On limits, schemes and Spec functor

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
19
down vote

favorite
18












I have several related questions:



Do there exist colimits in the category of schemes? If not, do there exist just direct limits? Do there exist limits? If not, do there exist just inverse limits? With more generality and summarizing, with which generality there exist limits and colimits in Schemes?



Then, if I have a colimit of rings, its Spec is a limit in the category of affine schemes. Is it so in the category of all schemes? If not, whith which generality, that is, what kinds of colimits does Spec transform to limits?



And does Spec transform limits into colimits? If not, whith which generality, that is, what kinds of limits does Spec transform to colimits?







share|cite|improve this question


















  • 1




    part of the point of schemes is to form limits of rings as colimits of schemes. morally at least.
    – Sean Tilson
    Jan 27 '12 at 15:45














up vote
19
down vote

favorite
18












I have several related questions:



Do there exist colimits in the category of schemes? If not, do there exist just direct limits? Do there exist limits? If not, do there exist just inverse limits? With more generality and summarizing, with which generality there exist limits and colimits in Schemes?



Then, if I have a colimit of rings, its Spec is a limit in the category of affine schemes. Is it so in the category of all schemes? If not, whith which generality, that is, what kinds of colimits does Spec transform to limits?



And does Spec transform limits into colimits? If not, whith which generality, that is, what kinds of limits does Spec transform to colimits?







share|cite|improve this question


















  • 1




    part of the point of schemes is to form limits of rings as colimits of schemes. morally at least.
    – Sean Tilson
    Jan 27 '12 at 15:45












up vote
19
down vote

favorite
18









up vote
19
down vote

favorite
18






18





I have several related questions:



Do there exist colimits in the category of schemes? If not, do there exist just direct limits? Do there exist limits? If not, do there exist just inverse limits? With more generality and summarizing, with which generality there exist limits and colimits in Schemes?



Then, if I have a colimit of rings, its Spec is a limit in the category of affine schemes. Is it so in the category of all schemes? If not, whith which generality, that is, what kinds of colimits does Spec transform to limits?



And does Spec transform limits into colimits? If not, whith which generality, that is, what kinds of limits does Spec transform to colimits?







share|cite|improve this question














I have several related questions:



Do there exist colimits in the category of schemes? If not, do there exist just direct limits? Do there exist limits? If not, do there exist just inverse limits? With more generality and summarizing, with which generality there exist limits and colimits in Schemes?



Then, if I have a colimit of rings, its Spec is a limit in the category of affine schemes. Is it so in the category of all schemes? If not, whith which generality, that is, what kinds of colimits does Spec transform to limits?



And does Spec transform limits into colimits? If not, whith which generality, that is, what kinds of limits does Spec transform to colimits?









share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Aug 19 at 8:58









Daniel Fischer♦

172k16155276




172k16155276










asked Jan 27 '12 at 14:57









iago

416213




416213







  • 1




    part of the point of schemes is to form limits of rings as colimits of schemes. morally at least.
    – Sean Tilson
    Jan 27 '12 at 15:45












  • 1




    part of the point of schemes is to form limits of rings as colimits of schemes. morally at least.
    – Sean Tilson
    Jan 27 '12 at 15:45







1




1




part of the point of schemes is to form limits of rings as colimits of schemes. morally at least.
– Sean Tilson
Jan 27 '12 at 15:45




part of the point of schemes is to form limits of rings as colimits of schemes. morally at least.
– Sean Tilson
Jan 27 '12 at 15:45










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
24
down vote













1) Of course there is the important gluing lemma for schemes which says that certain pushouts along open immersions exist. But the category of schemes has not all colimits, see MO/9961.



2) The category of schemes has not all limits, see MO/9134 and MO/65506.



3) In contrast to 1) and 2), the category of locally ringed spaces (as well as the category of ringed spaces) has all limits and all colimits. See the paper by Gilliam on localization of ringed spaces, as well as Prop. I.1.6. in Groupes algebriques by Demazure-Gabriel.



4) $mathrmSpec : mathsfCRing^mathrmop to mathsfSch$ is right adjoint to the functor of global sections, therefore it preserves all limits. In particular, limits of affine schemes always exist, and their coordinate ring is just the colimit of the coordinate rings. For example, the limit of $dotsc to mathbbA^2_k to mathbbA^1_k to mathbbA^0_k$ is $mathbbA^infty_k = mathrmSpec(k[x_1,x_2,dotsc])$.



