Varieties I: affine varieties
This post contains the defintiion of affine varieties, regular functions, coordinate ring, the Nullstellensatz, and the quotient of an affine variety upon action of a finite group.
Affine varieties
Let be a field. It is clear what points in
, polynomial functions on
etc mean.
Definition 1 An affine variety
is a subset of
, that is the common zeros of a set of polynomials.
Remark
- The set of polynomials can be taken to be finite. This is because
is Noetherian (Hilbert basis theorem), so the ideal generated by a set of polynomials is finitely generated, and their common zero set are the same.
- As a variety,
is more often denoted by
.
Some terminologies
1. the Zariski topology
This formalism allows us to talk about varieties more easily. Consider the topology on with the closed sets being affine varieties. It is easy to verify that this is a topology:
,
- Union of two closed sets:
- Intersection of closed sets: just put all the equations together.
2. the ideal of X
This is the ideal of all the polynomials in that vanish on
.
3. the affine coordinate ring
Consider as the coordinates of the affine space
, and restrict it on
. If we allow free multiplication and addition, this is what we will get.
The Nullstellensatz
It is clear that when we have a subset , we can define the corresponding ideal
exactly like above. On the other hand, given an ideal
, we can define
to be the common zeroes of all
.
Some natural consequences:
- If
, then
- If
are ideals of
, then
- If
is an ideal of
,
- If
, then
(closure in Zariski topology)
Only the proof of is nontrivial. It is clear that
. For the other side, suppose that
is Zariski closed and
. Then
, thus
. This shows that
is the smallest Zariski-closed set containing
.
If is an equality, then we can establish a one-one correspondence between the affine varieties in
and the ideals of
. This is desirable because as in the case manifolds, we want to define “varieties” without an embedding into an affine space. As we shall see, varieties are isomorphic iff their affine coordinate rings are isomorphic as
-algebras. Thus once we have this correspondence, we can encode the information of points into the affine coordinate ring as the first step of the definition of “varieties”.
This correspondence exists when is algebraically closed.
Theorem 1 (Hilbert’s Nullstellensatz) Let
, where
is algebraically closed field. Then
.
In other words, if vanishes on the common zeros of an ideal
, then for some
,
.
Regular functions
Basically we want to deal with polynomial maps. However, when we restrict on affine varieties, there are some more possibilities. For example, if is an affine variety, and
is a polynomial that never vanish on
, then
makes sense for any polynomial
.
However, the following proposition tells us that allowing such division does not enlarge the class of maps concerned, when is algebraically closed.
Proposition 1 Suppose that
is a polynomial that never vanishes on an affine variety
, where
is algebraically closed. Then
is a unit in
.
Proof
Let . As
never vanishes on
,
have no common zeros. By the Nullstellensatz,
. This means that there exists polynomials
such that
Modulo gives the desired result.
Thus maps of the form on
can also be represented by
, i.e. we are still working with polynomial maps.
Definition 2 (Regular functions) Let
be an affine variety. A regular function
is a polynomial map from
to
.
It is clear that the regular functions form a ring, which is exactly , the affine coordinate ring.
Maps between affine varieties
Naturally, just as in the case for differentiable functions,
Definition 2 For two affine varieties
,
, a map
is called regular if
are regular functions on
.
This immediately gives us a notion of isomorphism: Two affine varieties and
are isomorphic if there exists regular maps
and
such that
and
.
Regular maps and ring of regular functions
Notice that composition of regular maps is still regular. In particular a regular map induces a
-algebra homomorphism
.
On the other hand, a -algebra homomorphism
has to come from a regular map. For
are the coordinates of
, and
tells you what they are in terms of
. Thus consider
defined by
Then one can see that . In fact we have
Proposition 2 For two affine varieties
and
, we have a natural isomorphism
Corollary 1 Two affine varieties
and
are isomorphic if and only if
is isomorphic to
as
-algebra.
Examples
1. is an affine variety.
2. is an affine variety.
3. (Let be algebrically closed) The map
defined by
is regular. It is regular, bijective, yet not an isomorphism, since a polynomial in
and
can’t possibly give
.
