Modern Definitions of The Objects of Algebraic Geometry
See also: spectrum of a ringAlexander Grothendieck then gave the decisive definition, bringing to a conclusion a generation of experimental suggestions and partial developments. He defined the spectrum of a commutative ring as the space of prime ideals with Zariski topology, but augments it with a sheaf of rings: to every Zariski-open set he assigns a commutative ring, thought of as the ring of "polynomial functions" defined on that set. These objects are the "affine schemes"; a general scheme is then obtained by "gluing together" several such affine schemes, in analogy to the fact that general varieties can be obtained by gluing together affine varieties.
The generality of the scheme concept was initially criticized: some schemes are removed from having straightforward geometrical interpretation, which made the concept difficult to grasp. However, admitting arbitrary schemes makes the whole category of schemes better-behaved. Moreover, natural considerations regarding, for example, moduli spaces, lead to schemes which are "non-classical". The occurrence of these schemes that are not varieties (nor built up simply from varieties) in problems that could be posed in classical terms made for the gradual acceptance of the new foundations of the subject.
Subsequent work on algebraic spaces and algebraic stacks by Deligne, Mumford, and Michael Artin, originally in the context of moduli problems, has further enhanced the geometric flexibility of modern algebraic geometry. Grothendieck advocated certain types of ringed toposes as generalisations of schemes, and following his proposals relative schemes over ringed toposes were developed by M. Hakim. Recent ideas about higher algebraic stacks and homotopical or derived algebraic geometry have regard to further expanding the algebraic reach of geometric intuition, bringing algebraic geometry closer in spirit to homotopy theory.
Read more about this topic: Scheme (mathematics)
Famous quotes containing the words modern, definitions, objects, algebraic and/or geometry:
“Certainly for us of the modern world, with its conflicting claims, its entangled interests, distracted by so many sorrows, so many preoccupations, so bewildering an experience, the problem of unity with ourselves in blitheness and repose, is far harder than it was for the Greek within the simple terms of antique life. Yet, not less than ever, the intellect demands completeness, centrality.”
—Walter Pater (1839–1894)
“The loosening, for some people, of rigid role definitions for men and women has shown that dads can be great at calming babies—if they take the time and make the effort to learn how. It’s that time and effort that not only teaches the dad how to calm the babies, but also turns him into a parent, just as the time and effort the mother puts into the babies turns her into a parent.”
—Pamela Patrick Novotny (20th century)
“Where then shall hope and fear their objects find?”
—John Ashbery (b. 1927)
“I have no scheme about it,—no designs on men at all; and, if I had, my mode would be to tempt them with the fruit, and not with the manure. To what end do I lead a simple life at all, pray? That I may teach others to simplify their lives?—and so all our lives be simplified merely, like an algebraic formula? Or not, rather, that I may make use of the ground I have cleared, to live more worthily and profitably?”
—Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)
“The geometry of landscape and situation seems to create its own systems of time, the sense of a dynamic element which is cinematising the events of the canvas, translating a posture or ceremony into dynamic terms. The greatest movie of the 20th century is the Mona Lisa, just as the greatest novel is Gray’s Anatomy.”
—J.G. (James Graham)