References and background on universal homeomorphisms
Definition [EGA I (2d ed.) 3.8.1]. A morphism f:VtoU is a universal homeomorphism if for any morphism U′toU, the pullback VtimesUU′toU′ is a homeomorphism.
Theorem [EGA IV 18.12.11]. A morphism is a universal homeomorphism if and only if it is surjective, integral, and radicial.
Theorem ["Topological invariance of the étale topos," SGA I Exp IX, 4.10 and SGA IV Exp. VIII, 1.1] If f:VtoU is a universal homeomorphism, then the induced morphism f:VtextrméttoUtextrmét of the small étale topoi is an equivalence.
General examples. Any nilimmersion, any purely inseparable field extension (or any base change thereby), the geometric Frobenius of an mathbfFp-scheme [SGA V Exp. XIV=XV, § 1, No. 2, Pr. 2(a)].
Theorem. Suppose X a reduced scheme with finitely many irreducible components. Denote by X′ its normalization. Then the natural morphism X′toX is a universal homeomorphism if and only if X is geometrically unibranch.
Specific example. Suppose k an algebraically closed field of characteristic 2. Consider the subring k[x2,xy,y]subsetk[x,y]. The induced morphism
mathrmSpeck[x,y]tomathrmSpeck[x2,xy,y]
is a universal homeomorphism.
Question
Do pushouts along universal homeomorphisms exist in the category of schemes?
In more detail. Suppose f:VtoU a universal homeomorphism, and suppose p:VtoW a morphism. Everything here is a scheme; I can assume W quasicompact and quasiseparated, but I have no control over the map VtoW. Now of course I can construct the pushout P of VtoU along VtoW as a locally ringed space with no trouble (just take the underlying space of W along with the fiber product OWtimespstarOVpstarOU), but I can't show that P is a scheme. Is it?
Thoughts
Of course the key point here is that f is a universal homeomorphism, not just some run-of-the-mill morphism. So one can try to treat the cases where f is schematically dominant or a nilimmersion separately.
Update
If f is a nilimmersion, then I now see how to prove this completely. I still have no idea how to proceed the schematically dominant case.
[EDIT: I removed the additional question.]
No comments:
Post a Comment