A Question about intersection of coordinate rings

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on proving that the coordinate ring of the affine space minus the origin, ##\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}^n}(\mathbb{A}^n \setminus \{0\})##, equals ##k[X_1, \ldots, X_n]## for ##n \ge 2##. A user outlines a proof involving the intersection of rings of regular functions on the open sets defined by the vanishing of coordinates, specifically using the notation ##D(X_i)##. Clarifications are provided regarding the nature of these rings, emphasizing that ##\mathcal{O}(D(X_i))## represents localizations rather than quotients, allowing for the intersection of these rings. The distinction between regular functions and ideals is highlighted, reinforcing that the intersection of these function rings remains within the field of rational functions. The conversation ultimately clarifies the correct interpretation of the notation and the underlying algebraic structures.
MathLearner123
Messages
25
Reaction score
4
I want to prove that ##\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}^n}(\mathbb{A}^n \setminus \{0\}) = k[X_1, \ldots, X_n]## for ##n \ge 2## and some user on another forum gave this proof:

"We know that ##\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}^n}(\mathbb{A}^n \setminus \{0\}) = \bigcap_{i = 1}^n \mathcal{O}(D(X_i))##, where ##D(f) = \{x \in \mathbb{A}^n : f(x) \ne 0\}##. Now ##\mathcal{O}(D(X_i)) = k[X_1, \ldots,X_n,\frac{1}{X_i}]## and ##\mathcal{O}(D(X_i)) \bigcap \mathcal{O}(D(X_j)) = k[X_1, \ldots, X_n]## for every ##i \ne j##.

This implies that ##\bigcap_{i = 1}^n \mathcal{O}(D(X_i)) = k[X_1,\ldots,X_n]##, so ##\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}^n}(\mathbb{A}^n \setminus \{0\}) = k[X_1,\ldots, X_n]##."

I don't understand some notations. I know that ##\mathbb{A}^n \setminus\{0\} = \bigcup_{i=1}^n D(X_i)## and that ##\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}^n}(\mathbb{A}^n \setminus \{0\}) = \{f : \mathbb{A}^n \setminus \{0\} \to k : f \text{ is regular on U}\}## and for every ##i \in \{1, 2, \ldots, n\}## we have ##\mathcal{O}(D(X_i)) = k[X_1,\ldots,X_n]/(I(X_i))## where ##I(X_i) = \{f \in k[X_1,\ldots,X_n] : f(x) = 0 \text{ for any } x \in (X_i)\}##. Now I don't understand why we can intersect those quotient rings. I know that we can interpret ##\mathcal{O}(D(X_i))## as restrictions of polynomials on ##D(X_i)## but I still don't understand how we can intersect those terms. (And, shouldn't be ##\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}^n}(D(X_i))## instead of ##\mathcal{O}(D(X_i))##?)
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
##D(f)## is the set on which ##f## is not zero, and ##\mathcal O(D(f))## is the ring of regular functions on that set. It is not a quotient, it is a localization. You can have any powers of ##f## in the denominator. You are confusing them with the zero of an ideal and the regular functions on it. This is why ##\mathcal O(D(X_i))## is ##k[X_1,X_2,\dots,X_n,\frac1{X_i}]## and not the quotient you think. All of these are subrings of the field of rational functions and the intersection is inside it.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top