Rational functions on curve












3












$begingroup$


Consider the following setting: $X$ an irreducible smooth proj. curve and $f$ a morphism $X rightarrow mathbb{P}^1(k)$, with $k$ algebraically closed. Call $C$ the complement of $f^{-1}{(1:0)}$ and assume it non-empty. I am trying to prove that $f|_C$ seen as a map to $mathbb{A}^1$ (which we can do because we took a point away from $mathbb{P}^1$) defines an element $f^{vee}$ of $K(X)$ (rational functions on X) and actually $f mapsto f^{vee}$ establishes a bijection between the set of morphisms $X rightarrow mathbb{P}^1$ whose image is not $(1:0)$ and $K(X)$.



The proof that there is this bijection will probably involve divisors and Riemann-Roch but my problem is actually that I don't see how exactly the restriction to $C$ defines a rational function $f^{vee}$. Thanks for your attention.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    What is your definition of the function field $K(X)$? As a direct limit, as in Ch. I of Hartshorne?
    $endgroup$
    – André 3000
    Dec 7 '18 at 21:29






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    It doesn't really mention direct limits but I think it's the same concept in disguise. A rational function would be an equivalence class of couples of the type $(U,f)$ where $U$ is open and $f$ is a regular function on $U$ and two such couples $(U,f)$,$(V,g)$ coincide if there exists $W subset U cap V$ s.t. $f=g$ on $W$.
    $endgroup$
    – Dalamar
    Dec 7 '18 at 23:56


















3












$begingroup$


Consider the following setting: $X$ an irreducible smooth proj. curve and $f$ a morphism $X rightarrow mathbb{P}^1(k)$, with $k$ algebraically closed. Call $C$ the complement of $f^{-1}{(1:0)}$ and assume it non-empty. I am trying to prove that $f|_C$ seen as a map to $mathbb{A}^1$ (which we can do because we took a point away from $mathbb{P}^1$) defines an element $f^{vee}$ of $K(X)$ (rational functions on X) and actually $f mapsto f^{vee}$ establishes a bijection between the set of morphisms $X rightarrow mathbb{P}^1$ whose image is not $(1:0)$ and $K(X)$.



The proof that there is this bijection will probably involve divisors and Riemann-Roch but my problem is actually that I don't see how exactly the restriction to $C$ defines a rational function $f^{vee}$. Thanks for your attention.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    What is your definition of the function field $K(X)$? As a direct limit, as in Ch. I of Hartshorne?
    $endgroup$
    – André 3000
    Dec 7 '18 at 21:29






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    It doesn't really mention direct limits but I think it's the same concept in disguise. A rational function would be an equivalence class of couples of the type $(U,f)$ where $U$ is open and $f$ is a regular function on $U$ and two such couples $(U,f)$,$(V,g)$ coincide if there exists $W subset U cap V$ s.t. $f=g$ on $W$.
    $endgroup$
    – Dalamar
    Dec 7 '18 at 23:56
















3












3








3





$begingroup$


Consider the following setting: $X$ an irreducible smooth proj. curve and $f$ a morphism $X rightarrow mathbb{P}^1(k)$, with $k$ algebraically closed. Call $C$ the complement of $f^{-1}{(1:0)}$ and assume it non-empty. I am trying to prove that $f|_C$ seen as a map to $mathbb{A}^1$ (which we can do because we took a point away from $mathbb{P}^1$) defines an element $f^{vee}$ of $K(X)$ (rational functions on X) and actually $f mapsto f^{vee}$ establishes a bijection between the set of morphisms $X rightarrow mathbb{P}^1$ whose image is not $(1:0)$ and $K(X)$.



The proof that there is this bijection will probably involve divisors and Riemann-Roch but my problem is actually that I don't see how exactly the restriction to $C$ defines a rational function $f^{vee}$. Thanks for your attention.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Consider the following setting: $X$ an irreducible smooth proj. curve and $f$ a morphism $X rightarrow mathbb{P}^1(k)$, with $k$ algebraically closed. Call $C$ the complement of $f^{-1}{(1:0)}$ and assume it non-empty. I am trying to prove that $f|_C$ seen as a map to $mathbb{A}^1$ (which we can do because we took a point away from $mathbb{P}^1$) defines an element $f^{vee}$ of $K(X)$ (rational functions on X) and actually $f mapsto f^{vee}$ establishes a bijection between the set of morphisms $X rightarrow mathbb{P}^1$ whose image is not $(1:0)$ and $K(X)$.



The proof that there is this bijection will probably involve divisors and Riemann-Roch but my problem is actually that I don't see how exactly the restriction to $C$ defines a rational function $f^{vee}$. Thanks for your attention.







geometry algebraic-geometry






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 7 '18 at 19:46







Dalamar

















asked Dec 7 '18 at 15:42









DalamarDalamar

465410




465410








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    What is your definition of the function field $K(X)$? As a direct limit, as in Ch. I of Hartshorne?
    $endgroup$
    – André 3000
    Dec 7 '18 at 21:29






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    It doesn't really mention direct limits but I think it's the same concept in disguise. A rational function would be an equivalence class of couples of the type $(U,f)$ where $U$ is open and $f$ is a regular function on $U$ and two such couples $(U,f)$,$(V,g)$ coincide if there exists $W subset U cap V$ s.t. $f=g$ on $W$.
    $endgroup$
    – Dalamar
    Dec 7 '18 at 23:56
















