Why is $mathcal{O}_{V,W}$ a coordinate ring?
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I saw this claim: Let $Wsubset V$ be a codimension-$1$ irreducible subvariety of an $n$-dimensional normal, irreducible, affine variety $V$. Then $mathcal{O}_{V,W}$ — the coordinate ring at $W$— is a discrete valuation ring.
But why is $mathcal{O}_{V,W}$ a coordinate ring? A coordinate ring should be in the form of $k[x_1,...,x_n]/M$, but I can't see why is $mathcal{O}_{V,W}$ in that form? Also I feel confused with the definition of $mathcal{O}_{V,W}$.
algebraic-geometry
asked Nov 21 at 1:48
6666
1,212619
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I saw this claim: Let $Wsubset V$ be a codimension-$1$ irreducible subvariety of an $n$-dimensional normal, irreducible, affine variety $V$. Then $mathcal{O}_{V,W}$ — the coordinate ring at $W$— is a discrete valuation ring.
But why is $mathcal{O}_{V,W}$ a coordinate ring? A coordinate ring should be in the form of $k[x_1,...,x_n]/M$, but I can't see why is $mathcal{O}_{V,W}$ in that form? Also I feel confused with the definition of $mathcal{O}_{V,W}$.
algebraic-geometry
asked Nov 21 at 1:48
6666
1,212619
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I saw this claim: Let $Wsubset V$ be a codimension-$1$ irreducible subvariety of an $n$-dimensional normal, irreducible, affine variety $V$. Then $mathcal{O}_{V,W}$ — the coordinate ring at $W$— is a discrete valuation ring.
But why is $mathcal{O}_{V,W}$ a coordinate ring? A coordinate ring should be in the form of $k[x_1,...,x_n]/M$, but I can't see why is $mathcal{O}_{V,W}$ in that form? Also I feel confused with the definition of $mathcal{O}_{V,W}$.
algebraic-geometry
asked Nov 21 at 1:48
6666
1,212619
I saw this claim: Let $Wsubset V$ be a codimension-$1$ irreducible subvariety of an $n$-dimensional normal, irreducible, affine variety $V$. Then $mathcal{O}_{V,W}$ — the coordinate ring at $W$— is a discrete valuation ring.
But why is $mathcal{O}_{V,W}$ a coordinate ring? A coordinate ring should be in the form of $k[x_1,...,x_n]/M$, but I can't see why is $mathcal{O}_{V,W}$ in that form? Also I feel confused with the definition of $mathcal{O}_{V,W}$.
algebraic-geometry
algebraic-geometry
asked Nov 21 at 1:48
6666
1,212619
asked Nov 21 at 1:48
6666
1,212619
edited Nov 21 at 2:09
asked Nov 21 at 1:48
6666
1,212619
asked Nov 21 at 1:48
6666
1,212619
asked Nov 21 at 1:48
6666
1,212619
1,212619
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
I suspect the confusion is a matter of terminology. If $W$ is a subvariety of $V$, then the coordinate ring of $V$ at $W$ isn't actually the coordinate ring of any variety, but instead it's defined to be the localization of the coordinate ring of $V$ at the prime ideal corresponding to $W$. I.e., if let $A$ be the coordinate ring of $V$, and $mathfrak{p}$ be the prime ideal of $A$ corresponding to the irreducible subvariety $W$, then $mathcal{O}_{V,W}:=A_{mathfrak{p}}$.
This is usually called the local ring of $V$ at $W$ though, so this terminology does strike me as a bit odd.
answered Nov 21 at 2:14
jgon
9,81111638
So this is not related to the sheaf of regular functions, i.e. $mathcal{O}(V)$?
– 6666
Nov 21 at 2:29
1
Well, it's related, if you're familiar with sheaves, $mathcal{O}_{V,W}$ is the stalk of $mathcal{O}_V$ at the generic point of $W$.
– jgon
Nov 21 at 2:43
Just to complement the answer: if $i:Whookrightarrow V$ is the embedding of $W$ into $V$, the sheaf of regular functions of $W$ seen as a sheaf over $V$ is $i^*mathcal{O}_W$, or, abusing notation, $mathcal{O}_W$. This further shows that the notation is consistent. In this case the ring of regular functions of $W$ would again be $mathcal{O}_W(W)$.