What algebras are coordinate rings?
This is answered by the following corollary of the Nullstellensatz.
Corollary 2 Let
be algebraically closed. The association
is a 1-1 correspondence between affine subvarieties of
and radical ideals of
. Moreover,
is irreducible iff
is prime.
Recall that a topological space is irreducible if it cannot be written as a union of two proper closed subsets.
Proof
The 1-1 correspondence was established already.
Suppose that is reducible, i.e.
,
being closed and proper. Then
. If
is prime, then
or
, meaning
or
, contradiction. Therefore if
is reducible,
is not prime.
If is not prime, let
but
. (i.e.
vanishes entirely on
, but neither
or
do). Then
, and both are proper, closed subsets. So if
is not prime,
is reducible.
Corollary 3 Let
be algebraically closed. Then an
-algebra is an affine coordinate ring if and only if it is finitely generated over
and admits no nilpotents.
Quotient by group action
(Assumption: is an algebraically closed field)
Let be an affine variety, and
be a finite group of automorphisms of
.
can also be realized as a group of
-automorphisms of
. We want to give the
-orbits a variety structure.
What is the natural definition of this? Well, mimicking quotient topology, we would want a natural regular map if
is the variety representing the
-orbits. As we already know that the affine coordinate ring is an invariant, we can first study the functions on
, and try to see if there is any nice
-algebra homomorphism
.
The natural class of functions on should be those functions on
, who have consistent value on each
-orbit. This is exactly
, the
-invariants of
.
The first question is, can possibly be an affine coordinate ring? It is clear that
has no nilpotents, being a subalgebra of
.
Proposition 3 Let
be the order of
. Suppose that
, then
is a finitely generated
-algebra.
We have a natural inclusion map , which tells us that if
is an affine variety such that
, then we have a map
induced by the above inclusion. We then want to see if
really represents the orbits.
Proposition 4
are in the same
-orbit if and only if
. Furthermore,
is onto.
Proof of proposition 3
Define the averaging operator
for .This is a map from
to
.
Let be the generators of
, this means that for arbitrary
, we have an expression
where . Since
are not fixed by
, we hope that we can get something after averaging. Yet
does NOT behave well with respect to multiplication.
So first let us deal with the simple case, WLOG, . By definition,
So this is like a power sum. Then by Newton’s identity, we would want to consider the polynomial . The coeffcients of the polynomial lie in
, and
can be expressed as a sum of (coefficients of
*
), where
, the order of
.
Learning from the monomial case, we tackle the case of a general multinomial in the same fashion. WLOG consider , with
. Using the same idea, we see that it can be expressed as the sum of (coefficients of
*
), where
, the order of
.
This shows that in general, an arbitrary monomial can be written as the sum of (coefficients of *
), where
, the order of
. Notice that
is additive, and that there are only finitely many elements in
to be of the form (coefficients of
*
), where
, we see that after taking
, these are the desired generators of
.
Proof of proposition 4
(I can’t find a good proof for surjectivity)
If are in the same
-orbit,
recall that how is constructed. We take a set of generators of
, embed it into
, and use these regular functions to define
. This means that the coordinate functions are all
-invariant. Therefore
for
are in the same orbit.
If are not in the same
-orbit,
we want to show that for some set of generators of , one of them would have different values at
and
. This is equivalent to finding a
-invariant polynomial that has different values at
and
.
Construct a polynomial such that
and
for all
. (This can be done using Lagrange interpolation, analogous to the one-variable case) Then we symmetrize it by considering
giving us one of the desired polynomials that separate and
.
For surjectivity, one can proceed using commutative algebra, but I still can’t see conceptually why it is onto.
The inclusion is integral, because for any
, the polynomial
is one integral polynomial for
with coefficients in
. It is not difficult to show that
is a closed map. Since
is an inclusion, the Spec map is dense, thus onto.
For another proof of Proposition 3, which uses integrality (a fact you observe at the end of the proof of Prop. 4), see e.g. my post at http://deltaepsilons.wordpress.com/2009/08/11/integrality-invariant-theory-for-finite-groups-and-more-tools-for-noetherian-testing/.
Cool, thanks!