  • 1




    $begingroup$
    What is your definition of the function field $K(X)$? As a direct limit, as in Ch. I of Hartshorne?
    $endgroup$
    – André 3000
    Dec 7 '18 at 21:29






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    It doesn't really mention direct limits but I think it's the same concept in disguise. A rational function would be an equivalence class of couples of the type $(U,f)$ where $U$ is open and $f$ is a regular function on $U$ and two such couples $(U,f)$,$(V,g)$ coincide if there exists $W subset U cap V$ s.t. $f=g$ on $W$.
    $endgroup$
    – Dalamar
    Dec 7 '18 at 23:56










1




1




$begingroup$
What is your definition of the function field $K(X)$? As a direct limit, as in Ch. I of Hartshorne?
$endgroup$
– André 3000
Dec 7 '18 at 21:29




$begingroup$
What is your definition of the function field $K(X)$? As a direct limit, as in Ch. I of Hartshorne?
$endgroup$
– André 3000
Dec 7 '18 at 21:29




2




2




$begingroup$
It doesn't really mention direct limits but I think it's the same concept in disguise. A rational function would be an equivalence class of couples of the type $(U,f)$ where $U$ is open and $f$ is a regular function on $U$ and two such couples $(U,f)$,$(V,g)$ coincide if there exists $W subset U cap V$ s.t. $f=g$ on $W$.
$endgroup$
– Dalamar
Dec 7 '18 at 23:56






$begingroup$
It doesn't really mention direct limits but I think it's the same concept in disguise. A rational function would be an equivalence class of couples of the type $(U,f)$ where $U$ is open and $f$ is a regular function on $U$ and two such couples $(U,f)$,$(V,g)$ coincide if there exists $W subset U cap V$ s.t. $f=g$ on $W$.
$endgroup$
– Dalamar
Dec 7 '18 at 23:56












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















3












$begingroup$

$f|_C$ gives a map $Cto newcommandAA{mathbb{A}}AA^1_k=newcommandSpec{operatorname{Spec}}Spec k[x]$. This corresponds to a morphism $k[x]to newcommandcalO{mathcal{O}}calO_X(C)$. Then $f^vee$ is the pair consisting of $C$ and the image of $x$ in $calO_X(C)$.



This can be thought of as being analagous to how meromorphic functions $f$ on $Bbb{C}$ define holomorphic functions $F:Bbb{C}toBbb{P}^1_{Bbb{C}}$ with the set of poles of $f$ being the set of points $F$ sends to $infty=(1:0)$.



Edit



It's ok if you're not aware of $Spec$, I'll rephrase so I don't use it.



Firstly, note that $f$ is a continuous map, so $newcommandinv{^{-1}}finv({(1:0)})$ is closed as a subset of $X$ (since the point $(1:0)$ is closed in the Zariski topology on $Bbb{P}^1_k$, so its complement $C$ is open. Open subsets of varieties are usually considered to be varieties as well, so yes $C$ is a variety. That said, I don't think you need that $C$ is a variety, just that it is open.



Then since $f|_C$ gives a map from $C$ to $Bbb{A}^1_k$, it induces a pullback map on the regular functions (I assume you think of this pullback map as composition with $f|_C$), which gives a map $f^*:k[x]to mathcal{O}_X(C)$, where to be clear $k[x]$ is the ring of polynomial functions, which is the coordinate ring of $Bbb{A}^1_k$, and $mathcal{O}_X(C)$ denotes the ring of regular functions on $C$ as an open subset of $X$. Then the image of $x$ under this map gives a particular regular function on $C$, and it is the pair of $C$ together with this regular function that is our rational function.



Some intuition for this correspondence This is not formal. Aspects of this aren't quite valid. In fact, in some ways, it's sort of circular, but I think it's helpful for intuition.



If you think of $X$ as being embedded in some suitable projective space, and the map $f:Xto Bbb{P}^1$ as being a polynomial map, then if $xhookrightarrow Bbb{P}^n_k$ with the coordinates on $Bbb{P}^n_k$ being $x_0,ldots,x_n$, then a map from $X$ to $Bbb{P}^1$ is locally given by a pair of homogeneous polynomials of the same degree that don't simultaneously vanish on $X$. Say these are $f_0,f_1in k[x_0,ldots,x_n]$. Then the image of a point $bar{a}=(a_0:a_1:cdots:a_n)$ in $X$ is the point $(f_0(bar{a}):f_1(bar{a})$.



Thus those points with image $(1:0)$ are precisely the points $bar{a}$ with $f_1(bar{a})=0$. This is a closed subset of $X$, so once again we see that $C$ is open. Then on $C$, $f_1$ doesn't vanish. Thus the point
$(f_0(bar{a}):f_1(bar{a}))$ is equivalent to the point
$$left(frac{f_0(bar{a})}{f_1(bar{a})}:1right),$$
which, under the standard correspondence with affine space is simply the point
$$frac{f_0(bar{a})}{f_1(bar{a})}.$$
Then applying the regular function on affine space $x$ which takes points in $Bbb{A}^1_k$ to their corresponding value in $k$, we end up with a regular function on $C$ that takes a point $bar{a}$ to
$frac{f_0(bar{a})}{f_1(bar{a})}in k$, which
is what we usually think of as a rational function.



Obtaining the full bijection



To show that this correspondence is a bijection, we must show that any rational function on $X$ induces a map to projective space and that this is the inverse of the correspondence above.



