7

Please do not ruin the fun by telling me why $\mu$ is surjective!

I am having trouble understanding the idea of the coordinate functions on the affine algebraic variety $X$. I am trying to understand that $P(X)$ is generated as a $k$-algebra by the coordinate functions. I understand what it means to be generated as a $k$-algebra, but the problem is I don't understand what the coordinate functions are!

Just some notation: $P(X) = k[t_1,t_2,\ldots, t_n]/I(X)$ where k is algebraically closed and $I(X)$ is the ideal of the variety $X$.

What do they explicitly mean when they say "Let $\xi_i$ be the image of $t_i$ in $P(X)$."? I can't really see what the image of an unknown is.

For example, if I have $k[t]/(t^2)$, then the image of the $t$ is still $t$ but with the relation that $f(t)t^2 = 0$ for $f \in k[t]$.

If I have $k[x,y]/(xy-1)$ then the images of $x$ and $y$ are still $x$ and $y$ with $f(x,y)(xy-1) = 0$? So there is no explicit way to show the image of a variable?

Then the problem states that if $x \in X$, then $\xi_i(x)$ is the $i$th coordinate of x. I guess this just means the usual "plugging in" of an element in an equation. Why doesn't this work for arbitrary elements in $k^n$?

Daniel
  • 597
  • 4
    I think the point is that $P(X)$ isn't the same set as $k[t_1,\dotsc,t_n]$, so the images of the $t_i$ aren't literally the same as the $t_i$ -- they're more like equivalence classes. In your second example of $k[x,y]/(xy - 1)$, the image of $y$ could be called $y$ but it could also be called $x^{-1}$. It's just a naming convention. As for your second question, you don't get a well-defined element of $k$ if you plug in an arbitrary point in $k^n$, since you've already quotiented by $I(X)$. – Paul VanKoughnett Jul 03 '13 at 00:11

1 Answers1

1

A lot of this repeats what Paul says in his comment above.

Since $k$ is algebraically closed it's infinite, so the map $A := k[x_1, \dots, x_n] \to \operatorname{Fun}(k^n, k)$ is injective. [This is not the important part, but it's comforting.] We can compose with restriction of functions to get a map into $\operatorname{Fun}(X, k)$. The ideal $I(X)$ is the kernel of this composition.

So, $A(X) := A/I(X)$ can be identified with a subring of the ring of functions on $X$ and this allows us to evaluate elements of $A(X)$ on points of $X$.

As with any quotient, there is a canonical map $\phi\colon A \to A(X)$ and we're setting $\xi_i = \phi(x_i)$. I would not say that $\xi_i$ and $x_i$ are the same thing: they live in different rings. $\xi_i$ is the coset $x_i + I(X)$. Of course it's common to say things like $x_1 = 2x_2$ in $A/I(X)$ but one should be aware of what's going on.

We can't evaluate outside of $X$ because if $x \notin X$ then there is some element $f \in I(X)$ such that $f(x) \neq 0$. To define $\bar g(x)$ for some $\bar g \in A(X)$ we would try to choose some representative $g \in A$ such that $\phi(g) = \bar g$ and then set $\bar g(x) = g(x)$. But $g + f$ is another "lift" of $\bar g$ and $g(x) \neq g(x) + f(x)$.

In your first example [note, however, that $(t^2)$ couldn't be of the form $I(X)$; if you want an associated geometric space, do the exercises on schemes!], $t$ is the same thing as $t + t^2$ in the quotient and these evaluate differently at $1$.

TTS
  • 1,051
  • I'm not sure I follow. You are saying $f \in A/I(X)$ isn't well-defined for elements outside $X$ or the coordinate functions aren't well-defined? In $\mathbb{C}[x]/(x^2)$, a function like $5x - 3$ is still well-defined for elements not zero, no? $g(x)$ still equals $g(x)$ in the quotient space. Also, I was trying to look at the quotient map before I posted my question, and $\phi (x_i)$ is exactly what bothers me. What does that even mean? I guess If I understand Paul's comment above, $\phi(x_i)$ is just $x_i$ with some equivalence relations. – Daniel Jul 03 '13 at 00:59
  • 1
    $f$ was an element of $A$. My point was that associating $f \mapsto f(x)$ was not independent of the representative chosen from the corresponding coset of $I(X)$. You wrote down $5x + 3$; that's an element of $\mathbb C[x]$ and you can evaluate it wherever you want. But in the quotient $5x + 3$ is the same as $x^2 + 5x + 3$, and these do not evaluate the same way at, say, $1$. – TTS Jul 03 '13 at 01:35
  • Thank you. Now I understand. – Daniel Jul 03 '13 at 01:43