Algebraic Geometry - Morphisms of Algebraic Sets - Proposition 16 (D&F)

In summary, Proposition 16 in Algebraic Geometry is a fundamental result that states the image of an algebraic set under a morphism is also an algebraic set, and that the restriction of the morphism to a closed subset of the original set is also a morphism. It is directly related to the concept of a morphism and is important in understanding the behavior of morphisms between algebraic sets. However, it cannot be extended to other types of sets like analytic sets. In the study of algebraic geometry, this proposition helps us make connections between different algebraic sets and is often used in the proof of other theorems and propositions. In a real-world problem, it can be applied in polynomial regression by showing that the image
  • #1
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
3,998
48
I am reading Dummit and Foote: Section 15.2 Radicals and Affine Varieties.

On page 678, Proposition 16 reads as follows: (see attachment, page 678)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposition 16. Suppose \(\displaystyle \phi \ : \ V \longrightarrow W \) is a morphism of algebraic sets and \(\displaystyle \widetilde{\phi} \ : \ k[W] \longrightarrow k[V] \) is the associated k-algebra homomorphism of coordinate rings. Then

(1) the kernel of \(\displaystyle \widetilde{\phi} \) is \(\displaystyle \mathcal{I} ( \phi (V) ) \)

(2) etc etc ... ... ...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Note: For the definitions of \(\displaystyle \phi \) and \(\displaystyle \widetilde{\phi} \) see attachment page 662 ]

The beginning of the proof of Proposition 16 reads as follows:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proof. Since \(\displaystyle \widetilde{\phi} = f \circ \phi \) we have \(\displaystyle \widetilde{\phi}(f) = 0 \) if and only if \(\displaystyle (f \circ \phi) (P) = 0 \) for all \(\displaystyle P \in V \) i.e. \(\displaystyle f(Q) = 0 \) for all \(\displaystyle Q = \phi (P) \in \phi (V) \). which is the statement that \(\displaystyle f \in \mathcal{I} ( \phi ( V) ) \) proving the first statement.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My problem concerns the first sentence of the proof above.

Basically I am trying to fully understand what is meant, both logically and notationally, by the following:

"Since \(\displaystyle \widetilde{\phi} = f \circ \phi \) we have \(\displaystyle \widetilde{\phi}(f) = 0 \) if and only if \(\displaystyle (f \circ \phi) (P) = 0 \) for all \(\displaystyle P \in V \)" My interpretation of this statement is given below after I give the reader some key definitions.



Definitions


Definition of Morphism or Polynomial Mapping \(\displaystyle \phi \)

Definition. A map [TEX] \phi \ : V \rightarrow W [/TEX] is called a morphism (or polynomial map or regular map) of algebraic sets if

there are polynomials [TEX] {\phi}_1, {\phi}_2, ... , {\phi}_m \in k[x_1, x_2, ... ... x_n] [/TEX] such that

[TEX] \phi(( a_1, a_2, ... a_n)) = ( {\phi}_1 ( a_1, a_2, ... a_n) , {\phi}_2 ( a_1, a_2, ... a_n), ... ... ... {\phi}_m ( a_1, a_2, ... a_n)) [/TEX]

for all [TEX] ( a_1, a_2, ... a_n) \in V [/TEX]

Definition of \(\displaystyle \widetilde{\phi}\)

[TEX] \phi [/TEX] induces a well defined map from the quotient ring [TEX] k[x_1, x_2, ... ... x_n]/\mathcal{I}(W) [/TEX]

to the quotient ring [TEX] k[x_1, x_2, ... ... x_n]/\mathcal{I}(V) [/TEX] :

[TEX] \widetilde{\phi} \ : \ k[W] \rightarrow k[V] [/TEX]

i.e \(\displaystyle k[x_1, x_2, ... ... x_n]/\mathcal{I}(W) \longrightarrow k[x_1, x_2, ... ... x_n]/\mathcal{I}(V) \)

