Talk:Glossary of scheme theory

Could someone give further explanation of these definitions?

Are the links to uncreated necessary if this is a glossary? Or will there be more detail on those pages?

It's all work-in-progress; not so different from the rest of Wikipedia. If you have a request for a topic, try Wikipedia:Requested articles/mathematics.

Charles Matthews 12:28, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the definition of quasi-finite, which looked like it came from Hartshorne. I've replaced it with th EGA definition. Joeldl 17:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morphism glossary

Hi, I would suggest to rearrange the list of morphism properties, such that the relation of the several notions becomes clearer and also try to avoid (more) difficult terms (for example affine morphisms can be defined more easily). Do you agree? -- Jakob.scholbach 03:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Charles Matthews 08:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The notion of finitely presented morphism should be added. I was redirected from another page, but could not find the definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.8.98 (talk) 09:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2007-02-1 Automated pywikipediabot message

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.
The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.)
Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.
Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 16:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smooth morphism

The subject "smooth morphism" redirects here, but is nowhere defined in this glossary (only given as example!). Could someone add its definition?--129.70.14.128 (talk) 01:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Table of properties of schemes

Two points about that table: (a) The concept "connected scheme" is used in the row treating integral schemes but was not defined in Wikipedia. So I added it to the table, following Hartshorne's Algebraic Geometry. (b) The column titled "definition" contains definitions but also further basic properties of the concept in question (e.g. the statement about irreducible components). This is useful but maybe one should move this, say, to another column? Well, maybe not. Ninte (talk) 07:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subscheme

This article doesn't define "subscheme", particularly "closed subscheme". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.56.58 (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, not explicitly. When it says about closed immersions, it is defining closed subschemes, but tacitly only. So some more words needed there. And open subschemes aren't explicitly defined, though it is a remark (perhaps a little more than just a remark) that restricting to an open subset you get a locally ringed space that is a scheme. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geometric description or explanation

When I learned algebraic geometry, I found it extremely helpful to have the different terms from scheme theory explained with a (complex) geometric intuition as well as formal algebraic definition. I also know some people who disagree with this because the importance of some of these ideas is especially prevalent when not working of the complex field.

Nonetheless, I think it would be really helpful for most visitors to include an explanation of why, for example, unramified is an interesting idea geometrically, and not just some random definition. Also, it would make this page more 'Wikipedia-like' and less 'Wikitionary-like'. Even though the title is 'Glossary of scheme theory'. I would volunteer, but I don't really think about this kind of stuff as much anymore, and I'm sure there are more able wikipedians.

CraigDesjardins (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smooth scheme

There are some objects in this Glossary that are neither defined here, nor somewhere else. For example, a smooth scheme (or variety). The Glossary article uses smooth varieties without defining them. Other articles using smooth varieties (e.g. the article on D-modules) link to the Glossary.

Which definition of smooth do we want to have? And shouldn't it get an article on its own? Spaetzle (talk) 10:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to add definitions, or create an article. In the case of smooth schemes/varieties, the definition is implicitly there in that a "smooth morphism" is defined. Then, a smooth scheme is simply a scheme X such that the (unique) morphism from X to Spec Z is smooth. A scheme X over another scheme S is called "smooth over S" if the structure morphism X → S is smooth. As for varieties, the definition of variety V in full generality can vary, but usually is something like an integral, separated scheme of finite type over an algebraically closed field k; given a definition of variety V over k, the variety is called smooth if the structure morphism V → Spec k is smooth. RobHar (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scheme hausdorff iff zero-dimensional?

In the section about separated and proper morphisms, one line reads as follows:

"In algebraic geometry, the above formulation is used because a scheme is a Hausdorff space if and only if it is zero-dimensional."

I'm struggling about that. Is that really true? I've found no such result or proof of it in Google. Of course, this statement is well known to be correct for affine schemes and also for noetherian schemes (in which case it is equivalent to the scheme being an artinian scheme). Moreover, a scheme is zero-dimensional iff it is a topological T1-space. But is this really equivalent to the Hausdorff property in general? Is there someone who knows of a proof or a counterexample? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.170.20 (talk) 15:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The claimed equivalence is not correct. To find a counterexample, start with a non quasi-separated scheme X, and let X^cons be the set X endowed with the constructible topology on X (EGA IV.1.9.13). Then X^cons is not Hausdorff (separated) as a topological space (EGA, IV.1.9.15(ii)). It turns out that X^cons is actually the underlying topological space of some scheme of dimension 0 (EGA, IV.1.9.16, without proof. Or google with "constructible topology 1.9.16"). UL (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Étale morphism

"which coincides with the usual notion of étale map in differential geometry."

I have never head the term étale map in differential geometry, and the only reference for it I can find is on the n-lab: http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/formally+etale+morphism#in_differential_geometry_30.

I suspect the "cohesive (infinity, 1)-topos of smooth infinity-groupoids" and the fact that the category of smooth manifolds embeds into this one are not common knowledge, and this ought to be noted. There are two possible appraoches:

The first would be something along the lines of "There exists a generalization of this notion which, in the category of smooth manifolds, coincides precisely with local diffeomorphisms." together with appropriate citation (of n-lab or elsewhere).

Alternatively, we could forget this broader notion (as it's kind of beside the point in this context) and simply change it to "which parallels the usual notion of local homeomorphisms in differential geometry."

Thoughts? 75.133.45.23 (talk) 05:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]