The set of morphism from a tensor product to an certain ring

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











up vote
6
down vote

favorite
1












When we try to prove the existence of fibre product in affine case, we use the following formula stacks project:
$$newcommandHommathrmHomnewcommandMormathrmHomnewcommandSpecmathrmSpec
begineqnarray
Mor(X, Spec(A otimes_R B))& = &
Hom(A otimes_R B, mathcalO_X(X)) \
& = &Hom(A, mathcalO_X(X))
times_Hom(R, mathcalO_X(X))
Hom(B, mathcalO_X(X)) \
& = & Mor(X, Spec(A))times_Mor(X, Spec(R))Mor(X, Spec(B))
endeqnarray
$$



My questions are:



  1. I don't know how do we derive the second formula.


  2. Moreover, some part of the third equality is also confusing to me. I know


$$Hom(A, mathcalO_X(X))=Mor(X, Spec(A))$$
But what does the "fibre product" (in category of sets) notation mean?










share|cite|improve this question

























    up vote
    6
    down vote

    favorite
    1












    When we try to prove the existence of fibre product in affine case, we use the following formula stacks project:
    $$newcommandHommathrmHomnewcommandMormathrmHomnewcommandSpecmathrmSpec
    begineqnarray
    Mor(X, Spec(A otimes_R B))& = &
    Hom(A otimes_R B, mathcalO_X(X)) \
    & = &Hom(A, mathcalO_X(X))
    times_Hom(R, mathcalO_X(X))
    Hom(B, mathcalO_X(X)) \
    & = & Mor(X, Spec(A))times_Mor(X, Spec(R))Mor(X, Spec(B))
    endeqnarray
    $$



    My questions are:



    1. I don't know how do we derive the second formula.


    2. Moreover, some part of the third equality is also confusing to me. I know


    $$Hom(A, mathcalO_X(X))=Mor(X, Spec(A))$$
    But what does the "fibre product" (in category of sets) notation mean?










    share|cite|improve this question























      up vote
      6
      down vote

      favorite
      1









      up vote
      6
      down vote

      favorite
      1






      1





      When we try to prove the existence of fibre product in affine case, we use the following formula stacks project:
      $$newcommandHommathrmHomnewcommandMormathrmHomnewcommandSpecmathrmSpec
      begineqnarray
      Mor(X, Spec(A otimes_R B))& = &
      Hom(A otimes_R B, mathcalO_X(X)) \
      & = &Hom(A, mathcalO_X(X))
      times_Hom(R, mathcalO_X(X))
      Hom(B, mathcalO_X(X)) \
      & = & Mor(X, Spec(A))times_Mor(X, Spec(R))Mor(X, Spec(B))
      endeqnarray
      $$



      My questions are:



      1. I don't know how do we derive the second formula.


      2. Moreover, some part of the third equality is also confusing to me. I know


      $$Hom(A, mathcalO_X(X))=Mor(X, Spec(A))$$
      But what does the "fibre product" (in category of sets) notation mean?










      share|cite|improve this question













      When we try to prove the existence of fibre product in affine case, we use the following formula stacks project:
      $$newcommandHommathrmHomnewcommandMormathrmHomnewcommandSpecmathrmSpec
      begineqnarray
      Mor(X, Spec(A otimes_R B))& = &
      Hom(A otimes_R B, mathcalO_X(X)) \
      & = &Hom(A, mathcalO_X(X))
      times_Hom(R, mathcalO_X(X))
      Hom(B, mathcalO_X(X)) \
      & = & Mor(X, Spec(A))times_Mor(X, Spec(R))Mor(X, Spec(B))
      endeqnarray
      $$



      My questions are:



      1. I don't know how do we derive the second formula.


      2. Moreover, some part of the third equality is also confusing to me. I know


      $$Hom(A, mathcalO_X(X))=Mor(X, Spec(A))$$
      But what does the "fibre product" (in category of sets) notation mean?







      abstract-algebra algebraic-geometry category-theory tensor-products






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Jan 28 at 4:26









      Aolong Li

      952415




      952415




















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          4
          down vote



          accepted










          Let me start with your second question. If $X,Y,$ and $Z$ are sets with maps $p:Xto Z$ and $q:Yto Z$, then the fiber product $Xtimes_Z Y$ is the set $(x,y)in Xtimes Y:p(x)=q(y)$. (You can also define it by the exact same universal property as for fiber products of schemes, but the explicit construction is probably more helpful to think about in this context.)



