Tuesday, 2 October 2012

ag.algebraic geometry - When two k-varieties with the same underlying topological spaces isomorphic?

[This is a situation where things have been rewritten several times in response to an ongoing discussion. Let me try to reconstruct some of the temporal sequence here.]



ROUND ONE:



Ben's answer gives one way that your statement can fail: $Y$ can be singular and $f$ can be a birational morphism which does not induce an isomorphism of local rings at at least one of the singular points.



Here is something else that can go wrong: in positive characteristic, $f$ can be purely inseparable, e.g. the $p$-power Frobenius map.



ROUND TWO



I edited my response to point out that Ben's example has a nonreduced fiber over the singular point. I also said "I think" that mine does not, but this was pointed out by Kevin Buzzard to be false. [Or rather, the statement is false. I truly did think it was true for a little while.]



I also suggested that the following modification might be true:




Suppose $X$ and $Y$ are geometrically irreducible and $Y$ is nonsingular (together with all of the questioner's hypotheses, especially reducedness of the fibers!). Then if $f:X rightarrow Y$ is a bijective morphism with reduced fibers, it is an isomorphism.




ROUND THREE



I typed up a counterexample over an imperfect ground field when the varieties are not geometrically integral (g.i. = the base change to the algebraic closure is reduced and irreducible: the reduced business has to be taken more seriously when the ground field is imperfect, since taking an inseparable field extension can introduce nilpotent elements). But Kevin Buzzard posted a simpler counterexample, so I deleted my answer.



ROUND FOUR



Kevin's answer also includes a beautifully simple example to show that the question is false even over $mathbb{C}$ without some nonsingularity hypotheses: use nodes instead of cusps and remove one of the preimages of the nodal point.



I still wonder if my attempted reparation of the statement above is correct.

No comments:

Post a Comment