5) More generally, for an arbitrary base scheme $S$, the functor $mathrmSpec : mathsfqcAlg(S)^mathrmop to mathsfSch/S$, which sends a quasi-coherent algebra on $S$ to its relative spectrum, is left adjoint to the functor which sends $p : T to S$ to $p_* mathcalO_T$, and induces an anti-equivalence of categories between quasi-coherent algebras on $S$ and the category of affine $S$-schemes. Hence, limits of affine $S$-schemes exist in the category of all $S$-schemes, are affine, and correspond to the colimit of the corresponding quasi-coherent algebras. This is quite useful and used often in conjunction with the Noetherian Approximation Theorem: If $S$ is noetherian, every quasi-compact quasi-separated $S$-scheme is a directed limit of noetherian $S$-schemes with affine transition morphisms. These directed limits are preserved by the forgetful functor to topological spaces. Details can be found in EGA.



6) $mathrmSpec$ does not preserve colimits, i.e. the spectrum of a limit of rings is not the colimit of the spectra of the rings. For example, $mathrmSpecleft(prod_i in I mathbbF_2right)$ can be identified with the space of ultrafilters on $I$, and only the small part of principal ultrafilters on $I$ constitutes $coprod_i in I mathrmSpec(mathbbF_2)$.



7) Some colimits are preserved: The initial object, and more generally finite coproducts. Also, if $A to C$ is a surjective ring homomorphism, and $B to C$ is an arbitrary ring homomorphism, then $mathrmSpec(A times_C B)=mathrmSpec(A) cup_mathrmSpec(C) mathrmSpec(B)$, and the forgetful functor to ringed spaces preserves this pushout. More generally, when $Z to X$ and $Z' to X$ are closed immersions, then the pushout $Z cup_X Z'$ exists, and it is preserved by the forgetful functor to ringed spaces. See Schwedes paper on glueing schemes.






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • Excellent summary! And perhaps you could add something about fpqc descent as well.
    – Zhen Lin
    Feb 4 '13 at 19:39










  • What does fpqc descent have to do with limits or colimits of schemes? Doesn't it say that the category of qc sheaves on a scheme below is the limit of the categories of qc sheaves above? Perhaps you can clarifiy this is an additional answer :).
    – Martin Brandenburg
    Feb 4 '13 at 19:50











  • If I understand correctly, one of the steps in proving the fpqc descent theorem is showing that the representable presheaves are fpqc sheaves, and the main step in that is showing that the equaliser/cokernel pair diagram of a faithfully flat ring extension $B to E$ is sent to a coequaliser/kernel pair diagram of $operatornameSpec E to operatornameSpec B$ in $textbfSch$.
    – Zhen Lin
    Feb 4 '13 at 20:13











  • This is a rather old question. But, actually, the spectrum is not left adjoint to the global sections since it does not preserve colimits. The problem is that $textHom(X, textSpec (A)) cong textHom (A, Gamma (X))$ is inverted.
    – user40276
    Aug 3 '15 at 10:14










  • Have you read my definition of the spectrum functor? It is defined on $CRing^op$.
    – Martin Brandenburg
    Aug 3 '15 at 10:18










Your Answer




StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
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',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);








 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f102973%2fon-limits-schemes-and-spec-functor%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest






























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
24
down vote













1) Of course there is the important gluing lemma for schemes which says that certain pushouts along open immersions exist. But the category of schemes has not all colimits, see MO/9961.



2) The category of schemes has not all limits, see MO/9134 and MO/65506.



3) In contrast to 1) and 2), the category of locally ringed spaces (as well as the category of ringed spaces) has all limits and all colimits. See the paper by Gilliam on localization of ringed spaces, as well as Prop. I.1.6. in Groupes algebriques by Demazure-Gabriel.



4) $mathrmSpec : mathsfCRing^mathrmop to mathsfSch$ is right adjoint to the functor of global sections, therefore it preserves all limits. In particular, limits of affine schemes always exist, and their coordinate ring is just the colimit of the coordinate rings. For example, the limit of $dotsc to mathbbA^2_k to mathbbA^1_k to mathbbA^0_k$ is $mathbbA^infty_k = mathrmSpec(k[x_1,x_2,dotsc])$.



