Irreducible of finite Krull dimension implies quasi-compact? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)A closed point in the closure of any point in the closure of any point of an irreducible schemeWhen is an irreducible scheme quasi-compact?not locally of finite type implies not universally closed?If $X,Y$ are regular and of finite type over $S$, can $Xtimes _S Y$ be embedded into a regular $S$-scheme? Krull dimension in equivariant cohomologyKrull dimension and Morley rankQuasi-finite morphisms of stacksQuasi-compactness of irreducible separated scheme locally of finite typeWhen does the image of a morphism of schemes support scheme structure?Sufficient condition for quasi-compactness of scheme morphismSchemes monomorphing into affine scheme of dimension 1

Irreducible of finite Krull dimension implies quasi-compact?



Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)A closed point in the closure of any point in the closure of any point of an irreducible schemeWhen is an irreducible scheme quasi-compact?not locally of finite type implies not universally closed?If $X,Y$ are regular and of finite type over $S$, can $Xtimes _S Y$ be embedded into a regular $S$-scheme? Krull dimension in equivariant cohomologyKrull dimension and Morley rankQuasi-finite morphisms of stacksQuasi-compactness of irreducible separated scheme locally of finite typeWhen does the image of a morphism of schemes support scheme structure?Sufficient condition for quasi-compactness of scheme morphismSchemes monomorphing into affine scheme of dimension 1










5












$begingroup$


Let $X$ be the underlying space of a scheme.



  • If $X$ is irreducible of finite Krull dimension, is it necessarily
    quasi-compact?

  • Is it necessarily Noetherian?

  • What if we assume not
    only that Krull dimension is finite but also that it is 1?









share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




schematic_ftm is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    a separated 1d example: Enumerate the primes: $p_1=2,p_2,...$. Let $R_n$ be the ring of rational numbers whose denominator is not divisible by the first $n$ primes $p_1,...,p_n$. This has spectrum with 1 generic point and $n$ closed points with local rings $mathbb Z_(p_i)$. Each ring is a localization of the next: $R_n=R_n+1[p_n+1^-1]$, so its spectrum is open in the next. Then $X=bigcup_n mathrmSpecR_n$ is a noncompact scheme with global sections $mathbb Z$. Clearly not $mathrmSpecmathbb Z$!
    $endgroup$
    – Ben Wieland
    4 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    A 2d example closer to practical geometry: Let $X_0=mathbb P^2$ and $p_0$ some point on it. Let $X_n+1$ be the blow-up of $X_n$ at $p_n$ and let $p_n+1in Dsubset X_n+1$ be some point of the exceptional divisor. Let $U_n=X_n-p_n$. Each is open in the next. So $U=bigcup U_n$ is a noncompact scheme... The inverse limit of the $X_n$ is probably a compact non-noetherian scheme with open set $U$... The sequence of $p_n$ specifies a 2d valuation ring, necessarily non-noetherian. It has compact spectrum, but the complement of the unique closed point is related to $U$, maybe even 1d.
    $endgroup$
    – Ben Wieland
    4 hours ago















5












$begingroup$


Let $X$ be the underlying space of a scheme.



  • If $X$ is irreducible of finite Krull dimension, is it necessarily
    quasi-compact?

  • Is it necessarily Noetherian?

  • What if we assume not
    only that Krull dimension is finite but also that it is 1?









share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




schematic_ftm is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    a separated 1d example: Enumerate the primes: $p_1=2,p_2,...$. Let $R_n$ be the ring of rational numbers whose denominator is not divisible by the first $n$ primes $p_1,...,p_n$. This has spectrum with 1 generic point and $n$ closed points with local rings $mathbb Z_(p_i)$. Each ring is a localization of the next: $R_n=R_n+1[p_n+1^-1]$, so its spectrum is open in the next. Then $X=bigcup_n mathrmSpecR_n$ is a noncompact scheme with global sections $mathbb Z$. Clearly not $mathrmSpecmathbb Z$!
    $endgroup$
    – Ben Wieland
    4 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    A 2d example closer to practical geometry: Let $X_0=mathbb P^2$ and $p_0$ some point on it. Let $X_n+1$ be the blow-up of $X_n$ at $p_n$ and let $p_n+1in Dsubset X_n+1$ be some point of the exceptional divisor. Let $U_n=X_n-p_n$. Each is open in the next. So $U=bigcup U_n$ is a noncompact scheme... The inverse limit of the $X_n$ is probably a compact non-noetherian scheme with open set $U$... The sequence of $p_n$ specifies a 2d valuation ring, necessarily non-noetherian. It has compact spectrum, but the complement of the unique closed point is related to $U$, maybe even 1d.
    $endgroup$
    – Ben Wieland
    4 hours ago













5












5








5





$begingroup$


Let $X$ be the underlying space of a scheme.