Let $f$ be a rational function on $X$. You say that you're aware that $f$ has a finite set of zeros $Z$ and poles $P$ and that $f$ is defined on $Xsetminus P$ and $frac{1}{f}$ is defined on $Xsetminus Z$. Then the morphism to projective space is defined by gluing the two maps
$$ x mapsto (f(x):1) $$
for $xnotin P$ and $$xmapsto left(1:frac{1}{f}(x)right)$$
for $xnotin Z$.



To check that these maps glue, note that when $xnotin Z$ and $xnotin P$, then
the value of the second function is $$left(1:frac{1}{f}(x)right),$$
and since $xnotin P$, $frac{1}{f}(x)ne 0$, and since $xnotin Z$, $f(x)ne 0$, so we can multiply both homogeneous coordinates by $f(x)$ and use that for $xnot in Zcup P$, $f(x)frac{1}{f}(x)=1$ to get that the value of the second function in fact equals
$(f(x):1)$, which is the value of the first function at $x$. Thus the two maps glue.



You can check that the points that map to $(1:0)$ will be precisely those in $P$ (since they are the zeros of $frac{1}{f}$).



An aside on notation. I'm using $frac{1}{f}(x)$ which is perhaps not standard notation to emphasize that the inversion of the rational function occurs in the rational function field, rather than by inverting the values of the function.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Hi and thanks for your reply. I am not aware of the concept of Spec yet (sorry for not mentioning this), but I think I know a correspondence similar to the one you are wielding it's just that it would require $C$ itself to be a variety in order to work. Can $U$ as the complement of an anti image be regarded as a variety? Further: does this correspondence already imply the bijectivity that I mention later in my question?
    $endgroup$
    – Dalamar
    Dec 8 '18 at 10:45






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Dalamar edited
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    Dec 8 '18 at 15:15










  • $begingroup$
    I reformulate my comment. Starting from a rational function $f in K(X)$, I know it will have finitely many zeroes, say a set $Z$ and poles, say a set $P$. I can then define a function $X/P rightarrow mathbb{A}^1$ defined through $k[x] rightarrow mathcal{O}_X(X/P)$ sending $x$ to $f$ and a function $X/Z rightarrow mathbb{A}^1$ defined through $k[y] rightarrow mathcal{O}_X(X/Z)$ sending $y$ to $1/f$. How do I show they glue along $X/Z cap Z/P$ thus defining a function $X rightarrow mathbb{P}^1$? Do divisors help? If you think this requires another question, let me know.
    $endgroup$
    – Dalamar
    Dec 9 '18 at 12:26








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Dalamar I'm editing now, but in response to your second comment, it doesn't have to be. It's perfectly possible to choose it to be the image of $x-1$ or something, since there is an automorphism of $k[x]$ sending $x-1$ to $x$. But $x$ is the natural choice.
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    Dec 9 '18 at 14:45






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Dalamar finished editing.
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    Dec 9 '18 at 14:54











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%2f3030026%2frational-functions-on-curve%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









3












$begingroup$

$f|_C$ gives a map $Cto newcommandAA{mathbb{A}}AA^1_k=newcommandSpec{operatorname{Spec}}Spec k[x]$. This corresponds to a morphism $k[x]to newcommandcalO{mathcal{O}}calO_X(C)$. Then $f^vee$ is the pair consisting of $C$ and the image of $x$ in $calO_X(C)$.



This can be thought of as being analagous to how meromorphic functions $f$ on $Bbb{C}$ define holomorphic functions $F:Bbb{C}toBbb{P}^1_{Bbb{C}}$ with the set of poles of $f$ being the set of points $F$ sends to $infty=(1:0)$.



Edit



It's ok if you're not aware of $Spec$, I'll rephrase so I don't use it.



Firstly, note that $f$ is a continuous map, so $newcommandinv{^{-1}}finv({(1:0)})$ is closed as a subset of $X$ (since the point $(1:0)$ is closed in the Zariski topology on $Bbb{P}^1_k$, so its complement $C$ is open. Open subsets of varieties are usually considered to be varieties as well, so yes $C$ is a variety. That said, I don't think you need that $C$ is a variety, just that it is open.



Then since $f|_C$ gives a map from $C$ to $Bbb{A}^1_k$, it induces a pullback map on the regular functions (I assume you think of this pullback map as composition with $f|_C$), which gives a map $f^*:k[x]to mathcal{O}_X(C)$, where to be clear $k[x]$ is the ring of polynomial functions, which is the coordinate ring of $Bbb{A}^1_k$, and $mathcal{O}_X(C)$ denotes the ring of regular functions on $C$ as an open subset of $X$. Then the image of $x$ under this map gives a particular regular function on $C$, and it is the pair of $C$ together with this regular function that is our rational function.



Some intuition for this correspondence This is not formal. Aspects of this aren't quite valid. In fact, in some ways, it's sort of circular, but I think it's helpful for intuition.



If you think of $X$ as being embedded in some suitable projective space, and the map $f:Xto Bbb{P}^1$ as being a polynomial map, then if $xhookrightarrow Bbb{P}^n_k$ with the coordinates on $Bbb{P}^n_k$ being $x_0,ldots,x_n$, then a map from $X$ to $Bbb{P}^1$ is locally given by a pair of homogeneous polynomials of the same degree that don't simultaneously vanish on $X$. Say these are $f_0,f_1in k[x_0,ldots,x_n]$. Then the image of a point $bar{a}=(a_0:a_1:cdots:a_n)$ in $X$ is the point $(f_0(bar{a}):f_1(bar{a})$.



