Strength of “every affine scheme is compact”












5












$begingroup$


Among the first results one usually sees, right after defining schemes, is that affine schemes are compact, however this statement is stronger than $mathsf{ZF}$: In $mathsf{ZFC}$ we have that $$operatorname{Spec}left(prod_{i=1}^inftyBbb F_2right)congbetaBbb N,$$the Stone-Čech compactification on $Bbb N$, but in $mathsf{ZF}$ the only ultrafilters we can prove to exist on $Bbb N$ are the principal ones, corresponding to $Bbb NsubseteqbetaBbb N$, which is a discrete subspace, hence not compact. So, if $betaBbb NsetminusBbb N=varnothing$ we have an affine scheme which is not compact.



Is the statement "every affine scheme is compact" equivalent to some more well-known statement over $mathsf{ZF}$? Or does it imply/is it implied by some more well known statements weaker than $mathsf{AC}$?






algebraic-geometry set-theory axiom-of-choice







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Which step in proving that every affine scheme is compact is problematic for ZF?
    $endgroup$
    – Kenny Lau
    Nov 26 '18 at 21:49










  • $begingroup$
    That's a good question I was discussing with Mathei in chat, I'm not sure where the usual proof fails exactly though @KennyLau
    $endgroup$
    – Alessandro Codenotti
    Nov 26 '18 at 21:50










  • $begingroup$
    At some point you use that $V(I)=varnothing$ iff $I=(1)$ for any ideal $I$, which is not provable in ZF.
    $endgroup$
    – MatheinBoulomenos
    Nov 26 '18 at 21:57










  • $begingroup$
    Without looking it up, I'd guess the ultrafilter lemma is probably to blame.
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Nov 26 '18 at 22:14
















5












$begingroup$


Among the first results one usually sees, right after defining schemes, is that affine schemes are compact, however this statement is stronger than $mathsf{ZF}$: In $mathsf{ZFC}$ we have that $$operatorname{Spec}left(prod_{i=1}^inftyBbb F_2right)congbetaBbb N,$$the Stone-Čech compactification on $Bbb N$, but in $mathsf{ZF}$ the only ultrafilters we can prove to exist on $Bbb N$ are the principal ones, corresponding to $Bbb NsubseteqbetaBbb N$, which is a discrete subspace, hence not compact. So, if $betaBbb NsetminusBbb N=varnothing$ we have an affine scheme which is not compact.



Is the statement "every affine scheme is compact" equivalent to some more well-known statement over $mathsf{ZF}$? Or does it imply/is it implied by some more well known statements weaker than $mathsf{AC}$?






algebraic-geometry set-theory axiom-of-choice







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Which step in proving that every affine scheme is compact is problematic for ZF?
    $endgroup$
    – Kenny Lau
    Nov 26 '18 at 21:49










  • $begingroup$
    That's a good question I was discussing with Mathei in chat, I'm not sure where the usual proof fails exactly though @KennyLau
    $endgroup$
    – Alessandro Codenotti
    Nov 26 '18 at 21:50










  • $begingroup$
    At some point you use that $V(I)=varnothing$ iff $I=(1)$ for any ideal $I$, which is not provable in ZF.
    $endgroup$
    – MatheinBoulomenos
    Nov 26 '18 at 21:57










  • $begingroup$
    Without looking it up, I'd guess the ultrafilter lemma is probably to blame.
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Nov 26 '18 at 22:14














5












5








5





$begingroup$


Among the first results one usually sees, right after defining schemes, is that affine schemes are compact, however this statement is stronger than $mathsf{ZF}$: In $mathsf{ZFC}$ we have that $$operatorname{Spec}left(prod_{i=1}^inftyBbb F_2right)congbetaBbb N,$$the Stone-Čech compactification on $Bbb N$, but in $mathsf{ZF}$ the only ultrafilters we can prove to exist on $Bbb N$ are the principal ones, corresponding to $Bbb NsubseteqbetaBbb N$, which is a discrete subspace, hence not compact. So, if $betaBbb NsetminusBbb N=varnothing$ we have an affine scheme which is not compact.



Is the statement "every affine scheme is compact" equivalent to some more well-known statement over $mathsf{ZF}$? Or does it imply/is it implied by some more well known statements weaker than $mathsf{AC}$?






algebraic-geometry set-theory axiom-of-choice







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Among the first results one usually sees, right after defining schemes, is that affine schemes are compact, however this statement is stronger than $mathsf{ZF}$: In $mathsf{ZFC}$ we have that $$operatorname{Spec}left(prod_{i=1}^inftyBbb F_2right)congbetaBbb N,$$the Stone-Čech compactification on $Bbb N$, but in $mathsf{ZF}$ the only ultrafilters we can prove to exist on $Bbb N$ are the principal ones, corresponding to $Bbb NsubseteqbetaBbb N$, which is a discrete subspace, hence not compact. So, if $betaBbb NsetminusBbb N=varnothing$ we have an affine scheme which is not compact.



Is the statement "every affine scheme is compact" equivalent to some more well-known statement over $mathsf{ZF}$? Or does it imply/is it implied by some more well known statements weaker than $mathsf{AC}$?






algebraic-geometry set-theory axiom-of-choice




algebraic-geometry set-theory axiom-of-choice






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 26 '18 at 21:48







Alessandro Codenotti

















asked Nov 26 '18 at 21:34









Alessandro CodenottiAlessandro Codenotti

3,76311539




3,76311539












  • $begingroup$
    Which step in proving that every affine scheme is compact is problematic for ZF?
    $endgroup$
    – Kenny Lau
    Nov 26 '18 at 21:49










  • $begingroup$
    That's a good question I was discussing with Mathei in chat, I'm not sure where the usual proof fails exactly though @KennyLau
    $endgroup$
    – Alessandro Codenotti
    Nov 26 '18 at 21:50










  • $begingroup$
    At some point you use that $V(I)=varnothing$ iff $I=(1)$ for any ideal $I$, which is not provable in ZF.
    $endgroup$
    – MatheinBoulomenos
    Nov 26 '18 at 21:57










  • $begingroup$
    Without looking it up, I'd guess the ultrafilter lemma is probably to blame.
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Nov 26 '18 at 22:14


















  • $begingroup$
    Which step in proving that every affine scheme is compact is problematic for ZF?
    $endgroup$
    – Kenny Lau
    Nov 26 '18 at 21:49










  • $begingroup$
    That's a good question I was discussing with Mathei in chat, I'm not sure where the usual proof fails exactly though @KennyLau
    $endgroup$
    – Alessandro Codenotti
    Nov 26 '18 at 21:50










  • $begingroup$
    At some point you use that $V(I)=varnothing$ iff $I=(1)$ for any ideal $I$, which is not provable in ZF.
    $endgroup$
    – MatheinBoulomenos
    Nov 26 '18 at 21:57










  • $begingroup$
    Without looking it up, I'd guess the ultrafilter lemma is probably to blame.
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Nov 26 '18 at 22:14
















$begingroup$
Which step in proving that every affine scheme is compact is problematic for ZF?
$endgroup$
– Kenny Lau
Nov 26 '18 at 21:49




$begingroup$
Which step in proving that every affine scheme is compact is problematic for ZF?
$endgroup$
– Kenny Lau
Nov 26 '18 at 21:49












$begingroup$
That's a good question I was discussing with Mathei in chat, I'm not sure where the usual proof fails exactly though @KennyLau
$endgroup$
– Alessandro Codenotti
Nov 26 '18 at 21:50




$begingroup$
That's a good question I was discussing with Mathei in chat, I'm not sure where the usual proof fails exactly though @KennyLau
$endgroup$
– Alessandro Codenotti
Nov 26 '18 at 21:50