  • If $X$ is irreducible of finite Krull dimension, is it necessarily
    quasi-compact?

  • Is it necessarily Noetherian?

  • What if we assume not
    only that Krull dimension is finite but also that it is 1?









share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




schematic_ftm is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$




Let $X$ be the underlying space of a scheme.



  • If $X$ is irreducible of finite Krull dimension, is it necessarily
    quasi-compact?

  • Is it necessarily Noetherian?

  • What if we assume not
    only that Krull dimension is finite but also that it is 1?






at.algebraic-topology gn.general-topology schemes






share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




schematic_ftm is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




schematic_ftm is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 11 hours ago









András Bátkai

3,84142342




3,84142342






New contributor




schematic_ftm is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 11 hours ago









schematic_ftmschematic_ftm

261




261




New contributor




schematic_ftm is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





schematic_ftm is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






schematic_ftm is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











  • $begingroup$
    a separated 1d example: Enumerate the primes: $p_1=2,p_2,...$. Let $R_n$ be the ring of rational numbers whose denominator is not divisible by the first $n$ primes $p_1,...,p_n$. This has spectrum with 1 generic point and $n$ closed points with local rings $mathbb Z_(p_i)$. Each ring is a localization of the next: $R_n=R_n+1[p_n+1^-1]$, so its spectrum is open in the next. Then $X=bigcup_n mathrmSpecR_n$ is a noncompact scheme with global sections $mathbb Z$. Clearly not $mathrmSpecmathbb Z$!
    $endgroup$
    – Ben Wieland
    4 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    A 2d example closer to practical geometry: Let $X_0=mathbb P^2$ and $p_0$ some point on it. Let $X_n+1$ be the blow-up of $X_n$ at $p_n$ and let $p_n+1in Dsubset X_n+1$ be some point of the exceptional divisor. Let $U_n=X_n-p_n$. Each is open in the next. So $U=bigcup U_n$ is a noncompact scheme... The inverse limit of the $X_n$ is probably a compact non-noetherian scheme with open set $U$... The sequence of $p_n$ specifies a 2d valuation ring, necessarily non-noetherian. It has compact spectrum, but the complement of the unique closed point is related to $U$, maybe even 1d.
    $endgroup$
    – Ben Wieland
    4 hours ago
















  • $begingroup$
    a separated 1d example: Enumerate the primes: $p_1=2,p_2,...$. Let $R_n$ be the ring of rational numbers whose denominator is not divisible by the first $n$ primes $p_1,...,p_n$. This has spectrum with 1 generic point and $n$ closed points with local rings $mathbb Z_(p_i)$. Each ring is a localization of the next: $R_n=R_n+1[p_n+1^-1]$, so its spectrum is open in the next. Then $X=bigcup_n mathrmSpecR_n$ is a noncompact scheme with global sections $mathbb Z$. Clearly not $mathrmSpecmathbb Z$!
    $endgroup$
    – Ben Wieland
    4 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    A 2d example closer to practical geometry: Let $X_0=mathbb P^2$ and $p_0$ some point on it. Let $X_n+1$ be the blow-up of $X_n$ at $p_n$ and let $p_n+1in Dsubset X_n+1$ be some point of the exceptional divisor. Let $U_n=X_n-p_n$. Each is open in the next. So $U=bigcup U_n$ is a noncompact scheme... The inverse limit of the $X_n$ is probably a compact non-noetherian scheme with open set $U$... The sequence of $p_n$ specifies a 2d valuation ring, necessarily non-noetherian. It has compact spectrum, but the complement of the unique closed point is related to $U$, maybe even 1d.
    $endgroup$
    – Ben Wieland
    4 hours ago















$begingroup$
a separated 1d example: Enumerate the primes: $p_1=2,p_2,...$. Let $R_n$ be the ring of rational numbers whose denominator is not divisible by the first $n$ primes $p_1,...,p_n$. This has spectrum with 1 generic point and $n$ closed points with local rings $mathbb Z_(p_i)$. Each ring is a localization of the next: $R_n=R_n+1[p_n+1^-1]$, so its spectrum is open in the next. Then $X=bigcup_n mathrmSpecR_n$ is a noncompact scheme with global sections $mathbb Z$. Clearly not $mathrmSpecmathbb Z$!
$endgroup$
– Ben Wieland
4 hours ago





