The Stacks project

90.3 The base category

Motivation. An important application of formal deformation theory is to criteria for representability by algebraic spaces. Suppose given a locally Noetherian base $S$ and a functor $F : (\mathit{Sch}/S)_{fppf}^{opp} \to \textit{Sets}$. Let $k$ be a finite type field over $S$, i.e., we are given a finite type morphism $\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(k) \to S$. One of Artin's criteria is that for any element $x \in F(\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(k))$ the predeformation functor associated to the triple $(S, k, x)$ should be prorepresentable. By Morphisms, Lemma 29.16.1 the condition that $k$ is of finite type over $S$ means that there exists an affine open $\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(\Lambda ) \subset S$ such that $k$ is a finite $\Lambda $-algebra. This motivates why we work throughout this chapter with a base category as follows.

Definition 90.3.1. Let $\Lambda $ be a Noetherian ring and let $\Lambda \to k$ be a finite ring map where $k$ is a field. We define $\mathcal{C}_\Lambda $ to be the category with

  1. objects are pairs $(A, \varphi )$ where $A$ is an Artinian local $\Lambda $-algebra and where $\varphi : A/\mathfrak m_ A \to k$ is a $\Lambda $-algebra isomorphism, and

  2. morphisms $f : (B, \psi ) \to (A, \varphi )$ are local $\Lambda $-algebra homomorphisms such that $\varphi \circ (f \bmod \mathfrak m) = \psi $.

We say we are in the classical case if $\Lambda $ is a Noetherian complete local ring and $k$ is its residue field.

Note that if $\Lambda \to k$ is surjective and if $A$ is an Artinian local $\Lambda $-algebra, then the identification $\varphi $, if it exists, is unique. Moreover, in this case any $\Lambda $-algebra map $A \to B$ is going to be compatible with the identifications. Hence in this case $\mathcal{C}_\Lambda $ is just the category of local Artinian $\Lambda $-algebras whose residue field “is” $k$. By abuse of notation we also denote objects of $\mathcal{C}_\Lambda $ simply $A$ in the general case. Moreover, we will often write $A/\mathfrak m = k$, i.e., we will pretend all rings in $\mathcal{C}_\Lambda $ have residue field $k$ (since all ring maps in $\mathcal{C}_\Lambda $ are compatible with the given identifications this should never cause any problems). Throughout the rest of this chapter the base ring $\Lambda $ and the field $k$ are fixed. The category $\mathcal{C}_\Lambda $ will be the base category for the cofibered categories considered below.

Definition 90.3.2. Let $f: B \to A$ be a ring map in $\mathcal{C}_\Lambda $. We say $f$ is a small extension if it is surjective and $\mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(f)$ is a nonzero principal ideal which is annihilated by $\mathfrak {m}_ B$.

By the following lemma we can often reduce arguments involving surjective ring maps in $\mathcal{C}_\Lambda $ to the case of small extensions.

Lemma 90.3.3. Let $f: B \to A$ be a surjective ring map in $\mathcal{C}_\Lambda $. Then $f$ can be factored as a composition of small extensions.

Proof. Let $I$ be the kernel of $f$. The maximal ideal $\mathfrak {m}_ B$ is nilpotent since $B$ is Artinian, say $\mathfrak {m}_ B^ n = 0$. Hence we get a factorization

\[ B = B/I\mathfrak {m}_ B^{n-1} \to B/I\mathfrak {m}_ B^{n-2} \to \ldots \to B/I \cong A \]

of $f$ into a composition of surjective maps whose kernels are annihilated by the maximal ideal. Thus it suffices to prove the lemma when $f$ itself is such a map, i.e. when $I$ is annihilated by $\mathfrak {m}_ B$. In this case $I$ is a $k$-vector space, which has finite dimension, see Algebra, Lemma 10.53.6. Take a basis $x_1, \ldots , x_ n$ of $I$ as a $k$-vector space to get a factorization

\[ B \to B/(x_1) \to \ldots \to B/(x_1, \ldots , x_ n) \cong A \]

of $f$ into a composition of small extensions. $\square$

The next lemma says that we can compute the length of a module over a local $\Lambda $-algebra with residue field $k$ in terms of the length over $\Lambda $. To explain the notation in the statement, let $k' \subset k$ be the image of our fixed finite ring map $\Lambda \to k$. Note that $k' \subset k$ is a finite extension of rings. Hence $k'$ is a field and $k/k'$ is a finite extension of fields, see Algebra, Lemma 10.36.18. Moreover, as $\Lambda \to k'$ is surjective we see that its kernel is a maximal ideal $\mathfrak m_\Lambda $. Thus

90.3.3.1
\begin{equation} \label{formal-defos-equation-k-prime} [k : k'] = [k : \Lambda /\mathfrak m_\Lambda ] < \infty \end{equation}

and in the classical case we have $k = k'$. The notation $k' = \Lambda /\mathfrak m_\Lambda $ will be fixed throughout this chapter.