5) More generally, for an arbitrary base scheme $S$, the functor $mathrmSpec : mathsfqcAlg(S)^mathrmop to mathsfSch/S$, which sends a quasi-coherent algebra on $S$ to its relative spectrum, is left adjoint to the functor which sends $p : T to S$ to $p_* mathcalO_T$, and induces an anti-equivalence of categories between quasi-coherent algebras on $S$ and the category of affine $S$-schemes. Hence, limits of affine $S$-schemes exist in the category of all $S$-schemes, are affine, and correspond to the colimit of the corresponding quasi-coherent algebras. This is quite useful and used often in conjunction with the Noetherian Approximation Theorem: If $S$ is noetherian, every quasi-compact quasi-separated $S$-scheme is a directed limit of noetherian $S$-schemes with affine transition morphisms. These directed limits are preserved by the forgetful functor to topological spaces. Details can be found in EGA.



6) $mathrmSpec$ does not preserve colimits, i.e. the spectrum of a limit of rings is not the colimit of the spectra of the rings. For example, $mathrmSpecleft(prod_i in I mathbbF_2right)$ can be identified with the space of ultrafilters on $I$, and only the small part of principal ultrafilters on $I$ constitutes $coprod_i in I mathrmSpec(mathbbF_2)$.



7) Some colimits are preserved: The initial object, and more generally finite coproducts. Also, if $A to C$ is a surjective ring homomorphism, and $B to C$ is an arbitrary ring homomorphism, then $mathrmSpec(A times_C B)=mathrmSpec(A) cup_mathrmSpec(C) mathrmSpec(B)$, and the forgetful functor to ringed spaces preserves this pushout. More generally, when $Z to X$ and $Z' to X$ are closed immersions, then the pushout $Z cup_X Z'$ exists, and it is preserved by the forgetful functor to ringed spaces. See Schwedes paper on glueing schemes.






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • Excellent summary! And perhaps you could add something about fpqc descent as well.
    – Zhen Lin
    Feb 4 '13 at 19:39










  • What does fpqc descent have to do with limits or colimits of schemes? Doesn't it say that the category of qc sheaves on a scheme below is the limit of the categories of qc sheaves above? Perhaps you can clarifiy this is an additional answer :).
    – Martin Brandenburg
    Feb 4 '13 at 19:50











  • If I understand correctly, one of the steps in proving the fpqc descent theorem is showing that the representable presheaves are fpqc sheaves, and the main step in that is showing that the equaliser/cokernel pair diagram of a faithfully flat ring extension $B to E$ is sent to a coequaliser/kernel pair diagram of $operatornameSpec E to operatornameSpec B$ in $textbfSch$.
    – Zhen Lin
    Feb 4 '13 at 20:13











  • This is a rather old question. But, actually, the spectrum is not left adjoint to the global sections since it does not preserve colimits. The problem is that $textHom(X, textSpec (A)) cong textHom (A, Gamma (X))$ is inverted.
    – user40276
    Aug 3 '15 at 10:14










  • Have you read my definition of the spectrum functor? It is defined on $CRing^op$.
    – Martin Brandenburg
    Aug 3 '15 at 10:18














up vote
24
down vote













1) Of course there is the important gluing lemma for schemes which says that certain pushouts along open immersions exist. But the category of schemes has not all colimits, see MO/9961.



2) The category of schemes has not all limits, see MO/9134 and MO/65506.



3) In contrast to 1) and 2), the category of locally ringed spaces (as well as the category of ringed spaces) has all limits and all colimits. See the paper by Gilliam on localization of ringed spaces, as well as Prop. I.1.6. in Groupes algebriques by Demazure-Gabriel.



4) $mathrmSpec : mathsfCRing^mathrmop to mathsfSch$ is right adjoint to the functor of global sections, therefore it preserves all limits. In particular, limits of affine schemes always exist, and their coordinate ring is just the colimit of the coordinate rings. For example, the limit of $dotsc to mathbbA^2_k to mathbbA^1_k to mathbbA^0_k$ is $mathbbA^infty_k = mathrmSpec(k[x_1,x_2,dotsc])$.



5) More generally, for an arbitrary base scheme $S$, the functor $mathrmSpec : mathsfqcAlg(S)^mathrmop to mathsfSch/S$, which sends a quasi-coherent algebra on $S$ to its relative spectrum, is left adjoint to the functor which sends $p : T to S$ to $p_* mathcalO_T$, and induces an anti-equivalence of categories between quasi-coherent algebras on $S$ and the category of affine $S$-schemes. Hence, limits of affine $S$-schemes exist in the category of all $S$-schemes, are affine, and correspond to the colimit of the corresponding quasi-coherent algebras. This is quite useful and used often in conjunction with the Noetherian Approximation Theorem: If $S$ is noetherian, every quasi-compact quasi-separated $S$-scheme is a directed limit of noetherian $S$-schemes with affine transition morphisms. These directed limits are preserved by the forgetful functor to topological spaces. Details can be found in EGA.