– user347489
Nov 21 at 3:35
Is there a proof for that? can you tell any reference for a proof?
– 6666
Nov 21 at 6:58
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
I suspect the confusion is a matter of terminology. If $W$ is a subvariety of $V$, then the coordinate ring of $V$ at $W$ isn't actually the coordinate ring of any variety, but instead it's defined to be the localization of the coordinate ring of $V$ at the prime ideal corresponding to $W$. I.e., if let $A$ be the coordinate ring of $V$, and $mathfrak{p}$ be the prime ideal of $A$ corresponding to the irreducible subvariety $W$, then $mathcal{O}_{V,W}:=A_{mathfrak{p}}$.
This is usually called the local ring of $V$ at $W$ though, so this terminology does strike me as a bit odd.
answered Nov 21 at 2:14
jgon
9,81111638
So this is not related to the sheaf of regular functions, i.e. $mathcal{O}(V)$?
– 6666
Nov 21 at 2:29
1
Well, it's related, if you're familiar with sheaves, $mathcal{O}_{V,W}$ is the stalk of $mathcal{O}_V$ at the generic point of $W$.
– jgon
Nov 21 at 2:43
Just to complement the answer: if $i:Whookrightarrow V$ is the embedding of $W$ into $V$, the sheaf of regular functions of $W$ seen as a sheaf over $V$ is $i^*mathcal{O}_W$, or, abusing notation, $mathcal{O}_W$. This further shows that the notation is consistent. In this case the ring of regular functions of $W$ would again be $mathcal{O}_W(W)$.
– user347489
Nov 21 at 3:35
Is there a proof for that? can you tell any reference for a proof?
– 6666
Nov 21 at 6:58
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
I suspect the confusion is a matter of terminology. If $W$ is a subvariety of $V$, then the coordinate ring of $V$ at $W$ isn't actually the coordinate ring of any variety, but instead it's defined to be the localization of the coordinate ring of $V$ at the prime ideal corresponding to $W$. I.e., if let $A$ be the coordinate ring of $V$, and $mathfrak{p}$ be the prime ideal of $A$ corresponding to the irreducible subvariety $W$, then $mathcal{O}_{V,W}:=A_{mathfrak{p}}$.
This is usually called the local ring of $V$ at $W$ though, so this terminology does strike me as a bit odd.
answered Nov 21 at 2:14
jgon
9,81111638
So this is not related to the sheaf of regular functions, i.e. $mathcal{O}(V)$?
– 6666
Nov 21 at 2:29
1
Well, it's related, if you're familiar with sheaves, $mathcal{O}_{V,W}$ is the stalk of $mathcal{O}_V$ at the generic point of $W$.
– jgon
Nov 21 at 2:43
Just to complement the answer: if $i:Whookrightarrow V$ is the embedding of $W$ into $V$, the sheaf of regular functions of $W$ seen as a sheaf over $V$ is $i^*mathcal{O}_W$, or, abusing notation, $mathcal{O}_W$. This further shows that the notation is consistent. In this case the ring of regular functions of $W$ would again be $mathcal{O}_W(W)$.
– user347489
Nov 21 at 3:35
Is there a proof for that? can you tell any reference for a proof?
– 6666
Nov 21 at 6:58
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
I suspect the confusion is a matter of terminology. If $W$ is a subvariety of $V$, then the coordinate ring of $V$ at $W$ isn't actually the coordinate ring of any variety, but instead it's defined to be the localization of the coordinate ring of $V$ at the prime ideal corresponding to $W$. I.e., if let $A$ be the coordinate ring of $V$, and $mathfrak{p}$ be the prime ideal of $A$ corresponding to the irreducible subvariety $W$, then $mathcal{O}_{V,W}:=A_{mathfrak{p}}$.
This is usually called the local ring of $V$ at $W$ though, so this terminology does strike me as a bit odd.
answered Nov 21 at 2:14
jgon
9,81111638
I suspect the confusion is a matter of terminology. If $W$ is a subvariety of $V$, then the coordinate ring of $V$ at $W$ isn't actually the coordinate ring of any variety, but instead it's defined to be the localization of the coordinate ring of $V$ at the prime ideal corresponding to $W$. I.e., if let $A$ be the coordinate ring of $V$, and $mathfrak{p}$ be the prime ideal of $A$ corresponding to the irreducible subvariety $W$, then $mathcal{O}_{V,W}:=A_{mathfrak{p}}$.