Thus those points with image $(1:0)$ are precisely the points $bar{a}$ with $f_1(bar{a})=0$. This is a closed subset of $X$, so once again we see that $C$ is open. Then on $C$, $f_1$ doesn't vanish. Thus the point
$(f_0(bar{a}):f_1(bar{a}))$ is equivalent to the point
$$left(frac{f_0(bar{a})}{f_1(bar{a})}:1right),$$
which, under the standard correspondence with affine space is simply the point
$$frac{f_0(bar{a})}{f_1(bar{a})}.$$
Then applying the regular function on affine space $x$ which takes points in $Bbb{A}^1_k$ to their corresponding value in $k$, we end up with a regular function on $C$ that takes a point $bar{a}$ to
$frac{f_0(bar{a})}{f_1(bar{a})}in k$, which
is what we usually think of as a rational function.



Obtaining the full bijection



To show that this correspondence is a bijection, we must show that any rational function on $X$ induces a map to projective space and that this is the inverse of the correspondence above.



Let $f$ be a rational function on $X$. You say that you're aware that $f$ has a finite set of zeros $Z$ and poles $P$ and that $f$ is defined on $Xsetminus P$ and $frac{1}{f}$ is defined on $Xsetminus Z$. Then the morphism to projective space is defined by gluing the two maps
$$ x mapsto (f(x):1) $$
for $xnotin P$ and $$xmapsto left(1:frac{1}{f}(x)right)$$
for $xnotin Z$.



To check that these maps glue, note that when $xnotin Z$ and $xnotin P$, then
the value of the second function is $$left(1:frac{1}{f}(x)right),$$
and since $xnotin P$, $frac{1}{f}(x)ne 0$, and since $xnotin Z$, $f(x)ne 0$, so we can multiply both homogeneous coordinates by $f(x)$ and use that for $xnot in Zcup P$, $f(x)frac{1}{f}(x)=1$ to get that the value of the second function in fact equals
$(f(x):1)$, which is the value of the first function at $x$. Thus the two maps glue.



You can check that the points that map to $(1:0)$ will be precisely those in $P$ (since they are the zeros of $frac{1}{f}$).



An aside on notation. I'm using $frac{1}{f}(x)$ which is perhaps not standard notation to emphasize that the inversion of the rational function occurs in the rational function field, rather than by inverting the values of the function.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Hi and thanks for your reply. I am not aware of the concept of Spec yet (sorry for not mentioning this), but I think I know a correspondence similar to the one you are wielding it's just that it would require $C$ itself to be a variety in order to work. Can $U$ as the complement of an anti image be regarded as a variety? Further: does this correspondence already imply the bijectivity that I mention later in my question?
    $endgroup$
    – Dalamar
    Dec 8 '18 at 10:45






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Dalamar edited
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    Dec 8 '18 at 15:15










  • $begingroup$
    I reformulate my comment. Starting from a rational function $f in K(X)$, I know it will have finitely many zeroes, say a set $Z$ and poles, say a set $P$. I can then define a function $X/P rightarrow mathbb{A}^1$ defined through $k[x] rightarrow mathcal{O}_X(X/P)$ sending $x$ to $f$ and a function $X/Z rightarrow mathbb{A}^1$ defined through $k[y] rightarrow mathcal{O}_X(X/Z)$ sending $y$ to $1/f$. How do I show they glue along $X/Z cap Z/P$ thus defining a function $X rightarrow mathbb{P}^1$? Do divisors help? If you think this requires another question, let me know.
    $endgroup$
    – Dalamar
    Dec 9 '18 at 12:26








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Dalamar I'm editing now, but in response to your second comment, it doesn't have to be. It's perfectly possible to choose it to be the image of $x-1$ or something, since there is an automorphism of $k[x]$ sending $x-1$ to $x$. But $x$ is the natural choice.
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    Dec 9 '18 at 14:45






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Dalamar finished editing.
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    Dec 9 '18 at 14:54
















3












$begingroup$

$f|_C$ gives a map $Cto newcommandAA{mathbb{A}}AA^1_k=newcommandSpec{operatorname{Spec}}Spec k[x]$. This corresponds to a morphism $k[x]to newcommandcalO{mathcal{O}}calO_X(C)$. Then $f^vee$ is the pair consisting of $C$ and the image of $x$ in $calO_X(C)$.



This can be thought of as being analagous to how meromorphic functions $f$ on $Bbb{C}$ define holomorphic functions $F:Bbb{C}toBbb{P}^1_{Bbb{C}}$ with the set of poles of $f$ being the set of points $F$ sends to $infty=(1:0)$.



Edit



It's ok if you're not aware of $Spec$, I'll rephrase so I don't use it.



Firstly, note that $f$ is a continuous map, so $newcommandinv{^{-1}}finv({(1:0)})$ is closed as a subset of $X$ (since the point $(1:0)$ is closed in the Zariski topology on $Bbb{P}^1_k$, so its complement $C$ is open. Open subsets of varieties are usually considered to be varieties as well, so yes $C$ is a variety. That said, I don't think you need that $C$ is a variety, just that it is open.



Then since $f|_C$ gives a map from $C$ to $Bbb{A}^1_k$, it induces a pullback map on the regular functions (I assume you think of this pullback map as composition with $f|_C$), which gives a map $f^*:k[x]to mathcal{O}_X(C)$, where to be clear $k[x]$ is the ring of polynomial functions, which is the coordinate ring of $Bbb{A}^1_k$, and $mathcal{O}_X(C)$ denotes the ring of regular functions on $C$ as an open subset of $X$. Then the image of $x$ under this map gives a particular regular function on $C$, and it is the pair of $C$ together with this regular function that is our rational function.



