2

I am currently studying the book of Daniel Perrin in Algebraic Geometry. Particularly, I am having trouble understanding some of the definitions in the chapter for Tangent Space and singular points.

He uses the "point scheme" $P$ consisting of one point and denotes it by $Spec\ k$, correspondingly he uses the "fat point" $P_ε$ denoted by $Spec\ k[ε]$. He says that there is an obvious morphism $i:P \to P_ε$ which corresponds to $p:k[ε] \to k$, sending $(a+bε) \to a$ , i.e. $ε \to 0$. Which makes sense from the equivalence between ring morphisms and morphisms in affine schemes.

So, he defines a deformation of $V$ (affine algebraic variety) at $x$ being a morphism $t:P_ε \to V$ such that $t \circ i = x$, where $ x:P \to V$ is the map that sends $P$ (single element) to the point $x$ in the affine algebraic variety $V$.

Then, he says that this is equivalent to a $k$-algebra homomorphism $t^*:Γ(V) \to k[ε]$ such that $p \circ t^* = χ_x$ where the latter is the character given by $f \to f(x)$, namely evaluation homomorphism.

Omitting the affine algebraic variety term and defining $V := Spec\ Γ(V)$ (which is a good representation for $V$), everything makes sense for me except for the fact that $t$ is equivalent to a $k$-algebra homomorphism $t^*$ and not just a ring homomorphism. So, my first question is, is there any proposition or reason why should $t^*$ be also linear?

On the other hand Perrin defines the abovementioned morphisms to the category of ringed spaces of $k$-valued functions and he only mentions the generall form of the ringed spaces (i.e continuous functions and family of homomorphisms) let alone the morphisms in Locally Ringed Spaces.

In any case, I think that something is missing, can anyone help me or give me any reference to understand how the above definitions and equivalences work?

Nash-iOS
  • 125
  • The morphism $t : P_{\epsilon} \to V$ is a morphism of $k$-schemes (if it is not said, it is meant). So the corresponding morphism of rings is, by definition I guess, $k$-algebra morphism. – Sasha Jun 14 '21 at 19:32
  • Thank you @Sasha for your comment, could you please give me some additional information or any references for the k-scheme term, I am not aware of this definition much less for the the part that the morphisms should be k-algebra morphisms. – Nash-iOS Jun 15 '21 at 10:51
  • 1
    When you work with "varieties" as you do, everything is a $k$-algebras, $k$-schemes, $k$-morphisms etc. For example, consider $Spec (k)$ (the "point"). Does it have a lot of automorphisms? Well, if you consider it purely as a scheme, then yes generally (corresponding to field automorphisms of $k$). But you should consider it as a $k$-scheme, i.e. formally a scheme equipped with a morphism to $Spec(k)$, and you should demand morphisms between $k$-schemes to commute with those "structural projections". Then $Spec(k)$ will have only the identity as an automorphism. – Sasha Jun 15 '21 at 11:00
  • 1
    So there are different equivalent ways to formulate what a $k$-scheme is, depending on your preferred way of describing what a scheme is etc. You can think of affine $k$-schemes as contra-equivalent to $k$-algebras (with $k$-morphisms). Or you can think of a $k$-scheme as a scheme equipped with a morphism of schemes to $Spec(k)$, and morphism of $k$-schemes should commute with those, etc. – Sasha Jun 15 '21 at 11:02
  • 1
    "$k$-scheme" is also called a "scheme defined over $k$" sometimes. – Sasha Jun 15 '21 at 11:03
  • Actually, I found in a different post that link, which the answer explains what you described to me. But, I would like to know, for each scheme could the morphism to $Spec(k)$ be any morphism, what should be the form of this morphism, or is it as abstract as it spoken. – Nash-iOS Jun 16 '21 at 18:12
  • It sounds like the morphism (structural projections) could be anything, for each scheme. So, in my case, where I have "well behaved" objects, actually they are affine schemes, from a ring that is k-algebra, what should be the the morphism to $Spec(k)$? – Nash-iOS Jun 16 '21 at 18:12

0 Answers0