Lemma 90.3.4. Let $A$ be a local $\Lambda $-algebra with residue field $k$. Let $M$ be an $A$-module. Then $[k : k'] \text{length}_ A(M) = \text{length}_\Lambda (M)$. In the classical case we have $\text{length}_ A(M) = \text{length}_\Lambda (M)$.

Proof. If $M$ is a simple $A$-module then $M \cong k$ as an $A$-module, see Algebra, Lemma 10.52.10. In this case $\text{length}_ A(M) = 1$ and $\text{length}_\Lambda (M) = [k' : k]$, see Algebra, Lemma 10.52.6. If $\text{length}_ A(M)$ is finite, then the result follows on choosing a filtration of $M$ by $A$-submodules with simple quotients using additivity, see Algebra, Lemma 10.52.3. If $\text{length}_ A(M)$ is infinite, the result follows from the obvious inequality $\text{length}_ A(M) \leq \text{length}_\Lambda (M)$. $\square$

Lemma 90.3.5. Let $A \to B$ be a ring map in $\mathcal{C}_\Lambda $. The following are equivalent

  1. $f$ is surjective,

  2. $\mathfrak m_ A/\mathfrak m_ A^2 \to \mathfrak m_ B/\mathfrak m_ B^2$ is surjective, and

  3. $\mathfrak m_ A/(\mathfrak m_\Lambda A + \mathfrak m_ A^2) \to \mathfrak m_ B/(\mathfrak m_\Lambda B + \mathfrak m_ B^2)$ is surjective.

Proof. For any ring map $f : A \to B$ in $\mathcal{C}_\Lambda $ we have $f(\mathfrak m_ A) \subset \mathfrak m_ B$ for example because $\mathfrak m_ A$, $\mathfrak m_ B$ is the set of nilpotent elements of $A$, $B$. Suppose $f$ is surjective. Let $y \in \mathfrak m_ B$. Choose $x \in A$ with $f(x) = y$. Since $f$ induces an isomorphism $A/\mathfrak m_ A \to B/\mathfrak m_ B$ we see that $x \in \mathfrak m_ A$. Hence the induced map $\mathfrak m_ A/\mathfrak m_ A^2 \to \mathfrak m_ B/\mathfrak m_ B^2$ is surjective. In this way we see that (1) implies (2).

It is clear that (2) implies (3). The map $A \to B$ gives rise to a canonical commutative diagram

\[ \xymatrix{ \mathfrak m_\Lambda /\mathfrak m_\Lambda ^2 \otimes _{k'} k \ar[r] \ar[d] & \mathfrak m_ A/\mathfrak m_ A^2 \ar[r] \ar[d] & \mathfrak m_ A/(\mathfrak m_\Lambda A + \mathfrak m_ A^2) \ar[r] \ar[d] & 0 \\ \mathfrak m_\Lambda /\mathfrak m_\Lambda ^2 \otimes _{k'} k \ar[r] & \mathfrak m_ B/\mathfrak m_ B^2 \ar[r] & \mathfrak m_ B/(\mathfrak m_\Lambda B + \mathfrak m_ B^2) \ar[r] & 0 } \]

with exact rows. Hence if (3) holds, then so does (2).

Assume (2). To show that $A \to B$ is surjective it suffices by Nakayama's lemma (Algebra, Lemma 10.20.1) to show that $A/\mathfrak m_ A \to B/\mathfrak m_ AB$ is surjective. (Note that $\mathfrak m_ A$ is a nilpotent ideal.) As $k = A/\mathfrak m_ A = B/\mathfrak m_ B$ it suffices to show that $\mathfrak m_ AB \to \mathfrak m_ B$ is surjective. Applying Nakayama's lemma once more we see that it suffices to see that $\mathfrak m_ AB/\mathfrak m_ A\mathfrak m_ B \to \mathfrak m_ B/\mathfrak m_ B^2$ is surjective which is what we assumed. $\square$

If $A \to B$ is a ring map in $\mathcal{C}_\Lambda $, then the map $\mathfrak m_ A/(\mathfrak m_\Lambda A + \mathfrak m_ A^2) \to \mathfrak m_ B/(\mathfrak m_\Lambda B + \mathfrak m_ B^2)$ is the map on relative cotangent spaces. Here is a formal definition.

