11

I hope these questions are not too trivial.

Let $I$ be an ideal in $R$. Write $I'\subseteq R[t]$. Then the notion of tensoring $$ (R[t]/I')\otimes_{\,\mathbb{C}[t]} \mathbb{C}[t]/\langle t-c \rangle $$ is thought to be restricting to the fiber over $t=c$.

On the other hand, considering $\mathbb{R}$, $$ \mathbb{R}\otimes_{\,\mathbb{R}}\mathbb{C} $$ is thought to be a base extension.

Question 1: So tensoring is not only thought of as a restriction, but it is also thought of as an extension? Why do we need or when do we use base extensions?

Question 2: Geometrically, what are

  1. $\operatorname{Spec}(\mathbb{C}[s]\otimes_{\,\mathbb{Z}}\mathbb{C}[u,v])$?

  2. $\operatorname{Spec}(\mathbb{C}[s]\otimes_{\,\mathbb{R}}\mathbb{C}[u,v])$?

  3. $\operatorname{Spec}(\mathbb{C}[s]\oplus\mathbb{C}[u,v])$?

Zev Chonoles
  • 132,937
math-visitor
  • 1,715
  • 12
    In the former case, you have a quotient of the base ring $\mathbb{C}[t]$; in the latter, an extension of the base ring $\mathbb{R}$; tensoring gives you a way of changing the "ring of scalars"; change it to a quotient, you are "restricting"; change it to an extension, you are "extending". – Arturo Magidin Jul 07 '12 at 19:30
  • Thank you Arturo. What you said seems to clarify a lot of the misunderstandings I've had for awhile... – math-visitor Jul 07 '12 at 19:33

1 Answers1

1

The tensor product of rings is in Hartshorne's book Thm. II.3.3 used to give a general construction of the fiber product of schemes. Given two schemes $X,Y$ over a scheme $S$ we define the fiber product $X\times_S Y$ (if it exists) using universal properties (see HH, Chapter II.3). It is not completely clear that the fiber product exists in general.

Example. If $S:=\mathrm{Spec}(R), X:=\mathrm{Spec}(A), Y:=\mathrm{Spec}(B)$ where $R$ is a commutative unital ring and $A,B$ are commutative unital $R$-algebras it follows

F1. $X\times_S Y\cong \mathrm{Spec}(A\otimes_R B)$.

Using the "universal property" of $\otimes$ we may show that the fiber product in F1 is given by the tensor product of $A$ and $B$. In HH Thm. II.3.3 one proves that the fiber product exists in general.

Question 1. So tensoring is not only thought of as a restriction, but it is also thought of as an extension? Why do we need or when do we use base extensions?

Question 2. Geometrically, what are $R_1:=\mathrm{Spec}(\mathbb{C}[s]⊗_{\mathbb{Z}}\mathbb{C}[u,v]), R_2:=\mathrm{Spec}(\mathbb{C}[s]⊗_{\mathbb{R}}\mathbb{C}[u,v])$ and $R_3:=\mathrm{Spec}(\mathbb{C}[s]⊕\mathbb{C}[u,v])$?

Example. In general if $\pi: X \rightarrow S$ is any morphism and if $i:U \rightarrow S$ is an open subscheme it follows the fiber product $U\times_S X\cong \pi^{-1}(U) $ is the definition of the inverse image scheme of $U$ via the morphism $\pi$. If $j: \mathrm{Spec}(\kappa(s))\rightarrow S$ is a point it follows $\mathrm{Spec}(\kappa(s))\times_S X :=\pi^{-1}(s)$ (by definition) is the fiber of $\pi$ at $s$. With this definition it follows the inverse image $\pi^{-1}(U)$ and the fiber $\pi^{-1}(s)$ have a canonical scheme structure and satifies a universal property.

