The Stacks project

96.19 Versality and generalizations

We prove that versality is preserved under generalizations for stacks which have (RS*) and are limit preserving. We suggest skipping this section on a first reading.

Lemma 96.19.1. Let $S$ be a locally Noetherian scheme. Let $\mathcal{X}$ be a category fibred in groupoids over $(\mathit{Sch}/S)_{fppf}$ having (RS*). Let $x$ be an object of $\mathcal{X}$ over an affine scheme $U$ of finite type over $S$. Let $u \in U$ be a finite type point such that $x$ is not versal at $u$. Then there exists a morphism $x \to y$ of $\mathcal{X}$ lying over $U \to T$ satisfying

  1. the morphism $U \to T$ is a first order thickening,

  2. we have a short exact sequence

    \[ 0 \to \kappa (u) \to \mathcal{O}_ T \to \mathcal{O}_ U \to 0 \]
  3. there does not exist a pair $(W, \alpha )$ consisting of an open neighbourhood $W \subset T$ of $u$ and a morphism $\beta : y|_ W \to x$ such that the composition

    \[ x|_{U \cap W} \xrightarrow {\text{restriction of }x \to y} y|_ W \xrightarrow {\beta } x \]

    is the canonical morphism $x|_{U \cap W} \to x$.

Proof. Let $R = \mathcal{O}_{U, u}^\wedge $. Let $k = \kappa (u)$ be the residue field of $R$. Let $\xi $ be the formal object of $\mathcal{X}$ over $R$ associated to $x$. Since $x$ is not versal at $u$, we see that $\xi $ is not versal, see Lemma 96.12.3. By the discussion following Definition 96.12.1 this means we can find morphisms $\xi _1 \to x_ A \to x_ B$ of $\mathcal{X}$ lying over closed immersions $\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(k) \to \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(A) \to \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(B)$ where $A, B$ are Artinian local rings with residue field $k$, an $n \geq 1$ and a commutative diagram

\[ \vcenter { \xymatrix{ & x_ A \ar[ld] \\ \xi _ n & \xi _1 \ar[u] \ar[l] } } \quad \text{lying over}\quad \vcenter { \xymatrix{ & \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(A) \ar[ld] \\ \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R/\mathfrak m^ n) & \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(k) \ar[u] \ar[l] } } \]

such that there does not exist an $m \geq n$ and a commutative diagram

\[ \vcenter { \xymatrix{ & & x_ B \ar[lldd] \\ & & x_ A \ar[ld] \ar[u] \\ \xi _ m & \xi _ n \ar[l] & \xi _1 \ar[u] \ar[l] } } \quad \text{lying over} \vcenter { \xymatrix{ & & \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(B) \ar[lldd] \\ & & \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(A) \ar[ld] \ar[u] \\ \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R/\mathfrak m^ m) & \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R/\mathfrak m^ n) \ar[l] & \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(k) \ar[u] \ar[l] } } \]

We may moreover assume that $B \to A$ is a small extension, i.e., that the kernel $I$ of the surjection $B \to A$ is isomorphic to $k$ as an $A$-module. This follows from Formal Deformation Theory, Remark 88.8.10. Then we simply define

\[ T = U \amalg _{\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(A)} \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(B) \]

By property (RS*) we find $y$ over $T$ whose restriction to $\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(B)$ is $x_ B$ and whose restriction to $U$ is $x$ (this gives the arrow $x \to y$ lying over $U \to T$). To finish the proof we verify conditions (1), (2), and (3).

By the construction of the pushout we have a commutative diagram

\[ \xymatrix{ 0 \ar[r] & I \ar[r] & B \ar[r] & A \ar[r] & 0 \\ 0 \ar[r] & I \ar[r] \ar[u] & \Gamma (T, \mathcal{O}_ T) \ar[r] \ar[u] & \Gamma (U, \mathcal{O}_ U) \ar[r] \ar[u] & 0 } \]

with exact rows. This immediately proves (1) and (2). To finish the proof we will argue by contradiction. Assume we have a pair $(W, \beta )$ as in (3). Since $\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(B) \to T$ factors through $W$ we get the morphism

\[ x_ B \to y|_ W \xrightarrow {\beta } x \]