6) $mathrmSpec$ does not preserve colimits, i.e. the spectrum of a limit of rings is not the colimit of the spectra of the rings. For example, $mathrmSpecleft(prod_i in I mathbbF_2right)$ can be identified with the space of ultrafilters on $I$, and only the small part of principal ultrafilters on $I$ constitutes $coprod_i in I mathrmSpec(mathbbF_2)$.



7) Some colimits are preserved: The initial object, and more generally finite coproducts. Also, if $A to C$ is a surjective ring homomorphism, and $B to C$ is an arbitrary ring homomorphism, then $mathrmSpec(A times_C B)=mathrmSpec(A) cup_mathrmSpec(C) mathrmSpec(B)$, and the forgetful functor to ringed spaces preserves this pushout. More generally, when $Z to X$ and $Z' to X$ are closed immersions, then the pushout $Z cup_X Z'$ exists, and it is preserved by the forgetful functor to ringed spaces. See Schwedes paper on glueing schemes.






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • Excellent summary! And perhaps you could add something about fpqc descent as well.
    – Zhen Lin
    Feb 4 '13 at 19:39










  • What does fpqc descent have to do with limits or colimits of schemes? Doesn't it say that the category of qc sheaves on a scheme below is the limit of the categories of qc sheaves above? Perhaps you can clarifiy this is an additional answer :).
    – Martin Brandenburg
    Feb 4 '13 at 19:50











  • If I understand correctly, one of the steps in proving the fpqc descent theorem is showing that the representable presheaves are fpqc sheaves, and the main step in that is showing that the equaliser/cokernel pair diagram of a faithfully flat ring extension $B to E$ is sent to a coequaliser/kernel pair diagram of $operatornameSpec E to operatornameSpec B$ in $textbfSch$.
    – Zhen Lin
    Feb 4 '13 at 20:13











  • This is a rather old question. But, actually, the spectrum is not left adjoint to the global sections since it does not preserve colimits. The problem is that $textHom(X, textSpec (A)) cong textHom (A, Gamma (X))$ is inverted.
    – user40276
    Aug 3 '15 at 10:14










  • Have you read my definition of the spectrum functor? It is defined on $CRing^op$.
    – Martin Brandenburg
    Aug 3 '15 at 10:18












up vote
24
down vote










up vote
24
down vote









1) Of course there is the important gluing lemma for schemes which says that certain pushouts along open immersions exist. But the category of schemes has not all colimits, see MO/9961.



2) The category of schemes has not all limits, see MO/9134 and MO/65506.



3) In contrast to 1) and 2), the category of locally ringed spaces (as well as the category of ringed spaces) has all limits and all colimits. See the paper by Gilliam on localization of ringed spaces, as well as Prop. I.1.6. in Groupes algebriques by Demazure-Gabriel.



4) $mathrmSpec : mathsfCRing^mathrmop to mathsfSch$ is right adjoint to the functor of global sections, therefore it preserves all limits. In particular, limits of affine schemes always exist, and their coordinate ring is just the colimit of the coordinate rings. For example, the limit of $dotsc to mathbbA^2_k to mathbbA^1_k to mathbbA^0_k$ is $mathbbA^infty_k = mathrmSpec(k[x_1,x_2,dotsc])$.



5) More generally, for an arbitrary base scheme $S$, the functor $mathrmSpec : mathsfqcAlg(S)^mathrmop to mathsfSch/S$, which sends a quasi-coherent algebra on $S$ to its relative spectrum, is left adjoint to the functor which sends $p : T to S$ to $p_* mathcalO_T$, and induces an anti-equivalence of categories between quasi-coherent algebras on $S$ and the category of affine $S$-schemes. Hence, limits of affine $S$-schemes exist in the category of all $S$-schemes, are affine, and correspond to the colimit of the corresponding quasi-coherent algebras. This is quite useful and used often in conjunction with the Noetherian Approximation Theorem: If $S$ is noetherian, every quasi-compact quasi-separated $S$-scheme is a directed limit of noetherian $S$-schemes with affine transition morphisms. These directed limits are preserved by the forgetful functor to topological spaces. Details can be found in EGA.