Example. Base change. Let $k:=\mathbb{R}$ be the field of real numbers and let $K:=\mathbb{C}$ be the field of complex numbers. Let $A:=k[t]/(t^2+1)$ Let $C:=\mathrm{Spec}(A)$ and let $S:=\mathrm{Spec}(k)$ with $\pi: C \rightarrow S$ the canonical morphism induced by the inclusion $k \rightarrow A$. Let $T:=\mathrm{Spec}(K)$ and let $i:=T \rightarrow S$ be the canonical map induced by the field extension $k \subseteq K$. The fiber product $T\times_S C$ is canonically isomorphic to $C':=\mathrm{Spec}(B)$ where $B:=K[t]/(t^2+1)$ and in $K[t]$ it follows the polynomial $f(t):=t^2+1$ equals $f(t)=(t-i)(t+i)$ and since the two maximal ideals $(t-i)$ and $(t+i)$ are coprime, it follows there is an isomorphism of rings $B \cong B_1 \oplus B_2$ (here we use the Chinese remainder theorem) where $B_1\cong K[t]/(t-i)\cong K$ and $B_2\cong K[t]/(t+i)\cong K$. It follows

F1. $\mathrm{Spec}(B)\cong C_1 \cup C_2 \cong \mathrm{Spec}(B_1)\cup \mathrm{Spec}(B_2) =\mathrm{Spec}(K) \cup \mathrm{Spec}(K)$.

By $\cup$ I mean disjoint union. Here we have used the fact that the spectrum of a direct sum of rings is the disjoint union of their spectra. Hence the fiber product is a disjoint union of two copies of $\mathrm{Spec}(K)$. The scheme $\mathrm{Spec}(B)$ is reduced ($B$ is a product of fields) and reducible. The original scheme $C$ was integral since $A:=k[t]/(t^2+1)\cong K$ is an integral domain, but when we make a field extension from $k$ to $K$ it becomes reducible.

Example. Finite extensions of number fields. If $K \subseteq L$ is a finite extension of algebraic number fields with rings of integers $\mathcal{O}_K \subseteq \mathcal{O}_L$ and $\mathfrak{q} \subseteq \mathcal{O}_K$ is a maximal ideal, there is always an equality $\mathfrak{q}\mathcal{O}_L =\prod_{i=1}^m \mathfrak{p}_i^{l_i}$ where $\mathfrak{p}_i \subseteq \mathcal{O}_L$ are maximal ideals. Here $\mathfrak{p_i}\neq \mathfrak{p}_j$ for $i\neq j$. It follows there is a direct sum decomposition of rings

$\mathcal{O}_L/\mathfrak{q}\mathcal{O}_L \cong D_1 \oplus \cdots \oplus D_m$

with $D_i \cong \mathcal{O}_L/\mathfrak{p}_i^{l_i}$. Let $C_K:=\mathrm{Spec}(\mathcal{O}_K)$ and $C_L:=\mathrm{Spec}(\mathcal{O}_L)$ with canonical morphism

$\pi: C_L \rightarrow C_K$.

The fiber of $\pi$ at a point $\mathfrak{q}\in C_K$ is by definition given by the ring

$\mathcal{O}_K/\mathfrak{q}\otimes_{\mathcal{O}_K} \mathcal{O}_L \cong D_1\oplus \cdots \oplus D_m$.

It follows the fiber of $\pi$ at $\mathfrak{q}$ is

$ \pi^{-1}(\mathfrak{q})\cong \mathrm{Spec}(D_1) \cup \cdots \cup \mathrm{Spec}(D_m)$.

The rings $D_i$ are Artinian local rings. The ring $D_i$ is non-reduced iff $l_i \geq 2$, hence non-reduced schemes appear in algebraic number theory when we calculate the fiber of the map $\pi$.

Question 1. We need tensor product when we calculate the fiber of a morphism. Sometimes the fiber has non-reduced structure and the tensor product gives a canonical scheme structure to the fiber of a map between affine schemes.

Question 2. The scheme in Q2.3 is the disjoint union $\mathbb{A}^1_{\mathbb{C}} \cup \mathbb{A}^2_{\mathbb{C}}$. The scheme in Q2.2 seems to be $\mathbb{A}^3_U$ where $U:=\mathbb{C}\otimes_{\mathbb{R}}\mathbb{C}$. The ring $U$ seems not to be a domain:

Eq1. $(i\otimes 1 -1\otimes i)(i\otimes 1+1\otimes i)=(i)^2\otimes 1 -1\otimes (i)^2=-1\otimes 1+1\otimes 1=0$.