Since $B$ is Artinian local with residue field $k = \kappa (u)$ we see that $x_ B \to x$ lies over a morphism $\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(B) \to U$ which factors through $\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(\mathcal{O}_{U, u}/\mathfrak m_ u^ m)$ for some $m \geq n$. In other words, $x_ B \to x$ factors through $\xi _ m$ giving a map $x_ B \to \xi _ m$. The compatibility condition on the morphism $\alpha $ in condition (3) translates into the condition that

\[ \xymatrix{ x_ B \ar[d] & x_ A \ar[d] \ar[l] \\ \xi _ m & \xi _ n \ar[l] } \]

is commutative. This gives the contradiction we were looking for. $\square$

Lemma 96.19.2. Let $S$ be a locally Noetherian scheme. Let $\mathcal{X}$ be a category fibred in groupoids over $(\mathit{Sch}/S)_{fppf}$. Assume

  1. $\Delta : \mathcal{X} \to \mathcal{X} \times \mathcal{X}$ is representable by algebraic spaces,

  2. $\mathcal{X}$ has (RS*),

  3. $\mathcal{X}$ is limit preserving.

Let $x$ be an object of $\mathcal{X}$ over a scheme $U$ of finite type over $S$. Let $u \leadsto u_0$ be a specialization of finite type points of $U$ such that $x$ is versal at $u_0$. Then $x$ is versal at $u$.

Proof. After shrinking $U$ we may assume $U$ is affine and $U$ maps into an affine open $\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(\Lambda )$ of $S$. If $x$ is not versal at $u$ then we may pick $x \to y$ lying over $U \to T$ as in Lemma 96.19.1. Write $U = \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R_0)$ and $T = \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R)$. The morphism $U \to T$ corresponds to a surjective ring map $R \to R_0$ whose kernel is an ideal of square zero. By assumption (3) we get that $y$ comes from an object $x'$ over $U' = \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R')$ for some finite type $\Lambda $-subalgebra $R' \subset R$. After increasing $R'$ we may and do assume that $R' \to R_0$ is surjective, so that $U \subset U'$ is a first order thickening. Thus we now have

\[ x \to y \to x' \text{ lying over } U \to T \to U' \]

By assumption (1) there is an algebraic space $Z$ over $S$ representing

\[ (\mathit{Sch}/U)_{fppf} \times _{x, \mathcal{X}, x'} (\mathit{Sch}/U')_{fppf} \]

see Algebraic Stacks, Lemma 92.10.11. By construction of $2$-fibre products, a $V$-valued point of $Z$ corresponds to a triple $(a, a', \alpha )$ consisting of morphisms $a : V \to U$, $a' : V \to U'$ and a morphism $\alpha : a^*x \to (a')^*x'$. We obtain a commutative diagram

\[ \xymatrix{ U \ar[rd] \ar[rdd] \ar[rrd] \\ & Z \ar[r]_{p'} \ar[d]^ p & U' \ar[d] \\ & U \ar[r] & S } \]

The morphism $i : U \to Z$ comes the isomorphism $x \to x'|_ U$. Let $z_0 = i(u_0) \in Z$. By Lemma 96.12.6 we see that $Z \to U'$ is smooth at $z_0$. After replacing $U$ by an affine open neighbourhood of $u_0$, replacing $U'$ by the corresponding open, and replacing $Z$ by the intersection of the inverse images of these opens by $p$ and $p'$, we reach the situation where $Z \to U'$ is smooth along $i(U)$. Since $u \leadsto u_0$ the point $u$ is in this open. Condition (3) of Lemma 96.19.1 is clearly preserved by shrinking $U$ (all of the schemes $U$, $T$, $U'$ have the same underlying topological space). Since $U \to U'$ is a first order thickening of affine schemes, we can choose a morphism $i' : U' \to Z$ such that $p' \circ i' = \text{id}_{U'}$ and whose restriction to $U$ is $i$ (More on Morphisms of Spaces, Lemma 74.19.6). Pulling back the universal morphism $p^*x \to (p')^*x'$ by $i'$ we obtain a morphism

\[ x' \to x \]

lying over $p \circ i' : U' \to U$ such that the composition

\[ x \to x' \to x \]

is the identity. Recall that we have $y \to x'$ lying over the morphism $T \to U'$. Composing we get a morphism $y \to x$ whose existence contradicts condition (3) of Lemma 96.19.1. This contradiction finishes the proof. $\square$


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 0G2I. Beware of the difference between the letter 'O' and the digit '0'.