Z \to Z'$. Denote $Z'' = f^{-1}(Z')$ the scheme theoretic inverse image (Schemes, Definition 26.17.7). Then $Z'' \to Z'$ is universally closed as a base change of $f$ (Morphisms, Lemma 29.41.5). Hence $Z \to Z'$ is universally closed as a composition of the closed immersion $Z \to Z''$ and $Z'' \to Z'$ (Morphisms, Lemmas 29.41.6 and 29.41.4). We conclude that $Z' \to S$ is separated by Morphisms, Lemma 29.41.11. Since $Z \to S$ is quasi-compact and $Z \to Z'$ is surjective we see that $Z' \to S$ is quasi-compact. Since $Z' \to S$ is the composition of $Z' \to Y$ and $Y \to S$ we see that $Z' \to S$ is locally of finite type (Morphisms, Lemmas 29.15.5 and 29.15.3). Finally, since $Z \to S$ is universally closed, we see that the same thing is true for $Z' \to S$ by Morphisms, Lemma 29.41.9. This finishes the proof.

Proof of (3). Assume $f$ is proper and $Z \subset Y$ is a closed subset proper over $S$. Endow $Z$ with the reduced induced closed subscheme structure. Denote $Z' = f^{-1}(Z)$ the scheme theoretic inverse image (Schemes, Definition 26.17.7). Then $Z' \to Z$ is proper as a base change of $f$ (Morphisms, Lemma 29.41.5). Whence $Z' \to S$ is proper as the composition of $Z' \to Z$ and $Z \to S$ (Morphisms, Lemma 29.41.4). This finishes the proof. $\square$

Lemma 30.26.6. Let $f : X \to S$ be a morphism of schemes which is locally of finite type. Let $Z_ i \subset X$, $i = 1, \ldots , n$ be closed subsets. If $Z_ i$, $i = 1, \ldots , n$ are proper over $S$, then the same is true for $Z_1 \cup \ldots \cup Z_ n$.

Proof. Endow $Z_ i$ with their reduced induced closed subscheme structures. The morphism

\[ Z_1 \amalg \ldots \amalg Z_ n \longrightarrow X \]

is finite by Morphisms, Lemmas 29.44.12 and 29.44.13. As finite morphisms are universally closed (Morphisms, Lemma 29.44.11) and since $Z_1 \amalg \ldots \amalg Z_ n$ is proper over $S$ we conclude by Lemma 30.26.5 part (2) that the image $Z_1 \cup \ldots \cup Z_ n$ is proper over $S$. $\square$

Let $f : X \to S$ be a morphism of schemes which is locally of finite type. Let $\mathcal{F}$ be a finite type, quasi-coherent $\mathcal{O}_ X$-module. Then the support $\text{Supp}(\mathcal{F})$ of $\mathcal{F}$ is a closed subset of $X$, see Morphisms, Lemma 29.5.3. Hence it makes sense to say “the support of $\mathcal{F}$ is proper over $S$”.

Lemma 30.26.7. Let $f : X \to S$ be a morphism of schemes which is locally of finite type. Let $\mathcal{F}$ be a finite type, quasi-coherent $\mathcal{O}_ X$-module. The following are equivalent

  1. the support of $\mathcal{F}$ is proper over $S$,

  2. the scheme theoretic support of $\mathcal{F}$ (Morphisms, Definition 29.5.5) is proper over $S$, and

  3. there exists a closed subscheme $Z \subset X$ and a finite type, quasi-coherent $\mathcal{O}_ Z$-module $\mathcal{G}$ such that (a) $Z \to S$ is proper, and (b) $(Z \to X)_*\mathcal{G} = \mathcal{F}$.

