4

Let $X$ be a connected Scheme of dimension $0$. Is $X$ necessarily affine ?

I know this is true if $X$ is Noetherian (even without assuming $X$ is connected). But what happens if $X$ is not Noetherian ?

user102248
  • 1,443

1 Answers1

2

Here is a counterexample. Let $C$ be the Cantor set (or, any Stone space with no isolated points). For each pair of distinct points $x,y\in C$, let $D_{xy}$ be the quotient of $C$ by the equivalence relation that identifies $x$ and $y$. Let $U_{xy}=C\setminus\{x,y\}$ and let $V_{xy}$ be the image of $U_{xy}$ in $D_{xy}$. Note that the quotient map $C\to D_{xy}$ restricts to a homeomorphism $U_{xy}\to V_{xy}$.

Now fix a field $k$, let $A$ be the ring of locally constant functions $C\to k$, and let $B_{xy}$ be the ring of locally constant functions $D_{xy}\to k$. There is a natural homeomorphism $\operatorname{Spec} A\cong C$ sending a point of $A$ to the ideal of functions which vanish at it, and similarly $\operatorname{Spec} B_{xy}\cong D_{xy}$. The quotient map $C\to D_{xy}$ induces a morphism $\operatorname{Spec} A\to \operatorname{Spec} B_{xy}$ which restricts to an isomorphism of schemes between $U_{xy}$ and $V_{xy}$, considered as open subschemes of $\operatorname{Spec} A$ and $\operatorname{Spec} B_{xy}$. Now let $X$ be the scheme obtained by gluing together $\operatorname{Spec} A$ and $\operatorname{Spec} B_{xy}$ for all pairs $x,y$ along these isomorphisms between $U_{xy}$ and $V_{xy}$. We will identify the copy of $\operatorname{Spec} A$ in $X$ with $C$ and the copy of $\operatorname{Spec} B_{xy}$ in $X$ with $D_{xy}$.

(If you have trouble visualizing this, it is analogous to the "line with doubled origin", except instead of "doubling" a single point of $C$, we have taken every pair of points in $C$ and "doubled" them but glued together their doubled versions.)

It is clear that $X$ is $0$-dimensional, since it is obtained by gluing together $0$-dimensional affine schemes. Clearly $X$ is not affine (for instance, it is not quasicompact since it is obtained by gluing together infinitely many affine open sets, all of which are irredundant). But I claim $X$ is connected. Indeed, suppose $X=G\cup H$ is a nontrivial partition of $X$ into open sets. Note that $C$ is dense in $X$ (since $V_{xy}$ is dense in $D_{xy}$ and has been identified with $U_{xy}\subset C$), so $G\cap C$ and $H\cap C$ are both nonempty. Let $x\in G\cap C$ and $y\in H\cap C$. Since $C$ has no isolated points and $G$ and $H$ are open, $x$ is not isolated in $G\cap C$ and $y$ is not isolated in $H\cap C$. But this means $x$ is in the closure of $G\cap U_{xy}$ and $y$ is in the closure of $H\cap U_{xy}$. It follows that the common image of $x$ and $y$ is in the closure of both $G\cap D_{xy}$ and $H\cap D_{xy}$, and thus is in both $G$ and $H$ since they are closed. This is a contradiction since $G$ and $H$ were disjoint.


If this construction seems kind of ridiculous, note that any affine $0$-dimensional scheme is totally disconnected (see If $R$ is zero-dimensional, then $\mathrm{Spec}(R)$ is Hausdorff and totally disconnected). So, to get a connected $0$-dimensional scheme with more than $1$ point, you have to somehow glue together a bunch of totally disconnected spaces along open sets to get a total space which is connected. The idea of the construction above is to start with the Cantor set and then glue on pieces which kill all the open partitions $C=G\cup H$ by making the closures of $G$ and $H$ intersect in the pieces that were glued on. Note that the non-Hausdorffness of the construction is crucial, since if our scheme were Hausdorff then all the clopen sets in any affine open would remain closed in the whole space by compactness.

Eric Wofsey
  • 330,363
  • I can't quickly tell whether $D$ has something to do with all the $D_{xy}$ or whether $D$ is an arbitrary, particular $D_{xy}$. – Kevin Carlson May 06 '19 at 17:45
  • Oops, that was just a mistake and I meant to write $D_{xy}$. Fixed now. – Eric Wofsey May 06 '19 at 18:18
  • Thanks ... say, do you think the answer would be yes if there existed a monomorphism $X \to Y$ for some Affine, Noetherian scheme $Y$ of Krull dimension $1$ ? – user102248 May 06 '19 at 18:46
  • I think so: I think having a monomorphism to any affine scheme forces $X$ to be Hausdorff. I haven't checked the details though. – Eric Wofsey May 06 '19 at 20:27
  • Is your $X$ quasi-compact ? – user102248 May 14 '19 at 21:52
  • Mr. Wofsey, what do you say about the following reference https://arxiv.org/pdf/1411.5901.pdf, Prop 1.8? It is being asserted that a locally spectral space of Krull dimension 0 is totally disconnected. –  Jul 24 '19 at 21:00
  • @A.Smith: It's wrong. The error is the step where it says to assume without loss of generality that $X$ is Spec of a ring, in order to show $X$ has a basis of clopen sets. That's wrong, because a clopen set in an open subset of $X$ may not be clopen in $X$. – Eric Wofsey Jul 24 '19 at 21:03
  • Do you plan to notify the author then? If you don't want to, I will. –  Jul 24 '19 at 21:13
  • @A.Smith You can do it. – Eric Wofsey Jul 24 '19 at 21:15
  • is it true that any Hausdorff zero-dimensional scheme is totally disconnected? –  Jul 25 '19 at 07:25
  • @A.Smith: Yes, the argument works then, since a clopen subset of an affine is compact and thus remains closed in the whole space. – Eric Wofsey Jul 25 '19 at 15:17
  • Thanks a lot for pointing this out - a correction to my article is on the way! – Fred Rohrer Aug 14 '19 at 14:05