$begingroup$
a separated 1d example: Enumerate the primes: $p_1=2,p_2,...$. Let $R_n$ be the ring of rational numbers whose denominator is not divisible by the first $n$ primes $p_1,...,p_n$. This has spectrum with 1 generic point and $n$ closed points with local rings $mathbb Z_(p_i)$. Each ring is a localization of the next: $R_n=R_n+1[p_n+1^-1]$, so its spectrum is open in the next. Then $X=bigcup_n mathrmSpecR_n$ is a noncompact scheme with global sections $mathbb Z$. Clearly not $mathrmSpecmathbb Z$!
$endgroup$
– Ben Wieland
4 hours ago













$begingroup$
A 2d example closer to practical geometry: Let $X_0=mathbb P^2$ and $p_0$ some point on it. Let $X_n+1$ be the blow-up of $X_n$ at $p_n$ and let $p_n+1in Dsubset X_n+1$ be some point of the exceptional divisor. Let $U_n=X_n-p_n$. Each is open in the next. So $U=bigcup U_n$ is a noncompact scheme... The inverse limit of the $X_n$ is probably a compact non-noetherian scheme with open set $U$... The sequence of $p_n$ specifies a 2d valuation ring, necessarily non-noetherian. It has compact spectrum, but the complement of the unique closed point is related to $U$, maybe even 1d.
$endgroup$
– Ben Wieland
4 hours ago




$begingroup$
A 2d example closer to practical geometry: Let $X_0=mathbb P^2$ and $p_0$ some point on it. Let $X_n+1$ be the blow-up of $X_n$ at $p_n$ and let $p_n+1in Dsubset X_n+1$ be some point of the exceptional divisor. Let $U_n=X_n-p_n$. Each is open in the next. So $U=bigcup U_n$ is a noncompact scheme... The inverse limit of the $X_n$ is probably a compact non-noetherian scheme with open set $U$... The sequence of $p_n$ specifies a 2d valuation ring, necessarily non-noetherian. It has compact spectrum, but the complement of the unique closed point is related to $U$, maybe even 1d.
$endgroup$
– Ben Wieland
4 hours ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















10












$begingroup$

The answer is no for all these questions. Take the line with infinite origins: the scheme obtained by gluing an infinite amount of copies of $mathbbA^1$ along the open subsets $mathbbG_m$. This has Krull dimension 1 (there are only closed points and the unique generic point) and it is irreducible (the only proper nonempty closed subsets are the closed points) but it is not quasi-compact (it contains an infinite discrete set), and so in particular not Noetherian.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Denis Nardin, I am not sure about the second paragraph. I thought nilpotent thickening never affects the underlying topological space. So while your nilpotent thickening gives a non-locally Noetherian scheme, does it give a non-locally Noetherian space (about which is the question)?
    $endgroup$
    – Stepan Banach
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @StepanBanach Ah sorry, I was thinking of a non-Noetherian scheme. Let me correct it.
    $endgroup$
    – Denis Nardin
    10 hours ago











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "504"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);






schematic_ftm is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f328305%2firreducible-of-finite-krull-dimension-implies-quasi-compact%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









10












$begingroup$

The answer is no for all these questions. Take the line with infinite origins: the scheme obtained by gluing an infinite amount of copies of $mathbbA^1$ along the open subsets $mathbbG_m$. This has Krull dimension 1 (there are only closed points and the unique generic point) and it is irreducible (the only proper nonempty closed subsets are the closed points) but it is not quasi-compact (it contains an infinite discrete set), and so in particular not Noetherian.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Denis Nardin, I am not sure about the second paragraph. I thought nilpotent thickening never affects the underlying topological space. So while your nilpotent thickening gives a non-locally Noetherian scheme, does it give a non-locally Noetherian space (about which is the question)?
    $endgroup$
    – Stepan Banach
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @StepanBanach Ah sorry, I was thinking of a non-Noetherian scheme. Let me correct it.
    $endgroup$
    – Denis Nardin
    10 hours ago















10












$begingroup$

The answer is no for all these questions. Take the line with infinite origins: the scheme obtained by gluing an infinite amount of copies of $mathbbA^1$ along the open subsets $mathbbG_m$. This has Krull dimension 1 (there are only closed points and the unique generic point) and it is irreducible (the only proper nonempty closed subsets are the closed points) but it is not quasi-compact (it contains an infinite discrete set), and so in particular not Noetherian.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Denis Nardin, I am not sure about the second paragraph. I thought nilpotent thickening never affects the underlying topological space. So while your nilpotent thickening gives a non-locally Noetherian scheme, does it give a non-locally Noetherian space (about which is the question)?
    $endgroup$
    – Stepan Banach
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @StepanBanach Ah sorry, I was thinking of a non-Noetherian scheme. Let me correct it.
    $endgroup$
    – Denis Nardin
    10 hours ago













