2

We define a scheme as in "Two functorial definitions of schemes". That is, for the category $\textbf {Psh}=\operatorname{Fun}(\textbf{Ring},\textbf{Set})$ with any Grothendieck topology we define a scheme to be such an object $X$ in $\textbf{Psh}$ which has an open coverings with functors $h_R$ and for which $h_X$:$\textbf{Psh}^{op}$$\textbf{→Set}$ is a sheaf in the Grothendieck topology. I want to define a generic point. A point of a scheme $X$ is defined as for some ring $R$ an element $x \in X(R)$. Although a generic point usually is defined as $\overline{\{x\}}$, in the above definition, we have not thought an ordinary topology space, whence we don't know a closure. Can we define a generic point?

undertate
  • 191
  • 2
    What is a point in this setting? – dan_fulea Oct 23 '20 at 16:37
  • 1
    You can define a closed subfunctor, which lets you define the closure of a subfunctor as the universal closed subfunctor it maps into: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/436222/trying-to-understand-open-closed-subfunctors – Qiaochu Yuan Oct 23 '20 at 18:59
  • @dan_fulea The definition of a point is already described. Regarding your question, what are you asking about? – undertate Oct 24 '20 at 13:05
  • @QiaochuYuan Thank you for your answer. I understand the closure of a subfunctor. However, in this case, is ${x}$ the functor? – undertate Oct 24 '20 at 13:13
  • $x$ is a morphism from $\text{Spec } R$ to $X$, although I suppose now that I think about it this need not be a monomorphism. You can still define the universal closed subfunctor it maps to though, although I haven’t thought at all about whether this definition behaves correctly. – Qiaochu Yuan Oct 24 '20 at 18:13
  • @QiaochuYuan I apologize for my lack of ability in advance. I understand $x$ is a morphism by the definition. There is the universal closed subfunctor as the subfunctor of $\text{SpecR}$, $x$ maps the universal closed subfunctor from $\text{SpecR}$ to $X$, and so the mapped universal closed subfunctor is called $\overline{{x}}$. Is that correct? – undertate Oct 25 '20 at 03:14
  • The universal closed subfunctor of $X$, yes, that's the definition I'm proposing. Again I haven't checked that it does anything reasonable. – Qiaochu Yuan Oct 25 '20 at 03:33
  • Thank you again. I know from previous questions that a variety (and abelian variety) can be defined in a category theory, so if we can define geometric points(hence geometric fibers) in it, we can define the Néron model in it. I hope that definition works. – undertate Oct 25 '20 at 04:29

1 Answers1

5

Yes we can, and it is quite elegant. I will go through the setup first to make sure we talk about the same thing. We work in the category $\text{Sh}(\text{Aff,Zar})$ of sheaves on the Zariski site. I will call its objects Zariski-local functor. Since $\text{Aff}$ is the opposite of $\text{cRing}$, a Zariski-local functor is just a functor $\text{cRing}\to \text{Set}$ which satisfies a gluing condition. (If we want the category of Zariski-local functors to be a topos, then we have to play around with universes or chose a smaller site of definition.) We write $\text{Spec} A$ for the representable functor $\text{Hom}_{\text{cRing}}(A,-)$. The Zariski topology is subcanonical and $\text{Spec} A$ is Zariski local.

The open subobjects of $\text{Spec}A$ are by definition those of the form $D(\mathfrak a)$ where $\mathfrak a$ is an ideal of $A$. The functor $D(\mathfrak a)$ is defined through the following formula. $$D(\mathfrak a)R=\{\phi:A\to R\,|\,\text{$\phi(\mathfrak a)$ generates the unit ideal in $R$ }\}$$ One can check that all open subfunctors are actually joins of basic open subfunctors of the from $D(f)$. Now a subobject $U\hookrightarrow X$ of a Zariski-local functor $X$ is defined to be open iff each pullback to an affine scheme is open in that scheme. It is the finest topology on $X$ such that each test map $\text{Spec} R\to X$ is continuous. A scheme is a Zariski-local functor which can be covered by open affines.