          Now let's look at your first question. There is a universal property of tensor products in the category of commutative rings: namely, they are pushouts (dual to fiber products). Here's what that means explicitly. Let $A$ and $B$ be $R$-algebras (via homomorphisms $i:Rto A$ and $j:Rto B$), and let $k:Ato Aotimes_R B$ and $ell:Bto Aotimes_R B$ be the natural maps ($k(a)=aotimes 1$ and $ell(b)=1otimes b$). Then given any ring $S$ and any pair of homomorphisms $f:Ato S$ and $g:Bto S$ such that $fi=gj$, then there is a unique homomorphism $h:Aotimes_R Bto S$ such that $hk=f$ and $hell=g$.



          Now, in this setup, consider the sets $operatornameHom(A,S)$, $operatornameHom(B,S)$, and $operatornameHom(R,S)$. There is a map $p:operatornameHom(A,S)tooperatornameHom(R,S)$ given by composition with $i$, and similarly a map $q:operatornameHom(B,S)tooperatornameHom(R,S)$ given by composition with $j$. We can use these maps to form the fiber product of sets $$operatornameHom(A,S)times_operatornameHom(R,S)operatornameHom(B,S).$$ Explicitly, this is the set of pairs $(f,g)$ where $f:Ato S$, $g:Bto S$, and $fi=gj$. But by the universal property of $Aotimes_R B$, such pairs are in bijection with homomorphisms $h:Aotimes_R Bto S$. This gives a natural bijection $$operatornameHom(Aotimes_R B,S)congoperatornameHom(A,S)times_operatornameHom(R,S)operatornameHom(B,S).$$ Your second equality is just this natural bijection in the case $S=mathcalO_X(X)$.






          share|cite|improve this answer



























            up vote
            3
            down vote













            The pushout in the category of commutative rings is given by tensor products, so the second formula is just the characterization of pushouts in terms of hom-sets.



            Similarly, the notation $A times_B C$ refers to the pullback.



            (the maps $A to B$ and $C to B$ in the pullback $A times_B C$ are to be inferred from context, just as the maps $R to A$ and $R to B$ are also to be inferred from context when writing $A otimes_R B$)






            share|cite|improve this answer




















            • Thanks a lot! I made a stupid mistake. I just check out the pullback in the category of rings. Instead, I should reverse the arrows in the diagram of schemes..
              – Aolong Li
              Jan 28 at 5:44

















            up vote
            2
            down vote













            Note that $$mathrmSpec:mathbfRingsto mathbfSch$$ is a contravariant functor.






            share|cite|improve this answer




















              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%2f2624501%2fthe-set-of-morphism-from-a-tensor-product-to-an-certain-ring%23new-answer', 'question_page');

              );

              Post as a guest






























              3 Answers
              3






              active

              oldest

              votes








              3 Answers
              3






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes








              up vote
              4
              down vote



              accepted










              Let me start with your second question. If $X,Y,$ and $Z$ are sets with maps $p:Xto Z$ and $q:Yto Z$, then the fiber product $Xtimes_Z Y$ is the set $(x,y)in Xtimes Y:p(x)=q(y)$. (You can also define it by the exact same universal property as for fiber products of schemes, but the explicit construction is probably more helpful to think about in this context.)



              Now let's look at your first question. There is a universal property of tensor products in the category of commutative rings: namely, they are pushouts (dual to fiber products). Here's what that means explicitly. Let $A$ and $B$ be $R$-algebras (via homomorphisms $i:Rto A$ and $j:Rto B$), and let $k:Ato Aotimes_R B$ and $ell:Bto Aotimes_R B$ be the natural maps ($k(a)=aotimes 1$ and $ell(b)=1otimes b$). Then given any ring $S$ and any pair of homomorphisms $f:Ato S$ and $g:Bto S$ such that $fi=gj$, then there is a unique homomorphism $h:Aotimes_R Bto S$ such that $hk=f$ and $hell=g$.



