Flat morphism

In mathematics, in particular in the theory of schemes in algebraic geometry, a flat morphism f from a scheme X to a scheme Y is a morphism such that the induced map on every stalk is a flat map of rings, i.e.,

fP: OY,f(P)OX,P

is a flat map for all P in X.[1] A map of rings A → B is called flat, if it is a homomorphism that makes B a flat A-module.

A morphism of schemes f is a faithfully flat morphism if f is a surjective flat morphism.[2]

Two of the basic intuitions are that flatness is a generic property, and that the failure of flatness occurs on the jumping set of the morphism.

The first of these comes from commutative algebra: subject to some finiteness conditions on f, it can be shown that there is a non-empty open subscheme Y of Y, such that f restricted to Y is a flat morphism (generic flatness). Here 'restriction' is interpreted by means of fiber product, applied to f and the inclusion map of Y into Y.

For the second, the idea is that morphisms in algebraic geometry can exhibit discontinuities of a kind that are detected by flatness. For instance, the operation of blowing down in the birational geometry of an algebraic surface, can give a single fiber that is of dimension 1 when all the others have dimension 0. It turns out (retrospectively) that flatness in morphisms is directly related to controlling this sort of semicontinuity, or one-sided jumping.

Flat morphisms are used to define (more than one version of) the flat topos, and flat cohomology of sheaves from it. This is a deep-lying theory, and has not been found easy to handle. The concept of étale morphism (and so étale cohomology) depends on the flat morphism concept: an étale morphism being flat, of finite type, and unramified.

Examples

Consider the affine scheme

induced from the obvious morphism of algebras

Since proving flatness amounts to computing we resolve the complex numbers

and tensor by the module representing our scheme giving the sequence of -modules

Because is a non-zero divisor we have a trivial kernel, hence the homology group vanishes.

Properties of flat morphisms

Let f : X Y be a morphism of schemes. For a morphism g : Y Y, let X = X ×Y Y and f = (f, 1Y) : X Y. f is flat if and only if for every g, the pullback f* is an exact functor from the category of quasi-coherent -modules to the category of quasi-coherent -modules.[3]

Assume that f : X Y and g : Y Z are morphisms of schemes. Assume furthermore that f is flat at x in X. Then g is flat at f(x) if and only if gf is flat at x.[4] In particular, if f is faithfully flat, then g is flat or faithfully flat if and only if gf is flat or faithfully flat, respectively.[5]

Fundamental properties

Suppose that f: X Y is a flat morphism of schemes.

Suppose now that h : S S is flat. Let X and Y be S-schemes, and let X and Y be their base change by h.

Topological properties

If f : X Y is flat, then it possesses all of the following properties:

If f is flat and locally of finite presentation, then f is universally open.[24] However, if f is faithfully flat and quasi-compact, it is not in general true that f is open, even if X and Y are noetherian.[25] Furthermore, no converse to this statement holds: If f is the canonical map from the reduced scheme Xred to X, then f is a universal homeomorphism, but for X noetherian, f is never flat.[26]

If f : X Y is faithfully flat, then:

If f is flat and locally of finite presentation, then for each of the following properties P, the set of points where f has P is open:[29]

If in addition f is proper, then the same is true for each of the following properties:[30]

Flatness and dimension

Assume that X and Y are locally noetherian, and let f : X Y.

Descent properties

Let g : Y Y be faithfully flat. Let F be a quasi-coherent sheaf on Y, and let F be the pullback of F to Y. Then F is flat over Y if and only if F is flat over Y.[42]

Assume that f is faithfully flat and quasi-compact. Let G be a quasi-coherent sheaf on Y, and let F denote its pullback to X. Then F is finite type, finite presentation, or locally free of rank n if and only if G has the corresponding property.[43]

Suppose that f : X Y is an S-morphism of S-schemes. Let g : S S be faithfully flat and quasi-compact, and let X, Y, and f denote the base changes by g. Then for each of the following properties P, if f has P, then f has P.[44]

Additionally, for each of the following properties P, f has P if and only if f has P.[45]

It is possible for f to be a local isomorphism without f being even a local immersion.[46]

If f is quasi-compact and L is an invertible sheaf on X, then L is f-ample or f-very ample if and only if its pullback L is f-ample or f-very ample, respectively.[47] However, it is not true that f is projective if and only if f is projective. It is not even true that if f is proper and f is projective, then f is quasi-projective, because it is possible to have an f-ample sheaf on X which does not descend to X.[48]

See also

Notes

  1. EGA IV2, 2.1.1.
  2. EGA 0I, 6.7.8.
  3. EGA IV2, Proposition 2.1.3.
  4. EGA IV2, Corollaire 2.2.11(iv).
  5. EGA IV2, Corollaire 2.2.13(iii).
  6. EGA IV2, Corollaire 2.1.6.
  7. EGA IV2, Corollaire 2.1.7, and EGA IV2, Corollaire 2.2.13(ii).
  8. EGA IV2, Proposition 2.1.4, and EGA IV2, Corollaire 2.2.13(i).
  9. EGA IV3, Théorème 11.3.1.
  10. EGA IV3, Proposition 11.3.16.
  11. EGA IV2, Proposition 2.1.11.
  12. EGA IV2, Corollaire 2.2.8.
  13. EGA IV2, Proposition 2.3.7(i).
  14. EGA IV2, Corollaire 2.2.16.
  15. EGA IV2, Proposition 2.3.2.
  16. EGA IV2, Proposition 2.3.4(i).
  17. EGA IV2, Proposition 2.3.4(ii).
  18. EGA IV2, Proposition 2.3.4(iii).
  19. EGA IV2, Corollaire 2.3.5(i).
  20. EGA IV2, Corollaire 2.3.5(ii).
  21. EGA IV2, Corollaire 2.3.5(iii).
  22. EGA IV2, Proposition 2.3.6(ii).
  23. EGA IV2, Théorème 2.3.10.
  24. EGA IV2, Théorème 2.4.6.
  25. EGA IV2, Remarques 2.4.8(i).
  26. EGA IV2, Remarques 2.4.8(ii).
  27. EGA IV2, Corollaire 2.3.12.
  28. EGA IV2, Corollaire 2.3.14.
  29. EGA IV3, Théorème 12.1.6.
  30. EGA IV3, Théorème 12.2.4.
  31. EGA IV2, Corollaire 6.1.2.
  32. EGA IV2, Proposition 6.1.5. Note that the regularity assumption on Y is important here. The extension gives a counterexample with X regular, Y normal, f finite surjective but not flat.
  33. EGA IV2, Corollaire 6.1.4.
  34. EGA IV2, Corollaire 6.2.2.
  35. EGA IV2, Proposition 2.1.13.
  36. EGA IV3, Proposition 11.3.13.
  37. EGA IV2, Proposition 2.1.13.
  38. EGA IV2, Proposition 2.1.14.
  39. EGA IV2, Proposition 2.2.14.
  40. EGA IV2, Corollaire 6.5.2.
  41. EGA IV2, Corollaire 6.5.4.
  42. EGA IV2, Proposition 2.5.1.
  43. EGA IV2, Proposition 2.5.2.
  44. EGA IV2, Proposition 2.6.2.
  45. EGA IV2, Corollaire 2.6.4 and Proposition 2.7.1.
  46. EGA IV2, Remarques 2.7.3(iii).
  47. EGA IV2, Corollaire 2.7.2.
  48. EGA IV2, Remarques 2.7.3(ii).

References

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 10/10/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.