Some intuition for this correspondence This is not formal. Aspects of this aren't quite valid. In fact, in some ways, it's sort of circular, but I think it's helpful for intuition.



If you think of $X$ as being embedded in some suitable projective space, and the map $f:Xto Bbb{P}^1$ as being a polynomial map, then if $xhookrightarrow Bbb{P}^n_k$ with the coordinates on $Bbb{P}^n_k$ being $x_0,ldots,x_n$, then a map from $X$ to $Bbb{P}^1$ is locally given by a pair of homogeneous polynomials of the same degree that don't simultaneously vanish on $X$. Say these are $f_0,f_1in k[x_0,ldots,x_n]$. Then the image of a point $bar{a}=(a_0:a_1:cdots:a_n)$ in $X$ is the point $(f_0(bar{a}):f_1(bar{a})$.



Thus those points with image $(1:0)$ are precisely the points $bar{a}$ with $f_1(bar{a})=0$. This is a closed subset of $X$, so once again we see that $C$ is open. Then on $C$, $f_1$ doesn't vanish. Thus the point
$(f_0(bar{a}):f_1(bar{a}))$ is equivalent to the point
$$left(frac{f_0(bar{a})}{f_1(bar{a})}:1right),$$
which, under the standard correspondence with affine space is simply the point
$$frac{f_0(bar{a})}{f_1(bar{a})}.$$
Then applying the regular function on affine space $x$ which takes points in $Bbb{A}^1_k$ to their corresponding value in $k$, we end up with a regular function on $C$ that takes a point $bar{a}$ to
$frac{f_0(bar{a})}{f_1(bar{a})}in k$, which
is what we usually think of as a rational function.



Obtaining the full bijection



To show that this correspondence is a bijection, we must show that any rational function on $X$ induces a map to projective space and that this is the inverse of the correspondence above.



Let $f$ be a rational function on $X$. You say that you're aware that $f$ has a finite set of zeros $Z$ and poles $P$ and that $f$ is defined on $Xsetminus P$ and $frac{1}{f}$ is defined on $Xsetminus Z$. Then the morphism to projective space is defined by gluing the two maps
$$ x mapsto (f(x):1) $$
for $xnotin P$ and $$xmapsto left(1:frac{1}{f}(x)right)$$
for $xnotin Z$.



To check that these maps glue, note that when $xnotin Z$ and $xnotin P$, then
the value of the second function is $$left(1:frac{1}{f}(x)right),$$
and since $xnotin P$, $frac{1}{f}(x)ne 0$, and since $xnotin Z$, $f(x)ne 0$, so we can multiply both homogeneous coordinates by $f(x)$ and use that for $xnot in Zcup P$, $f(x)frac{1}{f}(x)=1$ to get that the value of the second function in fact equals
$(f(x):1)$, which is the value of the first function at $x$. Thus the two maps glue.



You can check that the points that map to $(1:0)$ will be precisely those in $P$ (since they are the zeros of $frac{1}{f}$).



An aside on notation. I'm using $frac{1}{f}(x)$ which is perhaps not standard notation to emphasize that the inversion of the rational function occurs in the rational function field, rather than by inverting the values of the function.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Hi and thanks for your reply. I am not aware of the concept of Spec yet (sorry for not mentioning this), but I think I know a correspondence similar to the one you are wielding it's just that it would require $C$ itself to be a variety in order to work. Can $U$ as the complement of an anti image be regarded as a variety? Further: does this correspondence already imply the bijectivity that I mention later in my question?
    $endgroup$
    – Dalamar
    Dec 8 '18 at 10:45






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Dalamar edited
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    Dec 8 '18 at 15:15










  • $begingroup$
    I reformulate my comment. Starting from a rational function $f in K(X)$, I know it will have finitely many zeroes, say a set $Z$ and poles, say a set $P$. I can then define a function $X/P rightarrow mathbb{A}^1$ defined through $k[x] rightarrow mathcal{O}_X(X/P)$ sending $x$ to $f$ and a function $X/Z rightarrow mathbb{A}^1$ defined through $k[y] rightarrow mathcal{O}_X(X/Z)$ sending $y$ to $1/f$. How do I show they glue along $X/Z cap Z/P$ thus defining a function $X rightarrow mathbb{P}^1$? Do divisors help? If you think this requires another question, let me know.
    $endgroup$
    – Dalamar
    Dec 9 '18 at 12:26








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Dalamar I'm editing now, but in response to your second comment, it doesn't have to be. It's perfectly possible to choose it to be the image of $x-1$ or something, since there is an automorphism of $k[x]$ sending $x-1$ to $x$. But $x$ is the natural choice.
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    Dec 9 '18 at 14:45






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Dalamar finished editing.
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    Dec 9 '18 at 14:54














3












3








3





$begingroup$

$f|_C$ gives a map $Cto newcommandAA{mathbb{A}}AA^1_k=newcommandSpec{operatorname{Spec}}Spec k[x]$. This corresponds to a morphism $k[x]to newcommandcalO{mathcal{O}}calO_X(C)$. Then $f^vee$ is the pair consisting of $C$ and the image of $x$ in $calO_X(C)$.



