The Stacks project

Lemma 38.34.5. Let $X$ be an affine scheme. Let $\{ X_ i \to X\} _{i \in I}$ be an h covering. Then there exists a surjective proper morphism

\[ Y \longrightarrow X \]

of finite presentation (!) and a finite affine open covering $Y = \bigcup _{j = 1, \ldots , m} Y_ j$ such that $\{ Y_ j \to X\} _{j = 1, \ldots , m}$ refines $\{ X_ i \to X\} _{i \in I}$.

Proof. By assumption there exists a proper surjective morphism $Y \to X$ and a finite affine open covering $Y = \bigcup _{j = 1, \ldots , m} Y_ j$ such that $\{ Y_ j \to X\} _{j = 1, \ldots , m}$ refines $\{ X_ i \to X\} _{i \in I}$. This means that for each $j$ there is an index $i_ j \in I$ and a morphism $h_ j : Y_ j \to X_{i_ j}$ over $X$. See Definition 38.34.2 and Topologies, Definition 34.8.4. The problem is that we don't know that $Y \to X$ is of finite presentation. By Limits, Lemma 32.13.2 we can write

\[ Y = \mathop{\mathrm{lim}}\nolimits Y_\lambda \]

as a directed limit of schemes $Y_\lambda $ proper and of finite presentation over $X$ such that the morphisms $Y \to Y_\lambda $ and the the transition morphisms are closed immersions. Observe that each $Y_\lambda \to X$ is surjective. By Limits, Lemma 32.4.11 we can find a $\lambda $ and quasi-compact opens $Y_{\lambda , j} \subset Y_\lambda $, $j = 1, \ldots , m$ covering $Y_\lambda $ and restricting to $Y_ j$ in $Y$. Then $Y_ j = \mathop{\mathrm{lim}}\nolimits Y_{\lambda , j}$. After increasing $\lambda $ we may assume $Y_{\lambda , j}$ is affine for all $j$, see Limits, Lemma 32.4.13. Finally, since $X_ i \to X$ is locally of finite presentation we can use the functorial characterization of morphisms which are locally of finite presentation (Limits, Proposition 32.6.1) to find a $\lambda $ such that for each $j$ there is a morphism $h_{\lambda , j} : Y_{\lambda , j} \to X_{i_ j}$ whose restriction to $Y_ j$ is the morphism $h_ j$ chosen above. Thus $\{ Y_{\lambda , j} \to X\} $ refines $\{ X_ i \to X\} $ and the proof is complete. $\square$

Comments (2)

Comment #4559 by on

The wording "direct limit" just under the display in the proof might be misleading since other books sometimes use "direct limit" to mean "colimit" or "filtered colimit", whereas here a limit is intended. Maybe change it to "directed limit", as in the lemma being referred to?

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Your email address will not be published.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 0ETU. Beware of the difference between the letter 'O' and the digit '0'.