6) $mathrmSpec$ does not preserve colimits, i.e. the spectrum of a limit of rings is not the colimit of the spectra of the rings. For example, $mathrmSpecleft(prod_i in I mathbbF_2right)$ can be identified with the space of ultrafilters on $I$, and only the small part of principal ultrafilters on $I$ constitutes $coprod_i in I mathrmSpec(mathbbF_2)$.



7) Some colimits are preserved: The initial object, and more generally finite coproducts. Also, if $A to C$ is a surjective ring homomorphism, and $B to C$ is an arbitrary ring homomorphism, then $mathrmSpec(A times_C B)=mathrmSpec(A) cup_mathrmSpec(C) mathrmSpec(B)$, and the forgetful functor to ringed spaces preserves this pushout. More generally, when $Z to X$ and $Z' to X$ are closed immersions, then the pushout $Z cup_X Z'$ exists, and it is preserved by the forgetful functor to ringed spaces. See Schwedes paper on glueing schemes.






share|cite|improve this answer














1) Of course there is the important gluing lemma for schemes which says that certain pushouts along open immersions exist. But the category of schemes has not all colimits, see MO/9961.



2) The category of schemes has not all limits, see MO/9134 and MO/65506.



3) In contrast to 1) and 2), the category of locally ringed spaces (as well as the category of ringed spaces) has all limits and all colimits. See the paper by Gilliam on localization of ringed spaces, as well as Prop. I.1.6. in Groupes algebriques by Demazure-Gabriel.



4) $mathrmSpec : mathsfCRing^mathrmop to mathsfSch$ is right adjoint to the functor of global sections, therefore it preserves all limits. In particular, limits of affine schemes always exist, and their coordinate ring is just the colimit of the coordinate rings. For example, the limit of $dotsc to mathbbA^2_k to mathbbA^1_k to mathbbA^0_k$ is $mathbbA^infty_k = mathrmSpec(k[x_1,x_2,dotsc])$.



5) More generally, for an arbitrary base scheme $S$, the functor $mathrmSpec : mathsfqcAlg(S)^mathrmop to mathsfSch/S$, which sends a quasi-coherent algebra on $S$ to its relative spectrum, is left adjoint to the functor which sends $p : T to S$ to $p_* mathcalO_T$, and induces an anti-equivalence of categories between quasi-coherent algebras on $S$ and the category of affine $S$-schemes. Hence, limits of affine $S$-schemes exist in the category of all $S$-schemes, are affine, and correspond to the colimit of the corresponding quasi-coherent algebras. This is quite useful and used often in conjunction with the Noetherian Approximation Theorem: If $S$ is noetherian, every quasi-compact quasi-separated $S$-scheme is a directed limit of noetherian $S$-schemes with affine transition morphisms. These directed limits are preserved by the forgetful functor to topological spaces. Details can be found in EGA.



6) $mathrmSpec$ does not preserve colimits, i.e. the spectrum of a limit of rings is not the colimit of the spectra of the rings. For example, $mathrmSpecleft(prod_i in I mathbbF_2right)$ can be identified with the space of ultrafilters on $I$, and only the small part of principal ultrafilters on $I$ constitutes $coprod_i in I mathrmSpec(mathbbF_2)$.



7) Some colimits are preserved: The initial object, and more generally finite coproducts. Also, if $A to C$ is a surjective ring homomorphism, and $B to C$ is an arbitrary ring homomorphism, then $mathrmSpec(A times_C B)=mathrmSpec(A) cup_mathrmSpec(C) mathrmSpec(B)$, and the forgetful functor to ringed spaces preserves this pushout. More generally, when $Z to X$ and $Z' to X$ are closed immersions, then the pushout $Z cup_X Z'$ exists, and it is preserved by the forgetful functor to ringed spaces. See Schwedes paper on glueing schemes.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:58









Community♦

1




1










answered Feb 4 '13 at 19:21









Martin Brandenburg

105k13150318




105k13150318











  • Excellent summary! And perhaps you could add something about fpqc descent as well.
    – Zhen Lin
    Feb 4 '13 at 19:39










  • What does fpqc descent have to do with limits or colimits of schemes? Doesn't it say that the category of qc sheaves on a scheme below is the limit of the categories of qc sheaves above? Perhaps you can clarifiy this is an additional answer :).
    – Martin Brandenburg
    Feb 4 '13 at 19:50











  • If I understand correctly, one of the steps in proving the fpqc descent theorem is showing that the representable presheaves are fpqc sheaves, and the main step in that is showing that the equaliser/cokernel pair diagram of a faithfully flat ring extension $B to E$ is sent to a coequaliser/kernel pair diagram of $operatornameSpec E to operatornameSpec B$ in $textbfSch$.
    – Zhen Lin
    Feb 4 '13 at 20:13