Definition 90.3.6. Let $R \to S$ be a local homomorphism of local rings. The relative cotangent space1 of $R$ over $S$ is the $S/\mathfrak m_ S$-vector space $\mathfrak m_ S/(\mathfrak m_ R S + \mathfrak m_ S^2)$.

If $f_1: A_1 \to A$ and $f_2: A_2 \to A$ are two ring maps, then the fiber product $A_1 \times _ A A_2$ is the subring of $A_1 \times A_2$ consisting of elements whose two projections to $A$ are equal. Throughout this chapter we will be considering conditions involving such a fiber product when $f_1$ and $f_2$ are in $\mathcal{C}_\Lambda $. It isn't always the case that the fibre product is an object of $\mathcal{C}_\Lambda $.

Example 90.3.7. Let $p$ be a prime number and let $n \in \mathbf{N}$. Let $\Lambda = \mathbf{F}_ p(t_1, t_2, \ldots , t_ n)$ and let $k = \mathbf{F}_ p(x_1, \ldots , x_ n)$ with map $\Lambda \to k$ given by $t_ i \mapsto x_ i^ p$. Let $A = k[\epsilon ] = k[x]/(x^2)$. Then $A$ is an object of $\mathcal{C}_\Lambda $. Suppose that $D : k \to k$ is a derivation of $k$ over $\Lambda $, for example $D = \partial /\partial x_ i$. Then the map

\[ f_ D : k \longrightarrow k[\epsilon ], \quad a \mapsto a + D(a)\epsilon \]

is a morphism of $\mathcal{C}_\Lambda $. Set $A_1 = A_2 = k$ and set $f_1 = f_{\partial /\partial x_1}$ and $f_2(a) = a$. Then $A_1 \times _ A A_2 = \{ a \in k \mid \partial /\partial x_1(a) = 0\} $ which does not surject onto $k$. Hence the fibre product isn't an object of $\mathcal{C}_\Lambda $.

It turns out that this problem can only occur if the residue field extension $k/k'$ (90.3.3.1) is inseparable and neither $f_1$ nor $f_2$ is surjective.

Lemma 90.3.8. Let $f_1 : A_1 \to A$ and $f_2 : A_2 \to A$ be ring maps in $\mathcal{C}_\Lambda $. Then:

  1. If $f_1$ or $f_2$ is surjective, then $A_1 \times _ A A_2$ is in $\mathcal{C}_\Lambda $.

  2. If $f_2$ is a small extension, then so is $A_1 \times _ A A_2 \to A_1$.

  3. If the field extension $k/k'$ is separable, then $A_1 \times _ A A_2$ is in $\mathcal{C}_\Lambda $.

Proof. The ring $A_1 \times _ A A_2$ is a $\Lambda $-algebra via the map $\Lambda \to A_1 \times _ A A_2$ induced by the maps $\Lambda \to A_1$ and $\Lambda \to A_2$. It is a local ring with unique maximal ideal

\[ \mathfrak m_{A_1} \times _{\mathfrak m_ A} \mathfrak m_{A_2} = \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(A_1 \times _ A A_2 \longrightarrow k) \]

A ring is Artinian if and only if it has finite length as a module over itself, see Algebra, Lemma 10.53.6. Since $A_1$ and $A_2$ are Artinian, Lemma 90.3.4 implies $\text{length}_\Lambda (A_1)$ and $\text{length}_\Lambda (A_2)$, and hence $\text{length}_\Lambda (A_1 \times A_2)$, are all finite. As $A_1 \times _ A A_2 \subset A_1 \times A_2$ is a $\Lambda $-submodule, this implies $\text{length}_{A_1 \times _ A A_2}(A_1 \times _ A A_2) \leq \text{length}_\Lambda (A_1 \times _ A A_2)$ is finite. So $A_1 \times _ A A_2$ is Artinian. Thus the only thing that is keeping $A_1 \times _ A A_2$ from being an object of $\mathcal{C}_\Lambda $ is the possibility that its residue field maps to a proper subfield of $k$ via the map $A_1 \times _ A A_2 \to A \to A/\mathfrak m_ A = k$ above.