This can be thought of as being analagous to how meromorphic functions $f$ on $Bbb{C}$ define holomorphic functions $F:Bbb{C}toBbb{P}^1_{Bbb{C}}$ with the set of poles of $f$ being the set of points $F$ sends to $infty=(1:0)$.



Edit



It's ok if you're not aware of $Spec$, I'll rephrase so I don't use it.



Firstly, note that $f$ is a continuous map, so $newcommandinv{^{-1}}finv({(1:0)})$ is closed as a subset of $X$ (since the point $(1:0)$ is closed in the Zariski topology on $Bbb{P}^1_k$, so its complement $C$ is open. Open subsets of varieties are usually considered to be varieties as well, so yes $C$ is a variety. That said, I don't think you need that $C$ is a variety, just that it is open.



Then since $f|_C$ gives a map from $C$ to $Bbb{A}^1_k$, it induces a pullback map on the regular functions (I assume you think of this pullback map as composition with $f|_C$), which gives a map $f^*:k[x]to mathcal{O}_X(C)$, where to be clear $k[x]$ is the ring of polynomial functions, which is the coordinate ring of $Bbb{A}^1_k$, and $mathcal{O}_X(C)$ denotes the ring of regular functions on $C$ as an open subset of $X$. Then the image of $x$ under this map gives a particular regular function on $C$, and it is the pair of $C$ together with this regular function that is our rational function.



Some intuition for this correspondence This is not formal. Aspects of this aren't quite valid. In fact, in some ways, it's sort of circular, but I think it's helpful for intuition.



If you think of $X$ as being embedded in some suitable projective space, and the map $f:Xto Bbb{P}^1$ as being a polynomial map, then if $xhookrightarrow Bbb{P}^n_k$ with the coordinates on $Bbb{P}^n_k$ being $x_0,ldots,x_n$, then a map from $X$ to $Bbb{P}^1$ is locally given by a pair of homogeneous polynomials of the same degree that don't simultaneously vanish on $X$. Say these are $f_0,f_1in k[x_0,ldots,x_n]$. Then the image of a point $bar{a}=(a_0:a_1:cdots:a_n)$ in $X$ is the point $(f_0(bar{a}):f_1(bar{a})$.



Thus those points with image $(1:0)$ are precisely the points $bar{a}$ with $f_1(bar{a})=0$. This is a closed subset of $X$, so once again we see that $C$ is open. Then on $C$, $f_1$ doesn't vanish. Thus the point
$(f_0(bar{a}):f_1(bar{a}))$ is equivalent to the point
$$left(frac{f_0(bar{a})}{f_1(bar{a})}:1right),$$
which, under the standard correspondence with affine space is simply the point
$$frac{f_0(bar{a})}{f_1(bar{a})}.$$
Then applying the regular function on affine space $x$ which takes points in $Bbb{A}^1_k$ to their corresponding value in $k$, we end up with a regular function on $C$ that takes a point $bar{a}$ to
$frac{f_0(bar{a})}{f_1(bar{a})}in k$, which
is what we usually think of as a rational function.



Obtaining the full bijection



To show that this correspondence is a bijection, we must show that any rational function on $X$ induces a map to projective space and that this is the inverse of the correspondence above.



Let $f$ be a rational function on $X$. You say that you're aware that $f$ has a finite set of zeros $Z$ and poles $P$ and that $f$ is defined on $Xsetminus P$ and $frac{1}{f}$ is defined on $Xsetminus Z$. Then the morphism to projective space is defined by gluing the two maps
$$ x mapsto (f(x):1) $$
for $xnotin P$ and $$xmapsto left(1:frac{1}{f}(x)right)$$
for $xnotin Z$.



To check that these maps glue, note that when $xnotin Z$ and $xnotin P$, then
the value of the second function is $$left(1:frac{1}{f}(x)right),$$
and since $xnotin P$, $frac{1}{f}(x)ne 0$, and since $xnotin Z$, $f(x)ne 0$, so we can multiply both homogeneous coordinates by $f(x)$ and use that for $xnot in Zcup P$, $f(x)frac{1}{f}(x)=1$ to get that the value of the second function in fact equals
$(f(x):1)$, which is the value of the first function at $x$. Thus the two maps glue.



You can check that the points that map to $(1:0)$ will be precisely those in $P$ (since they are the zeros of $frac{1}{f}$).



An aside on notation. I'm using $frac{1}{f}(x)$ which is perhaps not standard notation to emphasize that the inversion of the rational function occurs in the rational function field, rather than by inverting the values of the function.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



$f|_C$ gives a map $Cto newcommandAA{mathbb{A}}AA^1_k=newcommandSpec{operatorname{Spec}}Spec k[x]$. This corresponds to a morphism $k[x]to newcommandcalO{mathcal{O}}calO_X(C)$. Then $f^vee$ is the pair consisting of $C$ and the image of $x$ in $calO_X(C)$.



This can be thought of as being analagous to how meromorphic functions $f$ on $Bbb{C}$ define holomorphic functions $F:Bbb{C}toBbb{P}^1_{Bbb{C}}$ with the set of poles of $f$ being the set of points $F$ sends to $infty=(1:0)$.



Edit



It's ok if you're not aware of $Spec$, I'll rephrase so I don't use it.



Firstly, note that $f$ is a continuous map, so $newcommandinv{^{-1}}finv({(1:0)})$ is closed as a subset of $X$ (since the point $(1:0)$ is closed in the Zariski topology on $Bbb{P}^1_k$, so its complement $C$ is open. Open subsets of varieties are usually considered to be varieties as well, so yes $C$ is a variety. That said, I don't think you need that $C$ is a variety, just that it is open.