This is usually called the local ring of $V$ at $W$ though, so this terminology does strike me as a bit odd.
answered Nov 21 at 2:14
jgon
9,81111638
answered Nov 21 at 2:14
jgon
9,81111638
answered Nov 21 at 2:14
jgon
9,81111638
answered Nov 21 at 2:14
jgon
9,81111638
9,81111638
So this is not related to the sheaf of regular functions, i.e. $mathcal{O}(V)$?
– 6666
Nov 21 at 2:29
1
Well, it's related, if you're familiar with sheaves, $mathcal{O}_{V,W}$ is the stalk of $mathcal{O}_V$ at the generic point of $W$.
– jgon
Nov 21 at 2:43
Just to complement the answer: if $i:Whookrightarrow V$ is the embedding of $W$ into $V$, the sheaf of regular functions of $W$ seen as a sheaf over $V$ is $i^*mathcal{O}_W$, or, abusing notation, $mathcal{O}_W$. This further shows that the notation is consistent. In this case the ring of regular functions of $W$ would again be $mathcal{O}_W(W)$.
– user347489
Nov 21 at 3:35
Is there a proof for that? can you tell any reference for a proof?
– 6666
Nov 21 at 6:58
add a comment |
So this is not related to the sheaf of regular functions, i.e. $mathcal{O}(V)$?
– 6666
Nov 21 at 2:29
1
Well, it's related, if you're familiar with sheaves, $mathcal{O}_{V,W}$ is the stalk of $mathcal{O}_V$ at the generic point of $W$.
– jgon
Nov 21 at 2:43
Just to complement the answer: if $i:Whookrightarrow V$ is the embedding of $W$ into $V$, the sheaf of regular functions of $W$ seen as a sheaf over $V$ is $i^*mathcal{O}_W$, or, abusing notation, $mathcal{O}_W$. This further shows that the notation is consistent. In this case the ring of regular functions of $W$ would again be $mathcal{O}_W(W)$.
– user347489
Nov 21 at 3:35
Is there a proof for that? can you tell any reference for a proof?
– 6666
Nov 21 at 6:58
So this is not related to the sheaf of regular functions, i.e. $mathcal{O}(V)$?
– 6666
Nov 21 at 2:29
So this is not related to the sheaf of regular functions, i.e. $mathcal{O}(V)$?
– 6666
Nov 21 at 2:29
1
1
Well, it's related, if you're familiar with sheaves, $mathcal{O}_{V,W}$ is the stalk of $mathcal{O}_V$ at the generic point of $W$.
– jgon
Nov 21 at 2:43
Well, it's related, if you're familiar with sheaves, $mathcal{O}_{V,W}$ is the stalk of $mathcal{O}_V$ at the generic point of $W$.
– jgon
Nov 21 at 2:43
Just to complement the answer: if $i:Whookrightarrow V$ is the embedding of $W$ into $V$, the sheaf of regular functions of $W$ seen as a sheaf over $V$ is $i^*mathcal{O}_W$, or, abusing notation, $mathcal{O}_W$. This further shows that the notation is consistent. In this case the ring of regular functions of $W$ would again be $mathcal{O}_W(W)$.
– user347489
Nov 21 at 3:35
Just to complement the answer: if $i:Whookrightarrow V$ is the embedding of $W$ into $V$, the sheaf of regular functions of $W$ seen as a sheaf over $V$ is $i^*mathcal{O}_W$, or, abusing notation, $mathcal{O}_W$. This further shows that the notation is consistent. In this case the ring of regular functions of $W$ would again be $mathcal{O}_W(W)$.
– user347489
Nov 21 at 3:35
Is there a proof for that? can you tell any reference for a proof?
– 6666
Nov 21 at 6:58
Is there a proof for that? can you tell any reference for a proof?
– 6666
Nov 21 at 6:58
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3007148%2fwhy-is-mathcalo-v-w-a-coordinate-ring%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
