Lemma 34.8.7. Let $T$ be a scheme. Let $\{ f_ i : T_ i \to T\} _{i \in I}$ be a family of morphisms such that $f_ i$ is locally of finite type for all $i$. The following are equivalent
$\{ T_ i \to T\} _{i \in I}$ is a ph covering,
there is a ph covering which refines $\{ T_ i \to T\} _{i \in I}$, and
$\{ \coprod _{i \in I} T_ i \to T\} $ is a ph covering.
Proof. The equivalence of (1) and (2) follows immediately from Definition 34.8.4 and the fact that a refinement of a refinement is a refinement. Because of the equivalence of (1) and (2) and since $\{ T_ i \to T\} _{i \in I}$ refines $\{ \coprod _{i \in I} T_ i \to T\} $ we see that (1) implies (3). Finally, assume (3) holds. Let $U \subset T$ be an affine open and let $\{ U_ j \to U\} _{j = 1, \ldots , m}$ be a standard ph covering which refines $\{ U \times _ T \coprod _{i \in I} T_ i \to U\} $. This means that for each $j$ we have a morphism
over $U$. Since $U_ j$ is quasi-compact, we get disjoint union decompositions $U_ j = \coprod _{i \in I} U_{j, i}$ by open and closed subschemes almost all of which are empty such that $h_ j|_{U_{j, i}}$ maps $U_{j, i}$ into $U \times _ T T_ i$. It follows that
is a standard ph covering (small detail omitted) refining $\{ U \times _ T T_ i \to U\} _{i \in I}$. Thus (1) holds. $\square$
Your email address will not be published.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).
All contributions are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.
Comments (0)
There are also: