Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Proper morphism

In algebraic geometry, a proper morphism is a morphism f: X \to Y of schemes that is separated, of finite type, and universally closed.^[1] This definition captures a notion of "compactness" for morphisms, generalizing the classical idea of a proper map between topological spaces where preimages of compact sets are compact. A key characterization of properness is provided by the valuative criterion: a morphism f: X \to Y of finite type between quasi-separated schemes is proper if and only if, for every valuation ring A with fraction field K, any commutative diagram

\begin{CD} \operatorname{Spec}(K) @>>> X \\ @VVV @VV{f}V \\ \operatorname{Spec}(A) @>>> Y \end{CD}

admits a unique lift \operatorname{Spec}(A) \to X making the diagram commute.^[2] This criterion is particularly useful for verifying properness in practice, as it reduces the condition to a local extension property over discrete valuation rings.^[3] Proper morphisms exhibit several fundamental properties that make them indispensable in the study of schemes and cohomology. They are stable under arbitrary base change, meaning that if f: X \to Y is proper and Y' \to Y is any morphism, then the base-changed morphism X \times_Y Y' \to Y' is also proper.^[4] Similarly, the composition of proper morphisms is proper, facilitating their use in gluing and descent arguments.^[4] Notable examples include closed immersions, which are proper due to their finite type and universal closedness,^[5] and projective morphisms, such as the structure morphism \mathbb{P}^n_S \to S for a scheme S, which are proper and play a central role in embedding varieties into projective space.^[6] These properties ensure that proper morphisms preserve finiteness in cohomology and support key theorems like the proper base change theorem and Grothendieck's existence theorem for coherent sheaves.^[1]

Basic Definition and Properties

Definition

In algebraic geometry, schemes formalize geometric objects defined by systems of polynomial equations over a ring, generalizing classical algebraic varieties. A scheme is a topological space equipped with a sheaf of rings that is locally isomorphic to the spectrum of a commutative ring, denoted \operatorname{Spec} R, where points correspond to prime ideals of R and the topology is the Zariski topology. A morphism f: X \to Y between schemes is a pair consisting of a continuous map between the underlying topological spaces and a homomorphism of sheaves of rings \mathcal{O}_Y \to f_*\mathcal{O}_X that is locally an \mathcal{O}_Y-algebra map, often induced by ring homomorphisms between affine pieces \operatorname{Spec} A \to \operatorname{Spec} B via B \to A. A morphism f: X \to Y of schemes is proper if it is separated, of finite type, and universally closed.^[1] This definition, originating in the foundational work of Grothendieck, captures morphisms that behave well for purposes like cohomology and compactness in the scheme setting.^[1] The separated condition requires that the diagonal morphism \Delta_f: X \to X \times_Y X, which parametrizes pairs of points over the same base point in Y, is a closed immersion. This ensures a separation property akin to Hausdorff spaces in topology, preventing "infinitesimal gluing" along non-closed loci and guaranteeing that fibers over points in Y are well-separated.^[7] A morphism is of finite type if Y has an open cover by affine schemes \{\operatorname{Spec} B_i\} such that for each i, the preimage f^{-1}(\operatorname{Spec} B_i) has a finite open cover by affine schemes \{\operatorname{Spec} A_{ij}\} where each A_{ij} is a finitely generated algebra over B_i. This condition locally mimics maps from finite-dimensional varieties, ensuring controlled complexity in fibers and base.^[8] Universally closed means that f is closed—the image under f of any closed subset of X is closed in Y—and that this closedness is preserved under arbitrary base change: for any scheme Z with morphism Z \to Y, the pulled-back morphism X \times_Y Z \to Z is closed. This universal property strengthens ordinary closedness to handle families robustly.^[9] Projective morphisms, such as those embedding a scheme into projective space over Y, satisfy these conditions and thus are proper.^[1]