It seems the following is true:

$\mathbb{C}\otimes_{\mathbb{R}}\mathbb{C} \cong \mathbb{C}[t]/(t^2+1)$ and there is an equality $(t^2+1)=(t-i)(t+i)$ in the ring $\mathbb{C}[t]$. The ideals $I_1:=(t-i)$ and $I_1:=(t+i)$ are coprime hence there is an isomorphism of rings

$\mathbb{C}\otimes_{\mathbb{R}}\mathbb{C} \cong \mathbb{C} \oplus \mathbb{C}$.

Hence $\mathbb{A}^1_{\mathbb{C}} \times_{\mathbb{R}} \mathbb{A}^2_{\mathbb{C}} \cong \mathbb{A}^3_U \cong \mathbb{A}^3_{\mathbb{C}} \cup \mathbb{A}^3_{\mathbb{C}}$ is a disjoint union of two copies of affine 3-space over the complex numbers. Hence the fiber product of two irreducible schemes may no longer be irreducible.

Question 2.1: Let $R:=\mathbb{C}\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}\mathbb{C}$. It seems there is an isomorphism

$\mathbb{C}[s]\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} \mathbb{C}[u,v]\cong R[s,u,v]$. Hence

$\mathrm{Spec}(\mathbb{C}[s]\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} \mathbb{C}[u,v]) \cong \mathbb{A}^3_T$ with $T:=\mathrm{Spec}(R)$. The ring $T$ is not an integral domain since Eq1 holds in $R$ as well.

Here is an other example: Let $S:=Spec(\mathbb{Q}[x])$ and let $k:=\mathbb{Z}$. It follows $S\times_k S \cong Spec(R[x,y])$ where $R:=\mathbb{Q}\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} \mathbb{Q}$. What is $R$?

There is an inclusion $\mathbb{Z} \subseteq \mathbb{Q}$ and $\mathbb{Q}$ is a torsion free $\mathbb{Z}$-module: For any element $s\in \mathbb{Q}$ it follows the canonical map $\phi_s:\mathbb{Z}\rightarrow \mathbb{Q}$ defined by $\phi_s(m):=ms$ is an injection. But $\mathbb{Q}$ does not have a basis as left $\mathbb{Z}$-module and is not finitely generated.

It seems the following holds: For any element $z:=\frac{1}{p}\otimes \frac{1}{q}\in R$ there is the following equality: $\frac{pq}{pq}z=\frac{1}{pq}(\frac{p}{p}\otimes \frac{q}{q})=\frac{1}{pq}(1\otimes 1)$.

Let $\rho: \mathbb{Q}\rightarrow R$ be defined by $\rho(r):=r\otimes 1$. We may write any element in $w\in R$ as follows:

$w:=\sum_i \frac{p_i}{q_i}\otimes \frac{a_i}{b_i} =\sum_i \frac{p_ia_i}{q_ib_i}(1\otimes 1):=r(1\otimes 1)$ for a rational number $r$. Hence it seems $\rho$ is an isomorphism giving an isomorphism

$\mathbb{A}^1_{\mathbb{Q}}\times_{\mathbb{Z}} \mathbb{A}^1_{\mathbb{Q}} \cong \mathbb{A}^2_{\mathbb{Q}}$.

In general for any multiplicative subset $S\subseteq A$, there is an isomorphism $S^{-1}A\otimes_A S^{-1}A\cong S^{-1}A$ of rings.

hm2020
  • 10,015
  • It would be cool if you add also the other classical example in this generality, aka base change. If you have a scheme $X$ over a field $k$, then the fiber product $X \times_{Spec k} Spec K $ generalizes the "extension process" from the affine case OP is referring to. In other words you argue that both extension and restriction to the fiber are particular cases of the fiber product. – Andrea Marino Dec 19 '20 at 12:39