Proof of (1). If $f_2$ is surjective, then the projection $A_1 \times _ A A_2 \to A_1$ is surjective. Hence the composition $A_1 \times _ A A_2 \to A_1 \to A_1/\mathfrak m_{A_1} = k$ is surjective and we conclude that $A_1 \times _ A A_2$ is an object of $\mathcal{C}_\Lambda $.

Proof of (2). If $f_2$ is a small extension then $A_2 \to A$ and $A_1 \times _ A A_2 \to A_1$ are both surjective with the same kernel. Hence the kernel of $A_1 \times _ A A_2 \to A_1$ is a $1$-dimensional $k$-vector space and we see that $A_1 \times _ A A_2 \to A_1$ is a small extension.

Proof of (3). Choose $\overline{x} \in k$ such that $k = k'(\overline{x})$ (see Fields, Lemma 9.19.1). Let $P'(T) \in k'[T]$ be the minimal polynomial of $\overline{x}$ over $k'$. Since $k/k'$ is separable we see that $\text{d}P/\text{d}T(\overline{x}) \not= 0$. Choose a monic $P \in \Lambda [T]$ which maps to $P'$ under the surjective map $\Lambda [T] \to k'[T]$. Because $A, A_1, A_2$ are henselian, see Algebra, Lemma 10.153.10, we can find $x, x_1, x_2 \in A, A_1, A_2$ with $P(x) = 0, P(x_1) = 0, P(x_2) = 0$ and such that the image of $x, x_1, x_2$ in $k$ is $\overline{x}$. Then $(x_1, x_2) \in A_1 \times _ A A_2$ because $x_1, x_2$ map to $x \in A$ by uniqueness, see Algebra, Lemma 10.153.2. Hence the residue field of $A_1 \times _ A A_2$ contains a generator of $k$ over $k'$ and we win. $\square$

Next we define essential surjections in $\mathcal{C}_\Lambda $. A necessary and sufficient condition for a surjection in $\mathcal{C}_\Lambda $ to be essential is given in Lemma 90.3.12.

Definition 90.3.9. Let $f: B \to A$ be a ring map in $\mathcal{C}_\Lambda $. We say $f$ is an essential surjection if it has the following properties:

  1. $f$ is surjective.

  2. If $g: C \to B$ is a ring map in $\mathcal{C}_\Lambda $ such that $f \circ g$ is surjective, then $g$ is surjective.

Using Lemma 90.3.5, we can characterize essential surjections in $\mathcal{C}_\Lambda $ as follows.

Lemma 90.3.10. Let $f: B \to A$ be a ring map in $\mathcal{C}_\Lambda $. The following are equivalent

  1. $f$ is an essential surjection,

  2. the map $B/\mathfrak m_ B^2 \to A/\mathfrak m_ A^2$ is an essential surjection, and

  3. the map $B/(\mathfrak m_\Lambda B + \mathfrak m_ B^2) \to A/(\mathfrak m_\Lambda A + \mathfrak m_ A^2)$ is an essential surjection.

Proof. Assume (3). Let $C \to B$ be a ring map in $\mathcal{C}_\Lambda $ such that $C \to A$ is surjective. Then $C \to A/(\mathfrak m_\Lambda A + \mathfrak m_ A^2)$ is surjective too. We conclude that $C \to B/(\mathfrak m_\Lambda B + \mathfrak m_ B^2)$ is surjective by our assumption. Hence $C \to B$ is surjective by applying Lemma 90.3.5 (2 times).

Assume (1). Let $C \to B/(\mathfrak m_\Lambda B + \mathfrak m_ B^2)$ be a morphism of $\mathcal{C}_\Lambda $ such that $C \to A/(\mathfrak m_\Lambda A + \mathfrak m_ A^2)$ is surjective. Set $C' = C \times _{B/(\mathfrak m_\Lambda B + \mathfrak m_ B^2)} B$ which is an object of $\mathcal{C}_\Lambda $ by Lemma 90.3.8. Note that $C' \to A/(\mathfrak m_\Lambda A + \mathfrak m_ A^2)$ is still surjective, hence $C' \to A$ is surjective by Lemma 90.3.5. Thus $C' \to B$ is surjective by our assumption. This implies that $C' \to B/(\mathfrak m_\Lambda B + \mathfrak m_ B^2)$ is surjective, which implies by the construction of $C'$ that $C \to B/(\mathfrak m_\Lambda B + \mathfrak m_ B^2)$ is surjective.