$begingroup$
At some point you use that $V(I)=varnothing$ iff $I=(1)$ for any ideal $I$, which is not provable in ZF.
$endgroup$
– MatheinBoulomenos
Nov 26 '18 at 21:57




$begingroup$
At some point you use that $V(I)=varnothing$ iff $I=(1)$ for any ideal $I$, which is not provable in ZF.
$endgroup$
– MatheinBoulomenos
Nov 26 '18 at 21:57












$begingroup$
Without looking it up, I'd guess the ultrafilter lemma is probably to blame.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Nov 26 '18 at 22:14




$begingroup$
Without looking it up, I'd guess the ultrafilter lemma is probably to blame.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Nov 26 '18 at 22:14










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















6












$begingroup$

The statement that every affine scheme is compact is equivalent to the Boolean prime ideal theorem, which is a well-known weak form of choice (strictly weaker than full AC) which is equivalent to many other common applications of choice (for instance, it is equivalent to the compactness theorem in first order logic, or Tychonoff's theorem for Hausdorff spaces).



Indeed, the usual proof that an affine scheme is compact uses the axiom of choice only to say that any nonzero commutative ring has a prime ideal, which is known to be equivalent to the Boolean prime ideal theorem. Conversely, in the special case of a ring $A=mathbb{F}_2^S$ for some set $S$, compactness of $operatorname{Spec} A$ is exactly the statement that any collection of subsets of $S$ with the finite intersection property is contained in an ultrafilter on $S$. This statement for arbitrary $S$ is equivalent to the Boolean prime ideal theorem.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Called it... :-)
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Nov 26 '18 at 22:18











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3014962%2fstrength-of-every-affine-scheme-is-compact%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









6












$begingroup$

The statement that every affine scheme is compact is equivalent to the Boolean prime ideal theorem, which is a well-known weak form of choice (strictly weaker than full AC) which is equivalent to many other common applications of choice (for instance, it is equivalent to the compactness theorem in first order logic, or Tychonoff's theorem for Hausdorff spaces).



Indeed, the usual proof that an affine scheme is compact uses the axiom of choice only to say that any nonzero commutative ring has a prime ideal, which is known to be equivalent to the Boolean prime ideal theorem. Conversely, in the special case of a ring $A=mathbb{F}_2^S$ for some set $S$, compactness of $operatorname{Spec} A$ is exactly the statement that any collection of subsets of $S$ with the finite intersection property is contained in an ultrafilter on $S$. This statement for arbitrary $S$ is equivalent to the Boolean prime ideal theorem.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Called it... :-)
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Nov 26 '18 at 22:18
















6












$begingroup$

The statement that every affine scheme is compact is equivalent to the Boolean prime ideal theorem, which is a well-known weak form of choice (strictly weaker than full AC) which is equivalent to many other common applications of choice (for instance, it is equivalent to the compactness theorem in first order logic, or Tychonoff's theorem for Hausdorff spaces).



Indeed, the usual proof that an affine scheme is compact uses the axiom of choice only to say that any nonzero commutative ring has a prime ideal, which is known to be equivalent to the Boolean prime ideal theorem. Conversely, in the special case of a ring $A=mathbb{F}_2^S$ for some set $S$, compactness of $operatorname{Spec} A$ is exactly the statement that any collection of subsets of $S$ with the finite intersection property is contained in an ultrafilter on $S$. This statement for arbitrary $S$ is equivalent to the Boolean prime ideal theorem.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Called it... :-)
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Nov 26 '18 at 22:18














6












6








6





$begingroup$

The statement that every affine scheme is compact is equivalent to the Boolean prime ideal theorem, which is a well-known weak form of choice (strictly weaker than full AC) which is equivalent to many other common applications of choice (for instance, it is equivalent to the compactness theorem in first order logic, or Tychonoff's theorem for Hausdorff spaces).