Basic Properties

Proper morphisms exhibit several stability properties under standard operations in scheme theory. The composition of two proper morphisms is proper.^[10] Similarly, the base change of a proper morphism along any base morphism is proper.^[4] Closed immersions are proper, as they are separated, of finite type, and universally closed.^[5] Finite morphisms are also proper, since they are affine, separated, and universally closed.^[11] As a consequence of being universally closed, proper morphisms map quasi-compact subsets of the source to quasi-compact subsets of the target.^[12] This property underscores their compactification-like behavior, ensuring that images of "compact" sets remain "compact" and closed under base change, analogous to proper maps in topology. When the target scheme is Noetherian, properness simplifies: a morphism that is of finite type, separated, and closed (without needing universal closedness explicitly) is proper, since universal closedness reduces to mere closedness for such morphisms between Noetherian schemes.^[13]

Examples

Standard Examples

A quintessential example of a proper morphism is the structure morphism \mathbb{P}^n_R \to \Spec R for a commutative ring R, where \mathbb{P}^n_R denotes the projective space scheme over \Spec R. This morphism is proper because projective morphisms, defined as those isomorphic to the structure morphism of a projective scheme relative to the base, satisfy the conditions of being separated, of finite type, and universally closed.^[1] Finite morphisms between schemes provide another fundamental class of proper morphisms. A morphism f: X \to Y is finite if X is affine over Y and the induced map on global sections \mathcal{O}_Y(U) \to \mathcal{O}_X(f^{-1}U) makes \mathcal{O}_X(f^{-1}U) a finite \mathcal{O}_Y(U)-module for every affine open U \subset Y; such morphisms are proper, as they are equivalent to being affine and proper.^[11] Closed immersions, which are finite morphisms corresponding to surjective maps of quasi-coherent sheaves of ideals, thus form a special case of proper morphisms.^[5] Embeddings of projective curves into projective space illustrate proper morphisms in the context of varieties. For instance, the embedding of an elliptic curve E over a field k, realized as a closed subscheme of \mathbb{P}^2_k via its Weierstrass equation, yields a closed immersion E \to \mathbb{P}^2_k, which is proper by the properties of closed immersions. The composition with the proper structure morphism \mathbb{P}^2_k \to \Spec k remains proper, as properness is stable under composition.^[5]

Non-Examples

Affine morphisms provide classic non-examples of proper morphisms, as they often fail the universally closed condition despite satisfying finite type and separatedness. For instance, the structure morphism \mathbb{A}^1_k \to \Spec k for an algebraically closed field k is separated and of finite type but not universally closed, since base changes can yield non-closed maps, such as the projection \mathbb{A}^1_k \times_k \mathbb{P}^1_k \to \mathbb{P}^1_k.^[1] Open immersions into a scheme likewise fail to be proper unless the complementary closed subscheme is empty, as the image of a constructible set may not be closed in the target.^[1] Non-separated morphisms also cannot be proper, even if they are of finite type and universally closed, highlighting the necessity of the separatedness axiom in the definition. A standard example is the projection f: X \to \mathbb{A}^1_k, where X is the affine line with doubled origin (two copies of \mathbb{A}^1_k glued along \mathbb{A}^1_k \setminus \{0\}), and f identifies the coordinates on both copies. This morphism is of finite type and universally closed but fails separatedness, as the diagonal \Delta_X \subset X \times_{\mathbb{A}^1_k} X is not closed (the two origin points specialize to the same image point without a unique lift).^[1] Morphisms failing finite type provide further non-examples, as properness explicitly requires this condition to ensure compactness-like behavior. Consider the structure morphism from the infinite disjoint union \coprod_{n \in \mathbb{N}} \Spec k to \Spec k; this map is separated and universally closed but not quasi-compact, hence not of finite type, since the domain cannot be covered by finitely many affine opens.^[1] The finite type requirement in the definition of proper morphisms thus excludes such infinite-type constructions, preventing pathologies in fiber compactness.^[1]

Characterizations

Valuative Criterion

The valuative criterion provides an abstract characterization of proper morphisms in terms of lifting properties over valuation rings. Specifically, for a quasi-separated morphism f: X \to Y of schemes that is of finite type, f is proper if and only if it is separated and satisfies the valuative criterion of properness.^[2] This criterion, originally established by Grothendieck, reduces the geometric condition of universal closedness to an algebraic lifting condition. The precise formulation of the valuative criterion is as follows: Let R be a discrete valuation ring with fraction field K, and consider a commutative diagram

