Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory internal-categories k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorjonsterling
   • CommentTimeAug 29th 2020
   • (edited Aug 29th 2020)
   • PermaLink
   Author: jonsterling
   Format: MarkdownItexRegarding [this article](https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/closed+immersion+of+schemes), I noticed a few possible discrepancies that I was hoping someone could help me understand. 1. The page says that a closed immersion of schemes determines a homeomorphism of the underlying spaces. But Lurie instead says that it a homeomorphism onto a closed subspace. Could this be a typo? 2. This page states that the comorphism, oriented as $\mathcal{O}_Y\to f_*\mathcal{O}_X$, is an epimorphism; this agrees with the definition from classical scheme theory as far as I know. But Lurie instead requires $f^*\mathcal{O}_Y\to\mathcal{O}_X$ to be an epimorphism. The classic condition obviously implies Lurie's condition (using the fact that the inverse image functor preserves epis and the counit of the adjunction is an iso), but I did not see how to show the converse. I wonder what's going on here? Thanks in advance!

   Regarding this article, I noticed a few possible discrepancies that I was hoping someone could help me understand.

   1. The page says that a closed immersion of schemes determines a homeomorphism of the underlying spaces. But Lurie instead says that it a homeomorphism onto a closed subspace. Could this be a typo?

   2. This page states that the comorphism, oriented as $\mathcal{O}_Y\to f_*\mathcal{O}_X$, is an epimorphism; this agrees with the definition from classical scheme theory as far as I know. But Lurie instead requires $f^*\mathcal{O}_Y\to\mathcal{O}_X$ to be an epimorphism. The classic condition obviously implies Lurie’s condition (using the fact that the inverse image functor preserves epis and the counit of the adjunction is an iso), but I did not see how to show the converse.

   I wonder what’s going on here? Thanks in advance!

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeAug 30th 2020
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexI think for 1 Lurie is surely right. Rather than a typo, though, it might be attributable to an execrable old tradition whereby words like "isomorphism" always mean "isomorphism onto their image" rather than "isomorphism onto their codomain". I've heard this most commonly for "isometry" but I think sometimes it was used for "homeomorphism" and "diffeomorphism" too. I don't know enough algebraic geometry to speak to 2.

   I think for 1 Lurie is surely right. Rather than a typo, though, it might be attributable to an execrable old tradition whereby words like “isomorphism” always mean “isomorphism onto their image” rather than “isomorphism onto their codomain”. I’ve heard this most commonly for “isometry” but I think sometimes it was used for “homeomorphism” and “diffeomorphism” too.

   I don’t know enough algebraic geometry to speak to 2.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorjonsterling
   • CommentTimeAug 30th 2020
   • PermaLink
   Author: jonsterling
   Format: MarkdownItexHi Mike, thanks! I'll edit (1) to clarify. Regarding (2), I guess Lurie has developed quite a bit of the geometry of closed immersions of structured topoi in DAG IX so I would be extremely surprised if his definition was wrong --- though it is hard for me to understand how it restricts to the classic definition in the case of locally ringed spaces. There appears to be some cultural difference between Lurie's work (which most often speaks of properties of the comorphism phrased using inverse image) and traditional algebraic geometry, which speaks of properties of the comorphism transposed in terms of the direct image. For instance, Lurie has the beautiful account of local morphisms of locally ringed spaces in terms of certain naturality squares involving the inverse image phrasing being cartesian. But I would really benefit from a dictionary between these two styles, especially in cases where they seem (to me?) to not agree.

   Hi Mike, thanks! I’ll edit (1) to clarify.

   Regarding (2), I guess Lurie has developed quite a bit of the geometry of closed immersions of structured topoi in DAG IX so I would be extremely surprised if his definition was wrong — though it is hard for me to understand how it restricts to the classic definition in the case of locally ringed spaces.

   There appears to be some cultural difference between Lurie’s work (which most often speaks of properties of the comorphism phrased using inverse image) and traditional algebraic geometry, which speaks of properties of the comorphism transposed in terms of the direct image. For instance, Lurie has the beautiful account of local morphisms of locally ringed spaces in terms of certain naturality squares involving the inverse image phrasing being cartesian. But I would really benefit from a dictionary between these two styles, especially in cases where they seem (to me?) to not agree.