10












10








10





$begingroup$

The answer is no for all these questions. Take the line with infinite origins: the scheme obtained by gluing an infinite amount of copies of $mathbbA^1$ along the open subsets $mathbbG_m$. This has Krull dimension 1 (there are only closed points and the unique generic point) and it is irreducible (the only proper nonempty closed subsets are the closed points) but it is not quasi-compact (it contains an infinite discrete set), and so in particular not Noetherian.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



The answer is no for all these questions. Take the line with infinite origins: the scheme obtained by gluing an infinite amount of copies of $mathbbA^1$ along the open subsets $mathbbG_m$. This has Krull dimension 1 (there are only closed points and the unique generic point) and it is irreducible (the only proper nonempty closed subsets are the closed points) but it is not quasi-compact (it contains an infinite discrete set), and so in particular not Noetherian.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited 10 hours ago

























answered 11 hours ago









Denis NardinDenis Nardin

9,17223565




9,17223565







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Denis Nardin, I am not sure about the second paragraph. I thought nilpotent thickening never affects the underlying topological space. So while your nilpotent thickening gives a non-locally Noetherian scheme, does it give a non-locally Noetherian space (about which is the question)?
    $endgroup$
    – Stepan Banach
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @StepanBanach Ah sorry, I was thinking of a non-Noetherian scheme. Let me correct it.
    $endgroup$
    – Denis Nardin
    10 hours ago












  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Denis Nardin, I am not sure about the second paragraph. I thought nilpotent thickening never affects the underlying topological space. So while your nilpotent thickening gives a non-locally Noetherian scheme, does it give a non-locally Noetherian space (about which is the question)?
    $endgroup$
    – Stepan Banach
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @StepanBanach Ah sorry, I was thinking of a non-Noetherian scheme. Let me correct it.
    $endgroup$
    – Denis Nardin
    10 hours ago







1




1




$begingroup$
Denis Nardin, I am not sure about the second paragraph. I thought nilpotent thickening never affects the underlying topological space. So while your nilpotent thickening gives a non-locally Noetherian scheme, does it give a non-locally Noetherian space (about which is the question)?
$endgroup$
– Stepan Banach
10 hours ago




$begingroup$
Denis Nardin, I am not sure about the second paragraph. I thought nilpotent thickening never affects the underlying topological space. So while your nilpotent thickening gives a non-locally Noetherian scheme, does it give a non-locally Noetherian space (about which is the question)?
$endgroup$
– Stepan Banach
10 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
@StepanBanach Ah sorry, I was thinking of a non-Noetherian scheme. Let me correct it.
$endgroup$
– Denis Nardin
10 hours ago




$begingroup$
@StepanBanach Ah sorry, I was thinking of a non-Noetherian scheme. Let me correct it.
$endgroup$
– Denis Nardin
10 hours ago










schematic_ftm is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









draft saved

draft discarded


















schematic_ftm is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












schematic_ftm is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











schematic_ftm is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f328305%2firreducible-of-finite-krull-dimension-implies-quasi-compact%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

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







-at.algebraic-topology, gn.general-topology, schemes

Popular posts from this blog

Creating 100m^2 grid automatically using QGIS?Creating grid constrained within polygon in QGIS?Createing polygon layer from point data using QGIS?Creating vector grid using QGIS?Creating grid polygons from coordinates using R or PythonCreating grid from spatio temporal point data?Creating fields in attributes table using other layers using QGISCreate .shp vector grid in QGISQGIS Creating 4km point grid within polygonsCreate a vector grid over a raster layerVector Grid Creates just one grid

Nikolai Prilezhaev Bibliography References External links Navigation menuEarly Russian Organic Chemists and Their Legacy092774english translationRussian Biography

How to link a C library to an Assembly library on Mac with clangHow do you set, clear, and toggle a single bit?Find (and kill) process locking port 3000 on MacWho is listening on a given TCP port on Mac OS X?How to start PostgreSQL server on Mac OS X?Compile assembler in nasm on mac osHow do I install pip on macOS or OS X?AFNetworking 2.0 “_NSURLSessionTransferSizeUnknown” linking error on Mac OS X 10.8C++ code for testing the Collatz conjecture faster than hand-written assembly - why?How to link a NASM code and GCC in Mac OS X?How to run x86 .asm on macOS Sierra