              Now, in this setup, consider the sets $operatornameHom(A,S)$, $operatornameHom(B,S)$, and $operatornameHom(R,S)$. There is a map $p:operatornameHom(A,S)tooperatornameHom(R,S)$ given by composition with $i$, and similarly a map $q:operatornameHom(B,S)tooperatornameHom(R,S)$ given by composition with $j$. We can use these maps to form the fiber product of sets $$operatornameHom(A,S)times_operatornameHom(R,S)operatornameHom(B,S).$$ Explicitly, this is the set of pairs $(f,g)$ where $f:Ato S$, $g:Bto S$, and $fi=gj$. But by the universal property of $Aotimes_R B$, such pairs are in bijection with homomorphisms $h:Aotimes_R Bto S$. This gives a natural bijection $$operatornameHom(Aotimes_R B,S)congoperatornameHom(A,S)times_operatornameHom(R,S)operatornameHom(B,S).$$ Your second equality is just this natural bijection in the case $S=mathcalO_X(X)$.






              share|cite|improve this answer
























                up vote
                4
                down vote



                accepted










                Let me start with your second question. If $X,Y,$ and $Z$ are sets with maps $p:Xto Z$ and $q:Yto Z$, then the fiber product $Xtimes_Z Y$ is the set $(x,y)in Xtimes Y:p(x)=q(y)$. (You can also define it by the exact same universal property as for fiber products of schemes, but the explicit construction is probably more helpful to think about in this context.)



                Now let's look at your first question. There is a universal property of tensor products in the category of commutative rings: namely, they are pushouts (dual to fiber products). Here's what that means explicitly. Let $A$ and $B$ be $R$-algebras (via homomorphisms $i:Rto A$ and $j:Rto B$), and let $k:Ato Aotimes_R B$ and $ell:Bto Aotimes_R B$ be the natural maps ($k(a)=aotimes 1$ and $ell(b)=1otimes b$). Then given any ring $S$ and any pair of homomorphisms $f:Ato S$ and $g:Bto S$ such that $fi=gj$, then there is a unique homomorphism $h:Aotimes_R Bto S$ such that $hk=f$ and $hell=g$.



                Now, in this setup, consider the sets $operatornameHom(A,S)$, $operatornameHom(B,S)$, and $operatornameHom(R,S)$. There is a map $p:operatornameHom(A,S)tooperatornameHom(R,S)$ given by composition with $i$, and similarly a map $q:operatornameHom(B,S)tooperatornameHom(R,S)$ given by composition with $j$. We can use these maps to form the fiber product of sets $$operatornameHom(A,S)times_operatornameHom(R,S)operatornameHom(B,S).$$ Explicitly, this is the set of pairs $(f,g)$ where $f:Ato S$, $g:Bto S$, and $fi=gj$. But by the universal property of $Aotimes_R B$, such pairs are in bijection with homomorphisms $h:Aotimes_R Bto S$. This gives a natural bijection $$operatornameHom(Aotimes_R B,S)congoperatornameHom(A,S)times_operatornameHom(R,S)operatornameHom(B,S).$$ Your second equality is just this natural bijection in the case $S=mathcalO_X(X)$.






                share|cite|improve this answer






















                  up vote
                  4
                  down vote



                  accepted







                  up vote
                  4
                  down vote



                  accepted






                  Let me start with your second question. If $X,Y,$ and $Z$ are sets with maps $p:Xto Z$ and $q:Yto Z$, then the fiber product $Xtimes_Z Y$ is the set $(x,y)in Xtimes Y:p(x)=q(y)$. (You can also define it by the exact same universal property as for fiber products of schemes, but the explicit construction is probably more helpful to think about in this context.)



