FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Math » Research
descent for projectivity
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [4 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
Jannick Asmus
science forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 312

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:27 am    Post subject: Re: descent for projectivity Reply with quote

On 20.07.2006 19:45, David Madore wrote:
Quote:
Jannick Asmus in litteris <e9o6ll$7c9$1@dizzy.math.ohio-state.edu
scripsit:
have a look at EGA II.6.6.5 giving you the result for finite extensions K/k.

Great! Thanks. I was fooled by the fact that the section on
projectivity is II.5, not II.6 (someday someone should write a decent
index for EGA).

Interestingly, there is a forward reference to EGA V (which was never
completed, although there are rough notes for it circulating on the
Web) for the case when K/k is arbitrary.

You might check EGA IV.9.1.5 to find the general result you are looking
for. I think this is a version which was supposed to appear in EGA V.

Best wishes,
J.
Back to top
David Madore
science forum beginner


Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Posts: 24

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:45 pm    Post subject: Re: descent for projectivity Reply with quote

Jannick Asmus in litteris <e9o6ll$7c9$1@dizzy.math.ohio-state.edu>
scripsit:
Quote:
have a look at EGA II.6.6.5 giving you the result for finite extensions K/k.

Great! Thanks. I was fooled by the fact that the section on
projectivity is II.5, not II.6 (someday someone should write a decent
index for EGA).

Interestingly, there is a forward reference to EGA V (which was never
completed, although there are rough notes for it circulating on the
Web) for the case when K/k is arbitrary.

Quote:
Could you give the exact reference giving you the descent for strictly
transcendental extensions? Thanks.

Hmmm... I really didn't check that part too carefully (my concern was
mostly whether the algebraic inseparable case works), but the idea I
had in mind was to use theorem IV.8.10.5(xiii) upon writing Spec(k(t))
(which is the generic point of A^1_k) as the projective limit of the
non empty open sets U in A^1_k: this would say that X is projective
over k(t) if and only if it is projective over some actual open set U,
and then we can specialize to some closed point in U. (Assuming this
works, thanks are due to Jo\"el Riou, who taught me how useful this
theorem is for this sort of things. If it doesn't work, though, I'm
the one to blame.)

--
David A. Madore
( david.madore@ens.fr,
http://www.madore.org/~david/ )
Back to top
Jannick Asmus
science forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 312

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 3:15 pm    Post subject: Re: descent for projectivity Reply with quote

On 20.07.2006 14:04, David Madore wrote:
Quote:
I am looking for a reference for the following fact (assuming it is
true, or else the closest which can be found...):

If K/k is an arbitrary field extension, X an algebraic variety over k
such that X_K (extension of scalars from k to K) is projective, then
X is projective.

I believe I can prove it, though I haven't checked all details and
could possibly be wrong. A sketch of proof goes like this:

First, we can assume that K over k is of finite type (essentially by
EGA IV.Cool. So we can reduce to two cases: a purely transcendental
extension k(t)/k and a finite (algebraic) extension. In the former
case, again presumably by results in EGA IV.8 we can assume X is
projective over a non-empty open subset of Spec k[t], in which we
can find a closed point. So all reduces to the case of a finite
extension. By SGA1 exp VIII corollary 4.8 ("proper" descends by
fpqc base change), X is proper because X_K is proper (and Spec K -
Spec k is fpqc). Now consider p: X_K -> X the projection morphism,
which is finite (hence proper) and (faithfully) flat: take D an
ample divisor on X_K, and let D' = p_*(D) its pushforward. Apply
the intersection formula (or whatever it's called) to compare
Y.p_*(D) with p^*(Y).D (if Y is a cycle in X) and the
Nakai-Moishezon criterion to prove that D' is ample.

This is all rather tedious (writing down all the details was too much
of a pain, I eventually gave up), and I'm surprised I can't find a
convenient reference for this statement which looks like a basic fact
every algebraic geometer would need eventually. It is strange that
SGA1 mentions fpqc descent for properness but not for projectivity.

David,

have a look at EGA II.6.6.5 giving you the result for finite extensions K/k.

Could you give the exact reference giving you the descent for strictly
transcendental extensions? Thanks.

Best wishes,
J.
Back to top
David Madore
science forum beginner


Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Posts: 24

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:04 pm    Post subject: descent for projectivity Reply with quote

I am looking for a reference for the following fact (assuming it is
true, or else the closest which can be found...):

If K/k is an arbitrary field extension, X an algebraic variety over k
such that X_K (extension of scalars from k to K) is projective, then
X is projective.

I believe I can prove it, though I haven't checked all details and
could possibly be wrong. A sketch of proof goes like this:

First, we can assume that K over k is of finite type (essentially by
EGA IV.Cool. So we can reduce to two cases: a purely transcendental
extension k(t)/k and a finite (algebraic) extension. In the former
case, again presumably by results in EGA IV.8 we can assume X is
projective over a non-empty open subset of Spec k[t], in which we
can find a closed point. So all reduces to the case of a finite
extension. By SGA1 exp VIII corollary 4.8 ("proper" descends by
fpqc base change), X is proper because X_K is proper (and Spec K ->
Spec k is fpqc). Now consider p: X_K -> X the projection morphism,
which is finite (hence proper) and (faithfully) flat: take D an
ample divisor on X_K, and let D' = p_*(D) its pushforward. Apply
the intersection formula (or whatever it's called) to compare
Y.p_*(D) with p^*(Y).D (if Y is a cycle in X) and the
Nakai-Moishezon criterion to prove that D' is ample.

This is all rather tedious (writing down all the details was too much
of a pain, I eventually gave up), and I'm surprised I can't find a
convenient reference for this statement which looks like a basic fact
every algebraic geometer would need eventually. It is strange that
SGA1 mentions fpqc descent for properness but not for projectivity.

--
David A. Madore
(david.madore@ens.fr,
http://www.dma.ens.fr/~madore/ )
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [4 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Sat Oct 21, 2017 3:56 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Math » Research
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts (Preconditioned) Steepest Descent Method MG1147 num-analysis 2 Fri Jun 16, 2006 4:09 pm
No new posts Averaging gradient descent method Sébastien Gadat Research 0 Fri Apr 14, 2006 1:00 pm
No new posts Averaging gradient descent method Sébastien Gadat Research 4 Fri Apr 14, 2006 1:00 pm
No new posts 4 descent needed Randall Math 1 Thu Jan 19, 2006 6:40 am
No new posts Fermat's Method of Infinite Descent lizzy2 Undergraduate 4 Thu Jan 05, 2006 12:50 am

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0244s ][ Queries: 20 (0.0040s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]