Functions

We write $\mathbb A$ for the forgetful functor. It is a ring object internal to the category of schemes, and it is called the affine line. Note that $\mathbb A = \text{Spec }\mathbb Z[x]$ naturally. We write $\mathcal OX$ for the set of morphisms $X\to \mathbb A$. The ring structure of $\mathbb A$ turns $\mathcal OX$ into a ring. There is a fundamental adjunction $\text{Hom}(X,\text{Spec}A) = \text{Hom}(A,\mathcal OX)$ which is very easy to describe in the functorial approach. We get unit and counit morphisms of the form $X\to \text{Spec }\mathcal OX$ and $A\to \mathcal O \,\text{Spec}A$. The latter map is always an isomorphism and the former is an isomorphism if and only if $X$ is affine.

Points and primes

To associate a topological space $|X|$ to a scheme one proceeds as follows. A point $p$ of $X$ is an equivalence class of field valued generalised point $\text{Spec}K\to X$, where two such field valued points are equivalent if there is a third field valued generalised point which factors through both. One can show that all representatives of a class $p$ are contained in exactly the same subschemes of $X$, so the equivalence relation makes sense intuitively. The topology of $X$ puts a topology onto the set $|X|$ of such equivalence classes. If $X=\text{Spec} A$ is affine, then one discovers that $|\text{Spec}A|$ is precisely the set of prime ideals of $A$ with its usually topology. More importantly one can show that each class $p$ of $|X|$ has a canonical representative $\text{Spec }\kappa(p)\to X$. It has the universal property that it is the least representative in $p$. Any other representative of $p$ factors uniquely through it (i.e. is $\text{Spec }\kappa (p)\to X$ precomposed with a field extension if you so like). The morphism $\text{Spec }\kappa(p)\to X$ is monic. In case of an affine functor the morphism $\text{Spec } \kappa(p)\to \text{Spec }A$ is precisely the one you think it is.

Germs and local rings

Forming germs in the functor of points approach is very easy. Say you have a scheme $X$ and a point $p$ of $|X|$. Then you just form the intersection of all open subspaces of $X$ which contain $p$ and call the result the germ at $p$. Let us denote that space by $X_p$. Explicitly $$X_p(R) = \{r\in X(R)\,|\, \text{the associated $\text{Spec} R\to X$ factors through the same opens as $\text{Spec }\kappa(p)\to X$}\} $$ Clearly the germ at a point $p$ is a subobject $X_p\hookrightarrow X$. To get the usual formula of $X_p$ as a spec of a local ring you can proceed as follows. Note that we have formed $X_p$ as a limit over a diagram of open subfunctors of $X$. Since the open affines form a basis, we would have gotten the same $X_p$ if we would have taken the intersection over those. Now limits in $\text{Aff}$ are the same as limits in the sheaf topos, so we could have taken the limit in $\text{Aff}$ instead. But this is the same as taking the colimit over the associated rings in $\text{cRing }$, and you end up with the usual construction. In particular $X_p$ is affine and the natural map $X_p \to \text{Spec }\mathcal OX_p$ is an isomorphism. To use the standard algebraic geometry notation we write $\mathcal O_{X,p}$ for the ring $\mathcal OX_p$. The ring $\mathcal O_{X,p}$ is local, which can be seen by showing it for affines first and then noting that we get the same $X_p$ if we first pass to an open affine which contains $p$.

The germ $X_p\to X$ at a point also has a universal property. It states that whenever $(R,\mathfrak m)$ is a local ring and $\text{Spec }R\to X$ a morphism such that $\text{Spec }\kappa(\mathfrak m)\to \text{Spec }R\to X$ is a representative of $p$, then $\text{Spec }R \to X$ factors (necessarily uniquely) through the germ $X_p\to X$. In this sense $X_p$ is the larges local subobject around $p$.

