The Stacks project

109.79 The spectrum of the integers is not quasi-compact

Of course the title of this section doesn't refer to the spectrum of the integers as a topological space, because any spectrum is quasi-compact as a topological space (Algebra, Lemma 10.17.10). No, it refers to the spectrum of the integers in the canonical topology on the category of schemes, and the definition of a quasi-compact object in a site (Sites, Definition 7.17.1).

Let $U$ be a nonprincipal ultrafilter on the set $P$ of prime numbers. For a subset $T \subset P$ we denote $T^ c = P \setminus T$ the complement. For $A \in U$ let $S_ A \subset \mathbf{Z}$ be the multiplicative subset generated by $p \in A$. Set

\[ \mathbf{Z}_ A = S_ A^{-1}\mathbf{Z} \]

Observe that $\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(\mathbf{Z}_ A) = \{ (0)\} \cup A^ c \subset \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(\mathbf{Z})$ if we think of $P$ as the set of closed points of $\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(\mathbf{Z})$. If $A, B \in U$, then $A \cap B \in U$ and $A \cup B \in U$ and we have

\[ \mathbf{Z}_{A \cap B} = \mathbf{Z}_ A \times _{\mathbf{Z}_{A \cup B}} \mathbf{Z}_ B \]

(fibre product of rings). In particular, for any integer $n$ and elements $A_1, \ldots , A_ n \in U$ the morphisms

\[ \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(\mathbf{Z}_{A_1}) \amalg \ldots \amalg \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(\mathbf{Z}_{A_ n}) \longrightarrow \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(\mathbf{Z}) \]

factors through $\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(\mathbf{Z}[1/p])$ for some $p$ (namely for any $p \in A_1 \cap \ldots \cap A_ n$). We conclude that the family of flat morphisms $\{ \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(\mathbf{Z}_ A) \to \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(\mathbf{Z})\} _{A \in U}$ is jointly surjective, but no finite subset is.

For a $\mathbf{Z}$-module $M$ we set

\[ M_ A = S_ A^{-1}M = M \otimes _{\mathbf{Z}} \mathbf{Z}_ A \]

Claim I: for every $\mathbf{Z}$-module $M$ we have

\[ M = \text{Equalizer}\left( \xymatrix{ \prod \nolimits _{A \in U} M_ A \ar@<1ex>[r] \ar@<-1ex>[r] & \prod \nolimits _{A, B \in U} M_{A \cup B} } \right) \]

First, assume $M$ is torsion free. Then $M_ A \subset M_ P$ for all $A \in U$. Hence we see that we have to prove

\[ M = \bigcap \nolimits _{A \in U} M_ A\text{ inside }M_ P = M \otimes \mathbf{Q} \]

Namely, since $U$ is nonprincipal, for any prime $p$ we have $\{ p\} ^ c \in U$. Also, $M_{\{ p\} ^ c} = M_{(p)}$ is equal to the localization at the prime $(p)$. Thus the above is clear because already $M_{(2)} \cap M_{(3)} = M$. Next, assume $M$ is torsion. Then we have

\[ M = \bigoplus \nolimits _{p \in P} M[p^\infty ] \]

and correspondingly we have

\[ M_ A = \bigoplus \nolimits _{p \not\in A} M[p^\infty ] \]

because we are localizing at the primes in $A$. Suppose that $(x_ A) \in \prod M_ A$ is in the equalizer. Denote $x_ p = x_{\{ p\} ^ c} \in M[p^{\infty }]$. Then the equalizer property says

\[ x_ A = (x_ p)_{p \not\in A} \]

and in particular it says that $x_ p$ is zero for all but a finite number of $p \not\in A$. To finish the proof in the torsion case it suffices to show that $x_ p$ is zero for all but a finite number of primes $p$. If not write $\{ p \in P \mid x_ p \not= 0\} = T \amalg T'$ as the disjoint union of two infinite sets. Then either $T \not\in U$ or $T' \not\in U$ because $U$ is an ultrafilter (namely if both $T, T'$ are in $U$ then $U$ contains $T \cap T' = \emptyset $ which is not allowed). Say $T \not\in U$. Then $T = A^ c$ and this contradicts the finiteness mentioned above. Finally, suppose that $M$ is a general module. Then we look at the short exact sequence

\[ 0 \to M_{tors} \to M \to M/M_{tors} \to 0 \]

and we look at the following large diagram

\[ \xymatrix{ M_{tors} \ar[r] \ar[d] & \prod \nolimits _{A \in U} M_{tors, A} \ar@<1ex>[r] \ar@<-1ex>[r] \ar[d] & \prod \nolimits _{A, B \in U} M_{tors, A \cup B} \ar[d] \\ M \ar[r] \ar[d] & \prod \nolimits _{A \in U} M_ A \ar@<1ex>[r] \ar@<-1ex>[r] \ar[d] & \prod \nolimits _{A, B \in U} M_{A \cup B} \ar[d] \\ M/M_{tors} \ar[r] & \prod \nolimits _{A \in U} (M/M_{tors})_ A \ar@<1ex>[r] \ar@<-1ex>[r] & \prod \nolimits _{A, B \in U} (M/M_{tors})_{A \cup B} \\ } \]

Doing a diagram chase using exactness of the columns and the result for the torsion module $M_{tors}$ and the torsion free module $M/M_{tors}$ proving Claim I for $M$. This gives an example of the phenomenon in the following lemma.

