Thursday, 4 February 2010

ag.algebraic geometry - Do pushouts along universal homeomorphisms exist?

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 UtoU, the pullback VtimesUUtoU 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 XtoX 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