Generic points, specialisation and generalization

A generic point of a scheme is a point which is dense in $X$. In the functor of points approach we can define it as follows. A generic point of a scheme $X$ is a field valued point $\text{Spec }K\to X$ which factors through every non-empty open subscheme of $X$. If we are being extra careful then we could replace $\text{Spec }K\to X$ by its canonical best representative $\text{Spec }\kappa(p)\to X$ through which it factors.

One can show that a scheme has a generic point if and only if it is irreducible and that the generic point is unique (up to the equivalence of field valued points which we described when we constructed $|X|$).

Thus it makes sense to speak of THE generic point $\text{Spec }\kappa(\eta)\to X$ of an irreducible scheme also in the functor of points approach. We just take the best representative from the class of the generic point in $|X|$.

One can show that a point $p$ is more general than a point $q$ if and only if $\text{Spec }\kappa(p)\to X$ lies in the germ $X_q\to X$ of $q$. So here is a second definition of a generic point. A generic point of $X$ is a point $p$ of $|X|$ (or its canonical representative which lies in every germ of the space $X$.

Sorry, this was a lot of info-dumping. If you need more explanation to one of the steps, write me a comment. Also your question is two years old, but maybe you are still interested.

Edit. Here is how you can see that $Spec$ and $\mathcal O$ are adjoint. Assume you are given a morphism $\phi: X\to Spec(A)$ of functors on $Ring$. How can you produce a corresponding map $\phi^\#:A\to \mathcal O(X)$ of rings. Well, given $a\in A$, you need to define a morphism $\phi^\#(a):X\to \mathbb A$ of functors. Such a morphism is a natural transformation, which means that you have to defnine its component $\phi^\# a\, R: X(R)\to \mathbb A(R)$ for each ring $R$. The functor $\mathbb A$ is the forgetful functor, and so $\mathbb A(R)= R$ as a set. This means you need to find an element $\phi^\# a R r\in R$ given an element $a\in A$, a ring $R$ and an element $r\in X(R)$. What you have is $\phi: X\to Spec(A)$. You can easily see that your only option is the following definition of $\phi^\#$: $$\phi^\# a\, R\, r = \phi\, R \, r\, a$$ You can check that it makes sense. In a similar way, you can figure out how to get a transformation $X\to Spec(A)$ from a ring morphism $A\to \mathcal O(X)$.

Nico
  • 4,220
  • 1
    Thank you for your sophisticated answer! I apologize that I didn't realise that the answer had been posted and It took me a long time to understand it. I am reading Sheaves in geometry and logic now, so I know Zariski site, but unfortunatelly, owing to my lack of ability, I don't come up with the proofs, for instance in the proof of the adjunction between $\text{Spec}$ and $\mathcal O$. Anyway, although my skill has hardly developed over the past two years, I hope that the theory of functorial schemes will continue to develope furthermore. Thanks again. – undertate Feb 22 '23 at 06:40
  • 1
    I have added some explanation to the adjunction. Also, Sheaves in Geometry and Logic is a tough book! You'd probably have a better time if you start with one of the introduction texts by Andrew Pitts. You can google 'Andrew Pitts Categorical logic' to find them. Also, there are lecture notes by Andrej Bauer which are a much more gentle introduction to categorical logic! :) – Nico Feb 22 '23 at 15:15
  • I appreciate your help. I'll try to read either of these books you recommend! And I probably can have understood your edit. One have the natural transformation $\phi: X\to Spec(A)$, and hence $\phi(R): X(R)\to Spec(A)(R)$ for each $R$ which is a ring. In addition as $\text{Spec} A=\text{Hom}{\text{cRing}}(A,-)$, $Spec(A)(R) = \text{Hom}{\text{cRing}}(A,R)$. Therefore for $r \in X(R)$, there exist $\phi(R)(r): A \to R$. In conclusion, we obtain $\phi(R)(r)(a) \in R$ where $R$ is a ring, $a \in A$ and $r \in X(R)$. If there are any errors, I would be grateful if you could let me know. – undertate Feb 23 '23 at 12:06