Lemma 109.79.1. There exists a ring $A$ and an infinite family of flat ring maps $\{ A \to A_ i\} _{i \in I}$ such that for every $A$-module $M$

\[ M = \text{Equalizer}\left( \xymatrix{ \prod \nolimits _{i \in I} M \otimes _ A A_ i \ar@<1ex>[r] \ar@<-1ex>[r] & \prod \nolimits _{i, j \in I} M \otimes _ A A_ i \otimes _ A A_ j } \right) \]

but there is no finite subfamily where the same thing is true.

Proof. See discussion above. $\square$

We continue working with our nonprincipal ultrafilter $U$ on the set $P$ of prime numbers. Let $R$ be a ring. Denote $R_ A = S_ A^{-1}R = R \otimes \mathbf{Z}_ A$ for $A \in U$. Claim II: given closed subsets $T_ A \subset \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R_ A)$, $A \in U$ such that

\[ (\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R_{A \cup B}) \to \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R_ A))^{-1}T_ A = (\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R_{A \cup B}) \to \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R_ B))^{-1}T_ B \]

for all $A, B \in U$, there is a closed subset $T \subset \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R)$ with $T_ A = (\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R_ A) \to \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R))^{-1}(T)$ for all $A \in U$. Let $I_ A \subset R_ A$ for $A \in U$ be the radical ideal cutting out $T_ A$. Then the glueing condition implies $S_{A \cup B}^{-1}I_ A = S_{A \cup B}^{-1}I_ B$ in $R_{A \cup B}$ for all $A, B \in U$ (because localization preserves being a radical ideal). Let $I' \subset R$ be the set of elements mapping into $I_ P \subset R_ P = R \otimes \mathbf{Q}$. Then we see for $A \in U$ that

  1. $I_ A \subset I'_ A = S_ A^{-1}I'$, and

  2. $M_ A = I'_ A/I_ A$ is a torsion module.

Of course we obtain canonical identifications $S_{A \cup B}^{-1}M_ A = S_{A \cup B}^{-1}M_ B$ for $A, B \in U$. Decomposing the torsion modules $M_ A$ into their $p$-primary components, the reader easily shows that there exist $p$-power torsion $R$-modules $M_ p$ such that

\[ M_ A = \bigoplus \nolimits _{p \not\in A} M_ p \]

compatible with the canonical identifications given above. Setting $M = \bigoplus _{p \in P} M_ p$ we find canonical isomorphisms $M_ A = S_ A^{-1}M$ compatible with the above canonical identifications. Then we get a canonical map

\[ I' \longrightarrow M \]

of $R$-modules wich recovers the map $I_ A \to M_ A$ for all $A \in U$. This is true by all the compatibilities mentioned above and the claim proved previously that $M$ is the equalizer of the two maps from $\prod _{A \in U} M_ A$ to $\prod _{A, B \in U} M_{A \cup B}$. Let $I = \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(I' \to M)$. Then $I$ is an ideal and $T = V(I)$ is a closed subset which recovers the closed subsets $T_ A$ for all $A \in U$. This proves Claim II.

Lemma 109.79.2. The scheme $\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(\mathbf{Z})$ is not quasi-compact in the canonical topology on the category of schemes.

Proof. With notation as above consider the family of morphisms

\[ \mathcal{W} = \{ \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(\mathbf{Z}_ A) \to \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(\mathbf{Z})\} _{A \in U} \]

By Descent, Lemma 35.13.5 and the two claims proved above this is a universal effective epimorphism. In any category with fibre products, the universal effective epimorphisms give $\mathcal{C}$ the structure of a site (modulo some set theoretical issues which are easy to fix) defining the canonical topology. Thus $\mathcal{W}$ is a covering for the canonical topology. On the other hand, we have seen above that any finite subfamily

\[ \{ \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(\mathbf{Z}_{A_ i}) \to \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(\mathbf{Z})\} _{i = 1, \ldots , n},\quad n \in \mathbf{N}, A_1, \ldots , A_ n \in U \]

factors through $\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(\mathbf{Z}[1/p])$ for some $p$. Hence this finite family cannot be a universal effective epimorphism and more generally no universal effective epimorphism $\{ g_ j : T_ j \to \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(\mathbf{Z})\} $ can refine $\{ \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(\mathbf{Z}_{A_ i}) \to \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(\mathbf{Z})\} _{i = 1, \ldots , n}$. By Sites, Definition 7.17.1 this means that $\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(\mathbf{Z})$ is not quasi-compact in the canonical topology. To see that our notion of quasi-compactness agrees with the usual topos theoretic definition, see Sites, Lemma 7.17.3. $\square$

Comments (2)

Comment #3569 by on

Shouldn't the definition of quasi-compact object (Tag 090H) that is being referred to in the title be referenced earlier than the second-to-last sentence? Something like this:

"No, it refers to the spectrum of the integers in the canonical topology on the category of schemes, and the definition of a quasi-compact object in a site (Definition 7.17.1)."

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