[TEX] f \rightarrow f \circ \phi [/TEX] i.e. \(\displaystyle \phi (F) = f \circ \phi \)
Now, to repeat again for clarity, my problem is with the first line of the proof of Proposition 16 which reads:

"Since \(\displaystyle \widetilde{\phi} = f \circ \phi \) we have \(\displaystyle \widetilde{\phi}(f) = 0 \) if and only if \(\displaystyle f \circ \phi (P) = 0 \) for all \(\displaystyle P \in V \)" My interpretation of this line is as follows:\(\displaystyle \widetilde{\phi}(f) = 0 \Longrightarrow f \circ \phi (P) = 0 \)

But \(\displaystyle f \circ \phi (P) = 0 \) means that

\(\displaystyle f \circ \phi (P) = 0 + \mathcal{I}(V) \)

so then \(\displaystyle f \circ \phi \in \mathcal{I}(V) \)

Thus \(\displaystyle (f \circ \phi) (P) = 0 \) for all points \(\displaystyle P = (a_1, a_2, ... ... , a_n \in V \subseteq \mathbb{A}^n \)Can someone confirm that my logic and interpretation is valid and acceptable, or not as the case may be - please point out any errors or weaknesses in the argument/proof.

I think some of my problems with Dummit and Foote are notational in nature

Any clarifying comments are really welcome.

Peter
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Dear Peter,

Your interpretation and logic seem to be correct. The statement "Since \widetilde{\phi} = f \circ \phi we have \widetilde{\phi}(f) = 0 if and only if f \circ \phi (P) = 0 for all P \in V" means that if \widetilde{\phi}(f) = 0, then f \circ \phi (P) = 0 for all points P \in V. This is because \widetilde{\phi}(f) = f \circ \phi, so if \widetilde{\phi}(f) = 0, then f \circ \phi = 0 in the quotient ring k[x_1, x_2, ..., x_n]/\mathcal{I}(V). And as you correctly pointed out, this means that (f \circ \phi)(P) = 0 for all points P \in V.

I hope this helps clarify the notation and logic for you. Let me know if you have any other questions.

 

FAQ: Algebraic Geometry - Morphisms of Algebraic Sets - Proposition 16 (D&F)

What is the significance of Proposition 16 in Algebraic Geometry?

Proposition 16 in Algebraic Geometry is a fundamental result that helps us understand the behavior of morphisms between algebraic sets. It states that the image of an algebraic set under a morphism is also an algebraic set, and that the restriction of the morphism to a closed subset of the original algebraic set is also a morphism. This proposition allows us to make important connections between different algebraic sets and understand their geometric properties.

How is Proposition 16 related to the concept of a morphism?

Proposition 16 is directly related to the concept of a morphism because it deals with the behavior of morphisms between algebraic sets. It tells us that a morphism preserves the algebraic structure of an algebraic set, and that it can be restricted to a closed subset of the original set without losing its morphism properties.

Can Proposition 16 be extended to other types of sets, such as analytic sets?

No, Proposition 16 only applies to algebraic sets. The proof of this proposition relies on the fact that algebraic sets can be defined by polynomial equations, which is not necessarily true for other types of sets like analytic sets. Therefore, this proposition does not hold for sets defined by analytic functions.

How does Proposition 16 contribute to the study of algebraic geometry?

Proposition 16 is an important result in algebraic geometry because it allows us to understand the behavior of morphisms between algebraic sets. This helps us to make connections between different algebraic sets and study their geometric properties. Additionally, this proposition is often used in the proof of other theorems and propositions in algebraic geometry.

Can you provide an example of how Proposition 16 can be applied in a real-world problem?

One example of how Proposition 16 can be applied in a real-world problem is in the study of polynomial regression. In polynomial regression, we try to find a polynomial function that best fits a given set of data points. Proposition 16 can be used to show that the image of the original data set under the polynomial function is also a polynomial function, which allows us to make important conclusions about the behavior of the data. This is just one of many applications of Proposition 16 in real-world problems.

Similar threads

Back
Top