Proof. The support $\text{Supp}(\mathcal{F})$ of $\mathcal{F}$ is a closed subset of $X$, see Morphisms, Lemma 29.5.3. Hence we can apply Definition 30.26.2. Since the scheme theoretic support of $\mathcal{F}$ is a closed subscheme whose underlying closed subset is $\text{Supp}(\mathcal{F})$ we see that (1) and (2) are equivalent by Definition 30.26.2. It is clear that (2) implies (3). Conversely, if (3) is true, then $\text{Supp}(\mathcal{F}) \subset Z$ (an inclusion of closed subsets of $X$) and hence $\text{Supp}(\mathcal{F})$ is proper over $S$ for example by Lemma 30.26.3. $\square$

Lemma 30.26.8. Consider a cartesian diagram of schemes

\[ \xymatrix{ X' \ar[d]_{f'} \ar[r]_{g'} & X \ar[d]^ f \\ S' \ar[r]^ g & S } \]

with $f$ locally of finite type. Let $\mathcal{F}$ be a finite type, quasi-coherent $\mathcal{O}_ X$-module. If the support of $\mathcal{F}$ is proper over $S$, then the support of $(g')^*\mathcal{F}$ is proper over $S'$.

Proof. Observe that the statement makes sense because $(g')*\mathcal{F}$ is of finite type by Modules, Lemma 17.9.2. We have $\text{Supp}((g')^*\mathcal{F}) = (g')^{-1}(\text{Supp}(\mathcal{F}))$ by Morphisms, Lemma 29.5.3. Thus the lemma follows from Lemma 30.26.4. $\square$

Lemma 30.26.9. Let $f : X \to S$ be a morphism of schemes which is locally of finite type. Let $\mathcal{F}$, $\mathcal{G}$ be finite type, quasi-coherent $\mathcal{O}_ X$-module.

  1. If the supports of $\mathcal{F}$, $\mathcal{G}$ are proper over $S$, then the same is true for $\mathcal{F} \oplus \mathcal{G}$, for any extension of $\mathcal{G}$ by $\mathcal{F}$, for $\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}(u)$ and $\mathop{\mathrm{Coker}}(u)$ given any $\mathcal{O}_ X$-module map $u : \mathcal{F} \to \mathcal{G}$, and for any quasi-coherent quotient of $\mathcal{F}$ or $\mathcal{G}$.

  2. If $S$ is locally Noetherian, then the category of coherent $\mathcal{O}_ X$-modules with support proper over $S$ is a Serre subcategory (Homology, Definition 12.10.1) of the abelian category of coherent $\mathcal{O}_ X$-modules.

Proof. Proof of (1). Let $Z$, $Z'$ be the support of $\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{G}$. Then all the sheaves mentioned in (1) have support contained in $Z \cup Z'$. Thus the assertion itself is clear from Lemmas 30.26.3 and 30.26.6 provided we check that these sheaves are finite type and quasi-coherent. For quasi-coherence we refer the reader to Schemes, Section 26.24. For “finite type” we suggest the reader take a look at Modules, Section 17.9.

Proof of (2). The proof is the same as the proof of (1). Note that the assertions make sense as $X$ is locally Noetherian by Morphisms, Lemma 29.15.6 and by the description of the category of coherent modules in Section 30.9. $\square$

Lemma 30.26.10. Let $S$ be a locally Noetherian scheme. Let $f : X \to S$ be a morphism of schemes which is locally of finite type. Let $\mathcal{F}$ be a coherent $\mathcal{O}_ X$-module with support proper over $S$. Then $R^ pf_*\mathcal{F}$ is a coherent $\mathcal{O}_ S$-module for all $p \geq 0$.