                  Now let's look at your first question. There is a universal property of tensor products in the category of commutative rings: namely, they are pushouts (dual to fiber products). Here's what that means explicitly. Let $A$ and $B$ be $R$-algebras (via homomorphisms $i:Rto A$ and $j:Rto B$), and let $k:Ato Aotimes_R B$ and $ell:Bto Aotimes_R B$ be the natural maps ($k(a)=aotimes 1$ and $ell(b)=1otimes b$). Then given any ring $S$ and any pair of homomorphisms $f:Ato S$ and $g:Bto S$ such that $fi=gj$, then there is a unique homomorphism $h:Aotimes_R Bto S$ such that $hk=f$ and $hell=g$.



                  Now, in this setup, consider the sets $operatornameHom(A,S)$, $operatornameHom(B,S)$, and $operatornameHom(R,S)$. There is a map $p:operatornameHom(A,S)tooperatornameHom(R,S)$ given by composition with $i$, and similarly a map $q:operatornameHom(B,S)tooperatornameHom(R,S)$ given by composition with $j$. We can use these maps to form the fiber product of sets $$operatornameHom(A,S)times_operatornameHom(R,S)operatornameHom(B,S).$$ Explicitly, this is the set of pairs $(f,g)$ where $f:Ato S$, $g:Bto S$, and $fi=gj$. But by the universal property of $Aotimes_R B$, such pairs are in bijection with homomorphisms $h:Aotimes_R Bto S$. This gives a natural bijection $$operatornameHom(Aotimes_R B,S)congoperatornameHom(A,S)times_operatornameHom(R,S)operatornameHom(B,S).$$ Your second equality is just this natural bijection in the case $S=mathcalO_X(X)$.






                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  Let me start with your second question. If $X,Y,$ and $Z$ are sets with maps $p:Xto Z$ and $q:Yto Z$, then the fiber product $Xtimes_Z Y$ is the set $(x,y)in Xtimes Y:p(x)=q(y)$. (You can also define it by the exact same universal property as for fiber products of schemes, but the explicit construction is probably more helpful to think about in this context.)



                  Now let's look at your first question. There is a universal property of tensor products in the category of commutative rings: namely, they are pushouts (dual to fiber products). Here's what that means explicitly. Let $A$ and $B$ be $R$-algebras (via homomorphisms $i:Rto A$ and $j:Rto B$), and let $k:Ato Aotimes_R B$ and $ell:Bto Aotimes_R B$ be the natural maps ($k(a)=aotimes 1$ and $ell(b)=1otimes b$). Then given any ring $S$ and any pair of homomorphisms $f:Ato S$ and $g:Bto S$ such that $fi=gj$, then there is a unique homomorphism $h:Aotimes_R Bto S$ such that $hk=f$ and $hell=g$.



                  Now, in this setup, consider the sets $operatornameHom(A,S)$, $operatornameHom(B,S)$, and $operatornameHom(R,S)$. There is a map $p:operatornameHom(A,S)tooperatornameHom(R,S)$ given by composition with $i$, and similarly a map $q:operatornameHom(B,S)tooperatornameHom(R,S)$ given by composition with $j$. We can use these maps to form the fiber product of sets $$operatornameHom(A,S)times_operatornameHom(R,S)operatornameHom(B,S).$$ Explicitly, this is the set of pairs $(f,g)$ where $f:Ato S$, $g:Bto S$, and $fi=gj$. But by the universal property of $Aotimes_R B$, such pairs are in bijection with homomorphisms $h:Aotimes_R Bto S$. This gives a natural bijection $$operatornameHom(Aotimes_R B,S)congoperatornameHom(A,S)times_operatornameHom(R,S)operatornameHom(B,S).$$ Your second equality is just this natural bijection in the case $S=mathcalO_X(X)$.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Jan 28 at 4:49









                  Eric Wofsey

                  166k12196308




                  166k12196308




















                      up vote
                      3
                      down vote













                      The pushout in the category of commutative rings is given by tensor products, so the second formula is just the characterization of pushouts in terms of hom-sets.



                      Similarly, the notation $A times_B C$ refers to the pullback.



