To make sense of the notion of integer points, your scheme should be defined over mathbbZ. What do we mean by that? Of course we should not ask for a structure map tp Spec(mathbbZ), since every scheme has one such map. The right notion is the following.
Let X be a scheme over mathbbC; so by definition we have a structure map XtomathopSpecmathbbC. Then we say that X is defined over mathbbZ is there exists a scheme XmathbbZ over mathbbZ such that X is the base change of XmathbbZ to mathbbC, i. e. XcongXmathbbZtimesmathbbZmathopSpecmathbbC.
Now for such a scheme an integral point is a map mathopSpecmathbbZtoXmathbbZ such that the composition with the structure map is the identity. Note that the same can be done for every ring A in place of mathbbZ.
With this definition, the line x=0 is defined over mathbbZ, but the line x=pi is not, basically because there is no way to generate its ideal with equations having integer coefficients. So your problem does not arise anymore.
EDIT: Abstractly of course the two lines are isomorphic over mathbbC, so the line r=x=pi actually has a model over mathbbZ. The problem is that this model is not compatible with the inclusion in mathbbA2, that is, there will be no map rmathbbZtomathbbA2mathbbZ whose base change is the inclusion of r into mathbbA2. In order to have this, you would have to ask that the ideal of r in mathbbA2 should be generated by polynomials with integer coefficients.
As for your second question, there can be different models, that is, nonisomorphic schemes over mathbbZ which become isomorphic after base change to mathbbC. So before discussing the existence of integral points, you have to FIX a model, and the points will in general depend on the model.
For instance take the two conics x2+y2=2 and x2+y2=3. Both have an obvious choice of a model, given by the inclusion in mathbbA2; moreover they are isomorphic over mathbbC. But the integral points on the first one are (pm1,pm1), while the second has none.
Finally you consider the possibility that the structure over mathbbC is not relevant. This is false: the base change XmathbbZtimesmathbbZmathopSpecmathbbC is endowed with a natural map to mathopSpecmathbbC, and we ask for the isomorphism with X to be over mathbbC.
No comments:
Post a Comment