In this section we give a bound for the affine stratification number of a scheme which has a certain kind of cover by an affine scheme.
Proof.
Observe that \int _ f w attains its maximum by Lemma 37.76.5. The set Y_ d is open by Lemma 37.76.4. Thus the statement of the lemma makes sense.
Reduction to the Noetherian case; please skip this paragraph. Recall that a finite type morphism is quasi-finite if and only if it has relative dimension 0, see Morphisms, Lemma 29.29.5. By Lemma 37.34.9 applied with d = 0 we can find a quasi-finite morphism f_0 : X_0 \to Y_0 of affine Noetherian schemes and a morphism Y \to Y_0 such that f is the base change of f_0. Then we can write Y = \mathop{\mathrm{lim}}\nolimits Y_ i as a directed limit of affine schemes of finite type over Y_0, see Algebra, Lemma 10.127.2. By Lemma 37.76.9 we can find an i such that our weighting w descends to a weighting w_ i of the base change f_ i : X_ i \to Y_ i of f_0. Now if the lemma holds for f_ i, w_ i, then it implies the lemma for f as formation of \int _ f w commutes with base change, see Lemma 37.75.1.
Assume X and Y Noetherian. Let X' \to Y' be the base change of f by a morphism g : Y' \to Y. The formation of \int _ f w and hence the open Y_ d commute with base change. If g is finite and surjective, then Y'_ d \to Y_ d is finite and surjective. In this case proving that Y_ d is affine is equivalent to showing that Y'_ d is affine, see Cohomology of Schemes, Lemma 30.13.3.
We may choose an immersion X \to T with T finite over Y, see Lemma 37.43.3. We are going to apply Morphisms, Lemma 29.48.6 to the finite morphism T \to Y. This lemma tells us that there is a finite surjective morphism Y' \to Y such that Y' \times _ Y T is a closed subscheme of a scheme T' finite over Y' which has a special form. By the discussion in the first paragraph, we may replace Y by Y', T by T', and X by Y' \times _ Y X. Thus we may assume there is an immersion X \to T (not necessarily open or closed) and closed subschemes T_ i \subset T, i = 1, \ldots , n where
T \to Y is finite (and locally free),
T_ i \to Y is an isomorphism, and
T = \bigcup _{i = 1, \ldots , n} T_ i set theoretically.
Let Y' = \coprod Y_ k be the disjoint union of the irreducible components of Y (viewed as integral closed subschemes of Y). Then we may base change once more by Y' \to Y; here we are using that Y is Noetherian. Thus we may in addition assume Y is integral and Noetherian.
We also may and do assume that T_ i \not= T_ j if i \not= j by removing repeats. Since Y and hence all T_ i are integral, this means that if T_ i and T_ j intersect, then they intersect in a closed subset which maps to a proper closed subset of Y.
Observe that V_ i = X \cap T_ i is a locally closed subset which is in addition a closed subscheme of X hence affine. Let \eta \in Y and \eta _ i \in T_ i be the generic points. If \eta \not\in Y_ d, then Y_ d = \emptyset and we're done. Assume \eta \in Y_ d. Denote I \in \{ 1, \ldots , n\} the subset of indices i such that \eta _ i \in V_ i. For i \in I the locally closed subset V_ i \subset T_ i contains the generic point of the irreducible space T_ i and hence is open. On the other hand, since f is open (Lemma 37.75.6), for any x \in X we can find an i \in I and a specialization \eta _ i \leadsto x. It follows that x \in T_ i and hence x \in V_ i. In other words, we see that X = \bigcup _{i \in I} V_ i set theoretically. We claim that Y_ d = \bigcap _{i \in I} \mathop{\mathrm{Im}}(V_ i \to Y); this will finish the proof as the intersection of affine opens \mathop{\mathrm{Im}}(V_ i \to Y) of Y is affine.
For y \in Y let f^{-1}(\{ y\} ) = \{ x_1, \ldots , x_ r\} in X. For each i \in I there is at most one j(i) \in \{ 1, \ldots , x_ r\} such that \eta _ i \leadsto x_{j(i)}. In fact, j(i) exists and is equal to j if and only if x_ j \in V_ i. If i \in I is such that j = j(i) exists, then V_ i \to Y is an isomorphism in a neighbourhood of x_ j \mapsto y. Hence \bigcup _{i \in I,\ j(i) = j} V_ i \to Y is finite after replacing source and target by neighbourhoods of x_ j \mapsto y. Thus the definition of a weighting tells us that w(x_ j) = \sum _{i \in I,\ j(i) = j} w(\eta _ i). Thus we see that
(\textstyle {\int }_ f w)(\eta ) = \sum \nolimits _{i \in I} w(\eta _ i) \geq \sum \nolimits _{j(i)\text{ exists}} w(\eta _ i) = \sum \nolimits _ j w(x_ j) = (\textstyle {\int }_ f w)(y)
Thus equality holds if and only if y is contained in \bigcap _{i \in I} \mathop{\mathrm{Im}}(V_ i \to Y) which is what we wanted to show.
\square
Comments (0)