In the first paragraph we proved (3) $\Rightarrow $ (1) and in the second paragraph we proved (1) $\Rightarrow $ (3). The equivalence of (2) and (3) is a special case of the equivalence of (1) and (3), hence we are done. $\square$

To analyze essential surjections in $\mathcal{C}_\Lambda $ a bit more we introduce some notation. Suppose that $A$ is an object of $\mathcal{C}_\Lambda $ or more generally any $\Lambda $-algebra equipped with a $\Lambda $-algebra surjection $A \to k$. There is a canonical exact sequence

90.3.10.1
\begin{equation} \label{formal-defos-equation-sequence} \mathfrak m_ A/\mathfrak m_ A^2 \xrightarrow {\text{d}_ A} \Omega _{A/\Lambda } \otimes _ A k \to \Omega _{k/\Lambda } \to 0 \end{equation}

see Algebra, Lemma 10.131.9. Note that $\Omega _{k/\Lambda } = \Omega _{k/k'}$ with $k'$ as in (90.3.3.1). Let $H_1(L_{k/\Lambda })$ be the first homology module of the naive cotangent complex of $k$ over $\Lambda $, see Algebra, Definition 10.134.1. Then we can extend (90.3.10.1) to the exact sequence

90.3.10.2
\begin{equation} \label{formal-defos-equation-sequence-extended} H_1(L_{k/\Lambda }) \to \mathfrak m_ A/\mathfrak m_ A^2 \xrightarrow {\text{d}_ A} \Omega _{A/\Lambda } \otimes _ A k \to \Omega _{k/\Lambda } \to 0, \end{equation}

see Algebra, Lemma 10.134.4. If $B \to A$ is a ring map in $\mathcal{C}_\Lambda $ or more generally a map of $\Lambda $-algebras equipped with $\Lambda $-algebra surjections onto $k$, then we obtain a commutative diagram

90.3.10.3
\begin{equation} \label{formal-defos-equation-sequence-functorial} \vcenter { \xymatrix{ H_1(L_{k/\Lambda }) \ar[r] \ar@{=}[d] & \mathfrak m_ B/\mathfrak m_ B^2 \ar[r]_{\text{d}_ B} \ar[d] & \Omega _{B/\Lambda } \otimes _ B k \ar[r] \ar[d] & \Omega _{k/\Lambda } \ar[r] \ar@{=}[d] & 0 \\ H_1(L_{k/\Lambda }) \ar[r] & \mathfrak m_ A/\mathfrak m_ A^2 \ar[r]^{\text{d}_ A} & \Omega _{A/\Lambda } \otimes _ A k \ar[r] & \Omega _{k/\Lambda } \ar[r] & 0 } } \end{equation}

with exact rows.

Lemma 90.3.11. There is a canonical map

\[ \mathfrak m_\Lambda /\mathfrak m_\Lambda ^2 \longrightarrow H_1(L_{k/\Lambda }). \]

If $k' \subset k$ is separable (for example if the characteristic of $k$ is zero), then this map induces an isomorphism $\mathfrak m_\Lambda /\mathfrak m_\Lambda ^2 \otimes _{k'} k = H_1(L_{k/\Lambda })$. If $k = k'$ (for example in the classical case), then $\mathfrak m_\Lambda /\mathfrak m_\Lambda ^2 = H_1(L_{k/\Lambda })$. The composition

\[ \mathfrak m_\Lambda /\mathfrak m_\Lambda ^2 \longrightarrow H_1(L_{k/\Lambda }) \longrightarrow \mathfrak m_ A/\mathfrak m_ A^2 \]

comes from the canonical map $\mathfrak m_\Lambda \to \mathfrak m_ A$.