  • This is a rather old question. But, actually, the spectrum is not left adjoint to the global sections since it does not preserve colimits. The problem is that $textHom(X, textSpec (A)) cong textHom (A, Gamma (X))$ is inverted.
    – user40276
    Aug 3 '15 at 10:14










  • Have you read my definition of the spectrum functor? It is defined on $CRing^op$.
    – Martin Brandenburg
    Aug 3 '15 at 10:18
















  • Excellent summary! And perhaps you could add something about fpqc descent as well.
    – Zhen Lin
    Feb 4 '13 at 19:39










  • What does fpqc descent have to do with limits or colimits of schemes? Doesn't it say that the category of qc sheaves on a scheme below is the limit of the categories of qc sheaves above? Perhaps you can clarifiy this is an additional answer :).
    – Martin Brandenburg
    Feb 4 '13 at 19:50











  • If I understand correctly, one of the steps in proving the fpqc descent theorem is showing that the representable presheaves are fpqc sheaves, and the main step in that is showing that the equaliser/cokernel pair diagram of a faithfully flat ring extension $B to E$ is sent to a coequaliser/kernel pair diagram of $operatornameSpec E to operatornameSpec B$ in $textbfSch$.
    – Zhen Lin
    Feb 4 '13 at 20:13











  • This is a rather old question. But, actually, the spectrum is not left adjoint to the global sections since it does not preserve colimits. The problem is that $textHom(X, textSpec (A)) cong textHom (A, Gamma (X))$ is inverted.
    – user40276
    Aug 3 '15 at 10:14










  • Have you read my definition of the spectrum functor? It is defined on $CRing^op$.
    – Martin Brandenburg
    Aug 3 '15 at 10:18















Excellent summary! And perhaps you could add something about fpqc descent as well.
– Zhen Lin
Feb 4 '13 at 19:39




Excellent summary! And perhaps you could add something about fpqc descent as well.
– Zhen Lin
Feb 4 '13 at 19:39












What does fpqc descent have to do with limits or colimits of schemes? Doesn't it say that the category of qc sheaves on a scheme below is the limit of the categories of qc sheaves above? Perhaps you can clarifiy this is an additional answer :).
– Martin Brandenburg
Feb 4 '13 at 19:50





What does fpqc descent have to do with limits or colimits of schemes? Doesn't it say that the category of qc sheaves on a scheme below is the limit of the categories of qc sheaves above? Perhaps you can clarifiy this is an additional answer :).
– Martin Brandenburg
Feb 4 '13 at 19:50













If I understand correctly, one of the steps in proving the fpqc descent theorem is showing that the representable presheaves are fpqc sheaves, and the main step in that is showing that the equaliser/cokernel pair diagram of a faithfully flat ring extension $B to E$ is sent to a coequaliser/kernel pair diagram of $operatornameSpec E to operatornameSpec B$ in $textbfSch$.
– Zhen Lin
Feb 4 '13 at 20:13





If I understand correctly, one of the steps in proving the fpqc descent theorem is showing that the representable presheaves are fpqc sheaves, and the main step in that is showing that the equaliser/cokernel pair diagram of a faithfully flat ring extension $B to E$ is sent to a coequaliser/kernel pair diagram of $operatornameSpec E to operatornameSpec B$ in $textbfSch$.
– Zhen Lin
Feb 4 '13 at 20:13













This is a rather old question. But, actually, the spectrum is not left adjoint to the global sections since it does not preserve colimits. The problem is that $textHom(X, textSpec (A)) cong textHom (A, Gamma (X))$ is inverted.
– user40276
Aug 3 '15 at 10:14




This is a rather old question. But, actually, the spectrum is not left adjoint to the global sections since it does not preserve colimits. The problem is that $textHom(X, textSpec (A)) cong textHom (A, Gamma (X))$ is inverted.
– user40276
Aug 3 '15 at 10:14












Have you read my definition of the spectrum functor? It is defined on $CRing^op$.
– Martin Brandenburg
Aug 3 '15 at 10:18




Have you read my definition of the spectrum functor? It is defined on $CRing^op$.
– Martin Brandenburg
Aug 3 '15 at 10:18












 

draft saved


draft discarded


























 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f102973%2fon-limits-schemes-and-spec-functor%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest













































































這個網誌中的熱門文章

How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

Mutual Information Always Non-negative

Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?