                      (the maps $A to B$ and $C to B$ in the pullback $A times_B C$ are to be inferred from context, just as the maps $R to A$ and $R to B$ are also to be inferred from context when writing $A otimes_R B$)






                      share|cite|improve this answer




















                      • Thanks a lot! I made a stupid mistake. I just check out the pullback in the category of rings. Instead, I should reverse the arrows in the diagram of schemes..
                        – Aolong Li
                        Jan 28 at 5:44














                      up vote
                      3
                      down vote













                      The pushout in the category of commutative rings is given by tensor products, so the second formula is just the characterization of pushouts in terms of hom-sets.



                      Similarly, the notation $A times_B C$ refers to the pullback.



                      (the maps $A to B$ and $C to B$ in the pullback $A times_B C$ are to be inferred from context, just as the maps $R to A$ and $R to B$ are also to be inferred from context when writing $A otimes_R B$)






                      share|cite|improve this answer




















                      • Thanks a lot! I made a stupid mistake. I just check out the pullback in the category of rings. Instead, I should reverse the arrows in the diagram of schemes..
                        – Aolong Li
                        Jan 28 at 5:44












                      up vote
                      3
                      down vote










                      up vote
                      3
                      down vote









                      The pushout in the category of commutative rings is given by tensor products, so the second formula is just the characterization of pushouts in terms of hom-sets.



                      Similarly, the notation $A times_B C$ refers to the pullback.



                      (the maps $A to B$ and $C to B$ in the pullback $A times_B C$ are to be inferred from context, just as the maps $R to A$ and $R to B$ are also to be inferred from context when writing $A otimes_R B$)






                      share|cite|improve this answer












                      The pushout in the category of commutative rings is given by tensor products, so the second formula is just the characterization of pushouts in terms of hom-sets.



                      Similarly, the notation $A times_B C$ refers to the pullback.



                      (the maps $A to B$ and $C to B$ in the pullback $A times_B C$ are to be inferred from context, just as the maps $R to A$ and $R to B$ are also to be inferred from context when writing $A otimes_R B$)







                      share|cite|improve this answer












                      share|cite|improve this answer



                      share|cite|improve this answer










                      answered Jan 28 at 4:39









                      Hurkyl

                      109k9114255




                      109k9114255











                      • Thanks a lot! I made a stupid mistake. I just check out the pullback in the category of rings. Instead, I should reverse the arrows in the diagram of schemes..
                        – Aolong Li
                        Jan 28 at 5:44
















                      • Thanks a lot! I made a stupid mistake. I just check out the pullback in the category of rings. Instead, I should reverse the arrows in the diagram of schemes..
                        – Aolong Li
                        Jan 28 at 5:44















                      Thanks a lot! I made a stupid mistake. I just check out the pullback in the category of rings. Instead, I should reverse the arrows in the diagram of schemes..
                      – Aolong Li
                      Jan 28 at 5:44




                      Thanks a lot! I made a stupid mistake. I just check out the pullback in the category of rings. Instead, I should reverse the arrows in the diagram of schemes..
                      – Aolong Li
                      Jan 28 at 5:44










                      up vote
                      2
                      down vote













                      Note that $$mathrmSpec:mathbfRingsto mathbfSch$$ is a contravariant functor.






                      share|cite|improve this answer
























                        up vote
                        2
                        down vote













                        Note that $$mathrmSpec:mathbfRingsto mathbfSch$$ is a contravariant functor.






                        share|cite|improve this answer






















                          up vote
                          2
                          down vote










                          up vote
                          2
                          down vote









                          Note that $$mathrmSpec:mathbfRingsto mathbfSch$$ is a contravariant functor.






                          share|cite|improve this answer












                          Note that $$mathrmSpec:mathbfRingsto mathbfSch$$ is a contravariant functor.







                          share|cite|improve this answer












                          share|cite|improve this answer



                          share|cite|improve this answer










                          answered Sep 3 at 7:48









                          Harold Q

                          212




                          212



























                               

                              draft saved


                              draft discarded















































                               


                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              StackExchange.ready(
                              function ()
                              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2624501%2fthe-set-of-morphism-from-a-tensor-product-to-an-certain-ring%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                              );

                              Post as a guest













































































                              這個網誌中的熱門文章

                              tkz-euclide: tkzDrawCircle[R] not working

                              How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

                              1st Magritte Awards