\xymatrix{ \operatorname{Spec} K \ar \ar & X \ar^f \\ \operatorname{Spec} R \ar & Y }

Then there exists a unique morphism \operatorname{Spec} R \to X making the entire diagram commute. The uniqueness follows from the separatedness of f, while the existence encodes the closedness property. For the general case without the discreteness assumption, the criterion holds for arbitrary valuation rings, but discrete valuation rings suffice under finite type and Noetherian hypotheses.^[2] This criterion captures universal closedness because valuation rings model specializations in the scheme topology, corresponding to limits along "curves" approaching a point. To verify universal closedness after a base change Y' \to Y, one reduces to testing on such valuation rings via quasi-compactness and Noetherian approximations: the existence of the lift ensures that points in the generic fiber (from K) specialize without escaping the image of closed sets in the special fiber, thereby preserving closedness under arbitrary base changes. The proof proceeds by showing equivalence between the lifting condition and the specialization property for points, using the fact that any specialization in a fiber can be represented by a valuation ring morphism.^[14]

Other Characterizations

In algebraic geometry, a key cohomological characterization of proper morphisms states that, for a morphism f: X \to Y between locally Noetherian schemes, f is proper if and only if it is separated and of finite type, and the higher direct image sheaves R^i f_* \mathcal{F} are coherent for all i \geq 0 and all coherent sheaves \mathcal{F} on X.^[15] This equivalence holds under the Noetherian hypothesis, which ensures that coherence of pushforwards captures the "relative compactness" inherent to properness, distinguishing it from mere finite type morphisms where higher direct images may fail to be coherent.^[15] In the topological setting, proper maps provide an analog to proper morphisms of schemes, defined as continuous maps f: X \to Y between topological spaces that are closed and have compact fibers.^[16] This formulation aligns with the scheme-theoretic notion via the Zariski topology, where quasi-compactness substitutes for compactness, ensuring that preimages of quasi-compact sets remain quasi-compact and closed immersions behave universally.^[17] For schemes over \mathbb{C}, proper morphisms correspond to holomorphic maps that are proper in the classical sense when viewed through the analytic topology.^[18] Another characterization views proper morphisms through the lens of compactification: a perspective on properness is through compactification, where separated morphisms of finite type over a locally Noetherian base admit a compactification by a proper morphism \overline{f}: \overline{X} \to Y extending f with X an open dense subscheme of \overline{X}. This perspective, rooted in Nagata's compactification theorem, underscores that properness signifies the morphism is already "complete" without needing further extension, preserving properties like coherence under base change.^[19]^[20]

Geometric Interpretations

Disk Interpretation

In the complex analytic setting, the valuative criterion for properness of a morphism f: X \to Y admits a geometric interpretation using disks, where the spectrum of a discrete valuation ring R with fraction field K is analogous to the closed unit disk \overline{D} in \mathbb{C}, and \Spec K corresponds to the punctured disk D^* = \overline{D} \setminus \{0\}.^[21] The closed point of \Spec R plays the role of the origin, while the generic point aligns with the interior punctured region. This analogy underscores the algebraic valuative criterion as capturing local uniqueness and existence of extensions across the "boundary" defined by the valuation, akin to analytic continuation principles in complex geometry. The boundary behavior mimics how proper maps prevent points from escaping to infinity near the special fiber, ensuring closedness and separatedness in the scheme-theoretic sense. In the analytic setting, this corresponds to the fact that for proper analytic maps, holomorphic maps from a punctured disk to X over a map from the closed disk to Y extend uniquely to the closed disk. A representative example is the structure morphism \mathbb{P}^1_{\mathbb{C}} \to \Spec \mathbb{C}, which is proper. Any holomorphic map from the punctured disk D^* to \mathbb{P}^1_{\mathbb{C}} extends uniquely to a holomorphic map from the closed disk \overline{D} to \mathbb{P}^1_{\mathbb{C}}, as \mathbb{P}^1_{\mathbb{C}} is a compact Riemann surface (by the Riemann removable singularities theorem if the image avoids infinity, or by mapping the origin to infinity otherwise).^[6]