Then since $f|_C$ gives a map from $C$ to $Bbb{A}^1_k$, it induces a pullback map on the regular functions (I assume you think of this pullback map as composition with $f|_C$), which gives a map $f^*:k[x]to mathcal{O}_X(C)$, where to be clear $k[x]$ is the ring of polynomial functions, which is the coordinate ring of $Bbb{A}^1_k$, and $mathcal{O}_X(C)$ denotes the ring of regular functions on $C$ as an open subset of $X$. Then the image of $x$ under this map gives a particular regular function on $C$, and it is the pair of $C$ together with this regular function that is our rational function.



Some intuition for this correspondence This is not formal. Aspects of this aren't quite valid. In fact, in some ways, it's sort of circular, but I think it's helpful for intuition.



If you think of $X$ as being embedded in some suitable projective space, and the map $f:Xto Bbb{P}^1$ as being a polynomial map, then if $xhookrightarrow Bbb{P}^n_k$ with the coordinates on $Bbb{P}^n_k$ being $x_0,ldots,x_n$, then a map from $X$ to $Bbb{P}^1$ is locally given by a pair of homogeneous polynomials of the same degree that don't simultaneously vanish on $X$. Say these are $f_0,f_1in k[x_0,ldots,x_n]$. Then the image of a point $bar{a}=(a_0:a_1:cdots:a_n)$ in $X$ is the point $(f_0(bar{a}):f_1(bar{a})$.



Thus those points with image $(1:0)$ are precisely the points $bar{a}$ with $f_1(bar{a})=0$. This is a closed subset of $X$, so once again we see that $C$ is open. Then on $C$, $f_1$ doesn't vanish. Thus the point
$(f_0(bar{a}):f_1(bar{a}))$ is equivalent to the point
$$left(frac{f_0(bar{a})}{f_1(bar{a})}:1right),$$
which, under the standard correspondence with affine space is simply the point
$$frac{f_0(bar{a})}{f_1(bar{a})}.$$
Then applying the regular function on affine space $x$ which takes points in $Bbb{A}^1_k$ to their corresponding value in $k$, we end up with a regular function on $C$ that takes a point $bar{a}$ to
$frac{f_0(bar{a})}{f_1(bar{a})}in k$, which
is what we usually think of as a rational function.



Obtaining the full bijection



To show that this correspondence is a bijection, we must show that any rational function on $X$ induces a map to projective space and that this is the inverse of the correspondence above.



Let $f$ be a rational function on $X$. You say that you're aware that $f$ has a finite set of zeros $Z$ and poles $P$ and that $f$ is defined on $Xsetminus P$ and $frac{1}{f}$ is defined on $Xsetminus Z$. Then the morphism to projective space is defined by gluing the two maps
$$ x mapsto (f(x):1) $$
for $xnotin P$ and $$xmapsto left(1:frac{1}{f}(x)right)$$
for $xnotin Z$.



To check that these maps glue, note that when $xnotin Z$ and $xnotin P$, then
the value of the second function is $$left(1:frac{1}{f}(x)right),$$
and since $xnotin P$, $frac{1}{f}(x)ne 0$, and since $xnotin Z$, $f(x)ne 0$, so we can multiply both homogeneous coordinates by $f(x)$ and use that for $xnot in Zcup P$, $f(x)frac{1}{f}(x)=1$ to get that the value of the second function in fact equals
$(f(x):1)$, which is the value of the first function at $x$. Thus the two maps glue.



You can check that the points that map to $(1:0)$ will be precisely those in $P$ (since they are the zeros of $frac{1}{f}$).



An aside on notation. I'm using $frac{1}{f}(x)$ which is perhaps not standard notation to emphasize that the inversion of the rational function occurs in the rational function field, rather than by inverting the values of the function.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Dec 9 '18 at 14:54

























answered Dec 8 '18 at 2:55









jgonjgon

14.2k22042




14.2k22042












  • $begingroup$
    Hi and thanks for your reply. I am not aware of the concept of Spec yet (sorry for not mentioning this), but I think I know a correspondence similar to the one you are wielding it's just that it would require $C$ itself to be a variety in order to work. Can $U$ as the complement of an anti image be regarded as a variety? Further: does this correspondence already imply the bijectivity that I mention later in my question?
    $endgroup$
    – Dalamar
    Dec 8 '18 at 10:45






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Dalamar edited
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    Dec 8 '18 at 15:15










  • $begingroup$
    I reformulate my comment. Starting from a rational function $f in K(X)$, I know it will have finitely many zeroes, say a set $Z$ and poles, say a set $P$. I can then define a function $X/P rightarrow mathbb{A}^1$ defined through $k[x] rightarrow mathcal{O}_X(X/P)$ sending $x$ to $f$ and a function $X/Z rightarrow mathbb{A}^1$ defined through $k[y] rightarrow mathcal{O}_X(X/Z)$ sending $y$ to $1/f$. How do I show they glue along $X/Z cap Z/P$ thus defining a function $X rightarrow mathbb{P}^1$? Do divisors help? If you think this requires another question, let me know.
    $endgroup$
    – Dalamar
    Dec 9 '18 at 12:26








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Dalamar I'm editing now, but in response to your second comment, it doesn't have to be. It's perfectly possible to choose it to be the image of $x-1$ or something, since there is an automorphism of $k[x]$ sending $x-1$ to $x$. But $x$ is the natural choice.
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    Dec 9 '18 at 14:45