Proof. Note that $H_1(L_{k'/\Lambda }) = \mathfrak m_\Lambda /\mathfrak m_\Lambda ^2$ as $\Lambda \to k'$ is surjective with kernel $\mathfrak m_\Lambda $. The map arises from functoriality of the naive cotangent complex. If $k' \subset k$ is separable, then $k' \to k$ is an étale ring map, see Algebra, Lemma 10.143.4. Thus its naive cotangent complex has trivial homology groups, see Algebra, Definition 10.143.1. Then Algebra, Lemma 10.134.4 applied to the ring maps $\Lambda \to k' \to k$ implies that $\mathfrak m_\Lambda /\mathfrak m_\Lambda ^2 \otimes _{k'} k = H_1(L_{k/\Lambda })$. We omit the proof of the final statement. $\square$

Lemma 90.3.12. Let $f: B \to A$ be a ring map in $\mathcal{C}_\Lambda $. Notation as in (90.3.10.3).

  1. The equivalent conditions of Lemma 90.3.5 characterizing when $f$ is surjective are also equivalent to

    1. $\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}(\text{d}_ B) \to \mathop{\mathrm{Im}}(\text{d}_ A)$ is surjective, and

    2. the map $\Omega _{B/\Lambda } \otimes _ B k \to \Omega _{A/\Lambda } \otimes _ A k$ is surjective.

  2. The following are equivalent

    1. $f$ is an essential surjection (see Lemma 90.3.10),

    2. the map $\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}(\text{d}_ B) \to \mathop{\mathrm{Im}}(\text{d}_ A)$ is an isomorphism, and

    3. the map $\Omega _{B/\Lambda } \otimes _ B k \to \Omega _{A/\Lambda } \otimes _ A k$ is an isomorphism.

  3. If $k/k'$ is separable, then $f$ is an essential surjection if and only if the map $\mathfrak m_ B/(\mathfrak m_\Lambda B + \mathfrak m_ B^2) \to \mathfrak m_ A/(\mathfrak m_\Lambda A + \mathfrak m_ A^2)$ is an isomorphism.

  4. If $f$ is a small extension, then $f$ is not essential if and only if $f$ has a section $s: A \to B$ in $\mathcal{C}_\Lambda $ with $f \circ s = \text{id}_ A$.

Proof. Proof of (1). It follows from (90.3.10.3) that (1)(a) and (1)(b) are equivalent. Also, if $A \to B$ is surjective, then (1)(a) and (1)(b) hold. Assume (1)(a). Since the kernel of $\text{d}_ A$ is the image of $H_1(L_{k/\Lambda })$ which also maps to $\mathfrak m_ B/\mathfrak m_ B^2$ we conclude that $\mathfrak m_ B/\mathfrak m_ B^2 \to \mathfrak m_ A/\mathfrak m_ A^2$ is surjective. Hence $B \to A$ is surjective by Lemma 90.3.5. This finishes the proof of (1).

Proof of (2). The equivalence of (2)(b) and (2)(c) is immediate from (90.3.10.3).

Assume (2)(b). Let $g : C \to B$ be a ring map in $\mathcal{C}_\Lambda $ such that $f \circ g$ is surjective. We conclude that $\mathfrak m_ C/\mathfrak m_ C^2 \to \mathfrak m_ A/\mathfrak m_ A^2$ is surjective by Lemma 90.3.5. Hence $\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}(\text{d}_ C) \to \mathop{\mathrm{Im}}(\text{d}_ A)$ is surjective and by the assumption we see that $\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}(\text{d}_ C) \to \mathop{\mathrm{Im}}(\text{d}_ B)$ is surjective. It follows that $C \to B$ is surjective by (1).

Assume (2)(a). Then $f$ is surjective and we see that $\Omega _{B/\Lambda } \otimes _ B k \to \Omega _{A/\Lambda } \otimes _ A k$ is surjective. Let $K$ be the kernel. Note that $K = \text{d}_ B(\mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(\mathfrak m_ B/\mathfrak m_ B^2 \to \mathfrak m_ A/\mathfrak m_ A^2))$ by (90.3.10.3). Choose a splitting

\[ \Omega _{B/\Lambda } \otimes _ B k = \Omega _{A/\Lambda } \otimes _ A k \oplus K \]