Curve Interpretation

In algebraic geometry, the curve interpretation of proper morphisms arises in the context of families of curves over a discrete valuation ring (DVR). Consider a smooth curve C over the fraction field K of a DVR R with residue field k. A proper model of C is a flat, proper morphism X \to \Spec R such that the generic fiber X_K \cong C, ensuring that X is an integral scheme with function field K(C).^[22] This setup illustrates how properness enforces a global compactification: the special fiber X_s = X \times_{\Spec R} \Spec k serves as a compactification of the normalization of the base change of C to k, where the normalization resolves any singularities in the reduction while preserving the proper structure over k.^[23] For instance, if C is projective over K, the minimal regular proper model X—unique up to isomorphism for positive genus—has X_s as a nodal curve whose components compactify the normalized generic fiber components. Non-proper morphisms in this setting lead to pathological behavior in the curve family, such as "holes" in the special fiber or non-unique extensions of sections. If the morphism X \to \Spec R is not proper, the special fiber X_s may fail to be proper over k, resulting in an open subscheme that misses points at infinity, analogous to an affine line reducing to a non-compact punctured line.^[1] This manifests as gaps where rational points on the generic fiber do not extend continuously to the special fiber, disrupting the global topology of the family. In contrast, properness guarantees that X_s is a closed subscheme that fully compactifies the family without such defects.^[22] Proper curves over DVRs exhibit rigidity, characterized by finite fibers and the absence of non-trivial infinitesimal extensions. The special fiber X_s of a proper model has finite type and is proper over k, implying that its irreducible components are projective curves with only finitely many points over finite extensions of k.^[1] Moreover, the valuative criterion for properness ensures no infinitesimal extensions: maps from the generic point of \Spec R to X extend uniquely to the entire \Spec R, preventing infinitesimal deformations or multiple lifts in the curve family.^[3] This rigidity underscores the global control properness imposes on curve degenerations, aligning with the finite automorphism groups of minimal models for higher-genus curves.^[24]

Advanced Topics

Formal Schemes

In the category of formal schemes, the notion of a proper morphism is adapted to account for the adic structure inherent in these objects. For locally Noetherian formal schemes, a morphism f: X \to S is defined to be proper if it is adic, separated, of finite type, and universally closed.^[25] This definition parallels the classical case for schemes but incorporates the adic topology, ensuring that the morphism respects the completions defining the formal schemes.^[26] A key difference from proper morphisms of ordinary schemes lies in the role of the adic topology: formal schemes are locally of the form \mathrm{Spf}(A) for complete Noetherian rings A with respect to an ideal of definition, and morphisms must be continuous and adic, meaning they are locally induced by maps of adic rings.^[26] This ensures compatibility with infinitesimal thickenings and limits, which is crucial for handling completions along closed subschemes. Representative examples include the structure morphism of formal projective space \mathbb{P}^n_S over a formal scheme S = \mathrm{Spf}(A), which is proper as it extends the projective case classically.^[25] Similarly, finite morphisms between formal affine schemes, such as those arising from finite étale covers in the adic setting, satisfy the properness conditions. Such morphisms find essential applications in deformation theory, where they facilitate the study of infinitesimal deformations via formal completions, ensuring coherence of pushforward sheaves under base changes.^[27] In p-adic geometry, proper morphisms of formal schemes serve as models for rigid analytic spaces, enabling cohomology comparisons and the Proper Mapping Theorem for coherent sheaves on p-adic varieties.^[27]