Indeed, the usual proof that an affine scheme is compact uses the axiom of choice only to say that any nonzero commutative ring has a prime ideal, which is known to be equivalent to the Boolean prime ideal theorem. Conversely, in the special case of a ring $A=mathbb{F}_2^S$ for some set $S$, compactness of $operatorname{Spec} A$ is exactly the statement that any collection of subsets of $S$ with the finite intersection property is contained in an ultrafilter on $S$. This statement for arbitrary $S$ is equivalent to the Boolean prime ideal theorem.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



The statement that every affine scheme is compact is equivalent to the Boolean prime ideal theorem, which is a well-known weak form of choice (strictly weaker than full AC) which is equivalent to many other common applications of choice (for instance, it is equivalent to the compactness theorem in first order logic, or Tychonoff's theorem for Hausdorff spaces).



Indeed, the usual proof that an affine scheme is compact uses the axiom of choice only to say that any nonzero commutative ring has a prime ideal, which is known to be equivalent to the Boolean prime ideal theorem. Conversely, in the special case of a ring $A=mathbb{F}_2^S$ for some set $S$, compactness of $operatorname{Spec} A$ is exactly the statement that any collection of subsets of $S$ with the finite intersection property is contained in an ultrafilter on $S$. This statement for arbitrary $S$ is equivalent to the Boolean prime ideal theorem.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Nov 26 '18 at 22:14









Eric WofseyEric Wofsey

183k13211338




183k13211338








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Called it... :-)
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Nov 26 '18 at 22:18














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Called it... :-)
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Nov 26 '18 at 22:18








1




1




$begingroup$
Called it... :-)
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Nov 26 '18 at 22:18




$begingroup$
Called it... :-)
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Nov 26 '18 at 22:18


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3014962%2fstrength-of-every-affine-scheme-is-compact%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

Popular posts from this blog

How to change which sound is reproduced for terminal bell?

Image
3 Recently upgrade to 18.10 from 18.04, and using the terminal is becoming annoying: the new alert sound is a drip ( /usr/share/sounds/gnome/default/alerts/drip.ogg ), and the previous one is still located at ( /usr/share/sounds/ubuntu/stereo/bell.ogg ). My issue is that at the gnome-terminal, when autocompleting or pressing left BOTH sounds are reproduced, at the same time. I want to just have ubuntu/stereo/bell.ogg active, not both . At the moment I have been only able to reduce the volume of the alerts (but still both are played), or turn the alerts down (but I dislike both "solutions"). gnome-terminal 18.10 teminal-bell share | improve this question
Read more

Can I use Tabulator js library in my java Spring + Thymeleaf project?

Image
0 I want to add Tabulator js to my java project. I added tabulator.min.js, tabulator.min.css to resources folder. After that added to my html page these dependencies as recommending in readme.md. <link rel="stylesheet" th:href="@{/css/tabulator.min.css}"> <script type="text/javascript" th:src="@{/js/tabulator.min.js}"></script> Now my tables view all elements, that I have in the html page, but not correct. In the documentation of Tabulator is example how to create header and table, var table = new Tabulator("#example-table", { columns:[ {title:"Name", field:"name", sorter:"string", width:200, editor:true}, {title:"Age", field:"age", sorter:"
Read more

Title Spacing in Bjornstrup Chapter, Removing Chapter Number From Contents

Image
up vote 5 down vote favorite 2 I would like to make it so that the vertical space below the title of each chapter is the same when using the Bjornstrup package (i.e. so that the descenders do not affect the spacing - as shown by the red arrow in the picture below). I think I'm fairly happy with the spacing around "A chapter", so I'd really like titles without descenders (e.g. "Contents") to have the same vertical spacing as "A chapter" below the title. I would also like to remove the large "0" in the contents title. Any help appreciated, as always. documentclass[11pt,a4paper]{book} % Packages[![enter image description here][1]][1] usepackage[left=3.5cm, right=3.5cm, top=4.3cm, bottom=4.25cm]{geometry} usepackage[utf8]{inputenc} usepackage{libertine} usepackage[libertine]{newtx
Read more