of $k$-vector space. The map $\text{d} : B \to \Omega _{B/\Lambda }$ induces via the projection onto $K$ a map $D : B \to K$. Set $C = \{ b \in B \mid D(b) = 0\} $. The Leibniz rule shows that this is a $\Lambda $-subalgebra of $B$. Let $\overline{x} \in k$. Choose $x \in B$ mapping to $\overline{x}$. If $D(x) \not= 0$, then we can find an element $y \in \mathfrak m_ B$ such that $D(y) = D(x)$. Hence $x - y \in C$ is an element which maps to $\overline{x}$. Thus $C \to k$ is surjective and $C$ is an object of $\mathcal{C}_\Lambda $. Similarly, pick $\omega \in \mathop{\mathrm{Im}}(\text{d}_ A)$. We can find $x \in \mathfrak m_ B$ such that $\text{d}_ B(x)$ maps to $\omega $ by (1). If $D(x) \not= 0$, then we can find an element $y \in \mathfrak m_ B$ which maps to zero in $\mathfrak m_ A/\mathfrak m_ A^2$ such that $D(y) = D(x)$. Hence $z = x - y$ is an element of $\mathfrak m_ C$ whose image $\text{d}_ C(z) \in \Omega _{C/k} \otimes _ C k$ maps to $\omega $. Hence $\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}(\text{d}_ C) \to \mathop{\mathrm{Im}}(\text{d}_ A)$ is surjective. We conclude that $C \to A$ is surjective by (1). Hence $C \to B$ is surjective by assumption. Hence $D = 0$, i.e., $K = 0$, i.e., (2)(c) holds. This finishes the proof of (2).

Proof of (3). If $k'/k$ is separable, then $H_1(L_{k/\Lambda }) = \mathfrak m_\Lambda /\mathfrak m_\Lambda ^2 \otimes _{k'} k$, see Lemma 90.3.11. Hence $\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}(\text{d}_ A) = \mathfrak m_ A/(\mathfrak m_\Lambda A + \mathfrak m_ A^2)$ and similarly for $B$. Thus (3) follows from (2).

Proof of (4). A section $s$ of $f$ is not surjective (by definition a small extension has nontrivial kernel), hence $f$ is not essentially surjective. Conversely, assume $f$ is a small extension but not an essential surjection. Choose a ring map $C \to B$ in $\mathcal{C}_\Lambda $ which is not surjective, such that $C \to A$ is surjective. Let $C' \subset B$ be the image of $C \to B$. Then $C' \not= B$ but $C'$ surjects onto $A$. Since $f : B \to A$ is a small extension, $\text{length}_ C(B) = \text{length}_ C(A) + 1$. Thus $\text{length}_ C(C') \leq \text{length}_ C(A)$ since $C'$ is a proper subring of $B$. But $C' \to A$ is surjective, so in fact we must have $\text{length}_ C(C') = \text{length}_ C(A)$ and $C' \to A$ is an isomorphism which gives us our section. $\square$

Example 90.3.13. Let $\Lambda = k[[x]]$ be the power series ring in $1$ variable over $k$. Set $A = k$ and $B = \Lambda /(x^2)$. Then $B \to A$ is an essential surjection by Lemma 90.3.12 because it is a small extension and the map $B \to A$ does not have a right inverse (in the category $\mathcal{C}_\Lambda $). But the map

\[ k \cong \mathfrak m_ B/\mathfrak m_ B^2 \longrightarrow \mathfrak m_ A/\mathfrak m_ A^2 = 0 \]

is not an isomorphism. Thus in Lemma 90.3.12 (3) it is necessary to consider the map of relative cotangent spaces $\mathfrak m_ B/(\mathfrak m_\Lambda B + \mathfrak m_ B^2) \to \mathfrak m_ A/(\mathfrak m_\Lambda A + \mathfrak m_ A^2)$.

[1] Caution: We will see later that in our general setting the tangent space of an object $A \in \mathcal{C}_\Lambda $ over $\Lambda $ should not be defined simply as the $k$-linear dual of the relative cotangent space. In fact, the correct definition of the relative cotangent space is $\Omega _{S/R} \otimes _ S S/\mathfrak m_ S$.

Comments (4)

Comment #1399 by jojo on

In the third sentence I think it should be "given a locally noetherian base " instead of "given a locally noetherian base change ".

Comment #3072 by A. on

Typo just before (81.3.3.1): "" should be ""

Post a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked.

In your comment you can use Markdown and LaTeX style mathematics (enclose it like $\pi$). A preview option is available if you wish to see how it works out (just click on the eye in the toolbar).

Unfortunately JavaScript is disabled in your browser, so the comment preview function will not work.

All contributions are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.




In order to prevent bots from posting comments, we would like you to prove that you are human. You can do this by filling in the name of the current tag in the following input field. As a reminder, this is tag 06GB. Beware of the difference between the letter 'O' and the digit '0'.



View Section 90.3 as pdf