Proof. By Lemma 30.26.7 there exists a closed immersion $i : Z \to X$ and a finite type, quasi-coherent $\mathcal{O}_ Z$-module $\mathcal{G}$ such that (a) $g = f \circ i : Z \to S$ is proper, and (b) $i_*\mathcal{G} = \mathcal{F}$. We see that $R^ pg_*\mathcal{G}$ is coherent on $S$ by Proposition 30.19.1. On the other hand, $R^ qi_*\mathcal{G} = 0$ for $q > 0$ (Lemma 30.9.9). By Cohomology, Lemma 20.13.8 we get $R^ pf_*\mathcal{F} = R^ pg_*\mathcal{G}$ which concludes the proof. $\square$

Lemma 30.26.11. Let $S$ be a Noetherian scheme. Let $f : X \to S$ be a finite type morphism. Let $\mathcal{I} \subset \mathcal{O}_ X$ be a quasi-coherent sheaf of ideals. The following are Serre subcategories of $\textit{Coh}(X, \mathcal{I})$

  1. the full subcategory of $\textit{Coh}(X, \mathcal{I})$ consisting of those objects $(\mathcal{F}_ n)$ such that the support of $\mathcal{F}_1$ is proper over $S$,

  2. the full subcategory of $\textit{Coh}(X, \mathcal{I})$ consisting of those objects $(\mathcal{F}_ n)$ such that there exists a closed subscheme $Z \subset X$ proper over $S$ with $\mathcal{I}_ Z \mathcal{F}_ n = 0$ for all $n \geq 1$.

Proof. We will use the criterion of Homology, Lemma 12.10.2. Moreover, we will use that if $0 \to (\mathcal{G}_ n) \to (\mathcal{F}_ n) \to (\mathcal{H}_ n) \to 0$ is a short exact sequence of $\textit{Coh}(X, \mathcal{I})$, then (a) $\mathcal{G}_ n \to \mathcal{F}_ n \to \mathcal{H}_ n \to 0$ is exact for all $n \geq 1$ and (b) $\mathcal{G}_ n$ is a quotient of $\mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(\mathcal{F}_ m \to \mathcal{H}_ m)$ for some $m \geq n$. See proof of Lemma 30.23.2.

Proof of (1). Let $(\mathcal{F}_ n)$ be an object of $\textit{Coh}(X, \mathcal{I})$. Then $\text{Supp}(\mathcal{F}_ n) = \text{Supp}(\mathcal{F}_1)$ for all $n \geq 1$. Hence by remarks (a) and (b) above we see that for any short exact sequence $0 \to (\mathcal{G}_ n) \to (\mathcal{F}_ n) \to (\mathcal{H}_ n) \to 0$ of $\textit{Coh}(X, \mathcal{I})$ we have $\text{Supp}(\mathcal{G}_1) \cup \text{Supp}(\mathcal{H}_1) = \text{Supp}(\mathcal{F}_1)$. This proves that the category defined in (1) is a Serre subcategory of $\textit{Coh}(X, \mathcal{I})$.

Proof of (2). Here we argue the same way. Let $0 \to (\mathcal{G}_ n) \to (\mathcal{F}_ n) \to (\mathcal{H}_ n) \to 0$ be a short exact sequence of $\textit{Coh}(X, \mathcal{I})$. If $Z \subset X$ is a closed subscheme and $\mathcal{I}_ Z$ annihilates $\mathcal{F}_ n$ for all $n$, then $\mathcal{I}_ Z$ annihilates $\mathcal{G}_ n$ and $\mathcal{H}_ n$ for all $n$ by (a) and (b) above. Hence if $Z \to S$ is proper, then we conclude that the category defined in (2) is closed under taking sub and quotient objects inside of $\textit{Coh}(X, \mathcal{I})$. Finally, suppose that $Z \subset X$ and $Y \subset X$ are closed subschemes proper over $S$ such that $\mathcal{I}_ Z \mathcal{G}_ n = 0$ and $\mathcal{I}_ Y \mathcal{H}_ n = 0$ for all $n \geq 1$. Then it follows from (a) above that $\mathcal{I}_{Z \cup Y} = \mathcal{I}_ Z \cdot \mathcal{I}_ Y$ annihilates $\mathcal{F}_ n$ for all $n$. By Lemma 30.26.6 (and via Definition 30.26.2 which tells us we may choose an arbitrary scheme structure used on the union) we see that $Z \cup Y \to S$ is proper and the proof is complete. $\square$


Comments (0)


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