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Dalamar finished editing.
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    Dec 9 '18 at 14:54


















  • $begingroup$
    Hi and thanks for your reply. I am not aware of the concept of Spec yet (sorry for not mentioning this), but I think I know a correspondence similar to the one you are wielding it's just that it would require $C$ itself to be a variety in order to work. Can $U$ as the complement of an anti image be regarded as a variety? Further: does this correspondence already imply the bijectivity that I mention later in my question?
    $endgroup$
    – Dalamar
    Dec 8 '18 at 10:45






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Dalamar edited
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    Dec 8 '18 at 15:15










  • $begingroup$
    I reformulate my comment. Starting from a rational function $f in K(X)$, I know it will have finitely many zeroes, say a set $Z$ and poles, say a set $P$. I can then define a function $X/P rightarrow mathbb{A}^1$ defined through $k[x] rightarrow mathcal{O}_X(X/P)$ sending $x$ to $f$ and a function $X/Z rightarrow mathbb{A}^1$ defined through $k[y] rightarrow mathcal{O}_X(X/Z)$ sending $y$ to $1/f$. How do I show they glue along $X/Z cap Z/P$ thus defining a function $X rightarrow mathbb{P}^1$? Do divisors help? If you think this requires another question, let me know.
    $endgroup$
    – Dalamar
    Dec 9 '18 at 12:26








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Dalamar I'm editing now, but in response to your second comment, it doesn't have to be. It's perfectly possible to choose it to be the image of $x-1$ or something, since there is an automorphism of $k[x]$ sending $x-1$ to $x$. But $x$ is the natural choice.
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    Dec 9 '18 at 14:45






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Dalamar finished editing.
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    Dec 9 '18 at 14:54
















$begingroup$
Hi and thanks for your reply. I am not aware of the concept of Spec yet (sorry for not mentioning this), but I think I know a correspondence similar to the one you are wielding it's just that it would require $C$ itself to be a variety in order to work. Can $U$ as the complement of an anti image be regarded as a variety? Further: does this correspondence already imply the bijectivity that I mention later in my question?
$endgroup$
– Dalamar
Dec 8 '18 at 10:45




$begingroup$
Hi and thanks for your reply. I am not aware of the concept of Spec yet (sorry for not mentioning this), but I think I know a correspondence similar to the one you are wielding it's just that it would require $C$ itself to be a variety in order to work. Can $U$ as the complement of an anti image be regarded as a variety? Further: does this correspondence already imply the bijectivity that I mention later in my question?
$endgroup$
– Dalamar
Dec 8 '18 at 10:45




1




1




$begingroup$
@Dalamar edited
$endgroup$
– jgon
Dec 8 '18 at 15:15




$begingroup$
@Dalamar edited
$endgroup$
– jgon
Dec 8 '18 at 15:15












$begingroup$
I reformulate my comment. Starting from a rational function $f in K(X)$, I know it will have finitely many zeroes, say a set $Z$ and poles, say a set $P$. I can then define a function $X/P rightarrow mathbb{A}^1$ defined through $k[x] rightarrow mathcal{O}_X(X/P)$ sending $x$ to $f$ and a function $X/Z rightarrow mathbb{A}^1$ defined through $k[y] rightarrow mathcal{O}_X(X/Z)$ sending $y$ to $1/f$. How do I show they glue along $X/Z cap Z/P$ thus defining a function $X rightarrow mathbb{P}^1$? Do divisors help? If you think this requires another question, let me know.
$endgroup$
– Dalamar
Dec 9 '18 at 12:26






$begingroup$
I reformulate my comment. Starting from a rational function $f in K(X)$, I know it will have finitely many zeroes, say a set $Z$ and poles, say a set $P$. I can then define a function $X/P rightarrow mathbb{A}^1$ defined through $k[x] rightarrow mathcal{O}_X(X/P)$ sending $x$ to $f$ and a function $X/Z rightarrow mathbb{A}^1$ defined through $k[y] rightarrow mathcal{O}_X(X/Z)$ sending $y$ to $1/f$. How do I show they glue along $X/Z cap Z/P$ thus defining a function $X rightarrow mathbb{P}^1$? Do divisors help? If you think this requires another question, let me know.
$endgroup$
– Dalamar
Dec 9 '18 at 12:26






1




1




$begingroup$
@Dalamar I'm editing now, but in response to your second comment, it doesn't have to be. It's perfectly possible to choose it to be the image of $x-1$ or something, since there is an automorphism of $k[x]$ sending $x-1$ to $x$. But $x$ is the natural choice.
$endgroup$
– jgon
Dec 9 '18 at 14:45




$begingroup$
@Dalamar I'm editing now, but in response to your second comment, it doesn't have to be. It's perfectly possible to choose it to be the image of $x-1$ or something, since there is an automorphism of $k[x]$ sending $x-1$ to $x$. But $x$ is the natural choice.
$endgroup$
– jgon
Dec 9 '18 at 14:45




1




1




$begingroup$
@Dalamar finished editing.
$endgroup$
– jgon
Dec 9 '18 at 14:54




$begingroup$
@Dalamar finished editing.
$endgroup$
– jgon
Dec 9 '18 at 14:54


















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%2f3030026%2frational-functions-on-curve%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

Le Mesnil-Réaume

Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten

web3.py web3.isConnected() returns false always