Relative Properness

In algebraic geometry, a morphism f: X \to Y of schemes is said to be proper relative to a base morphism g: Y \to Z (or simply proper over Z) if the composition g \circ f: X \to Z is a proper morphism and g: Y \to Z is separated.^[28] This notion extends the classical definition of properness by incorporating the base structure, ensuring that the relative geometry behaves well when Y is not necessarily proper but remains separated over Z. Basic properties of proper morphisms, such as stability under composition and base change, carry over to this relative setting with appropriate adjustments for the separatedness condition on the base.^[10] For morphisms of algebraic stacks, the relative notion is defined analogously: a morphism \mathcal{X} \to \mathcal{Y} is proper over a base stack \mathcal{Z} if the composition \mathcal{X} \to \mathcal{Z} is proper and \mathcal{Y} \to \mathcal{Z} is separated.^[29] This generalization is crucial in the fibered category of algebraic stacks, where representability by schemes or algebraic spaces allows the definition to align with the scheme-theoretic case. In modern treatments, such as those in the Stacks Project, relative properness is formalized to handle the stacky nature while preserving key finiteness conditions like finite type and universal closedness.^[30] In the context of moduli stacks, relative properness plays a pivotal role in ensuring compactness and stability under base change. For instance, a moduli stack of curves or sheaves that is relatively proper over the base parameter space guarantees that families remain proper after pulling back to test schemes, preventing pathological behaviors like unboundedness in fibers.^[31] This property is essential for constructing virtual fundamental classes and computing invariants in enumerative geometry, as it implies that the stack is of finite type over the base and closed under arbitrary base changes without introducing non-proper components. Relative properness also connects to Deligne-Mumford stacks, where a stack is Deligne-Mumford if it has a representable diagonal and an étale surjective presentation by a scheme; when such a stack is relatively proper over a base, it inherits finiteness properties that facilitate cohomology computations. Specifically, for coherent sheaves on relatively proper stacks, the higher direct images under the structure morphism to the base are coherent, which, when the base is the spectrum of a field, leads to finite-dimensional cohomology groups analogous to the projective case for schemes.^[32] This property underpins many results in stacky algebraic geometry, including those in deformation theory and mirror symmetry.

References

[1]
Section 29.41 (01W0): Proper morphisms—The Stacks project
Let f : X \to S be a morphism of schemes. We say f is proper if f is separated, finite type, and universally closed.Missing: EGA 5.4.1
[2]
https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/0BX5
[3]
https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/0BX4
[4]
https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/01W4
[5]
https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/01W5
[6]
Section 29.43 (01W7): Projective morphisms—The Stacks project
29.43 Projective morphisms. We will use the definition of a projective morphism from [EGA]. The version of the definition with the “H” is the one from [H].
[7]
Section 26.21 (01KH): Separation axioms—The Stacks project
We say a scheme Y is separated if the morphism Y \to \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(\mathbf{Z}) is separated. We say a scheme Y is quasi-separated if the morphism Y \to ...
[8]
Section 29.15 (01T0): Morphisms of finite type—The Stacks project
The composition of two morphisms which are locally of finite type is locally of finite type. The same is true for morphisms of finite type.
[9]
32.14 Universally closed morphisms - Stacks Project
32.14 Universally closed morphisms. In this section we discuss when a quasi-compact (but not necessarily separated) morphism is universally closed.
[10]
Lemma 29.41.4 (01W3)—The Stacks project
### Extracted Lemma Statement and Summary
[11]
Lemma 29.41.5 (01W4)—The Stacks project
### Extracted Lemma Statement
[12]
Lemma 29.41.6 (01W5)—The Stacks project
### Extracted Lemma Statement
[13]
Lemma 29.44.11 (01WN)—The Stacks project
A finite morphism is integral and separated, the fact that a proper morphism is the same thing as a finite type, separated, universally closed morphism.
[14]
Lemma 29.41.8 (04XU)—The Stacks project
A universally closed morphism of schemes is quasi-compact. Proof. Let f : X \to S be a morphism. Assume that f is not quasi-compact. Our goal is to show ...
[15]
[PDF] Schemes - University of Utah Math Dept.
(ii) f : X → S is proper if it is separated, of finite type, and universally closed. Remarks. If f : X → S is a morphism of Noetherian schemes, then the ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[16]
Lemma 29.42.1 (0BX5): Valuative criterion for properness—The ...
[II Theorem 7.3.8, EGA]. Lemma 29.42.1 (Valuative criterion for properness). Let S be a scheme. Let f : X \to Y be a morphism of schemes over S. Assume f is ...
[17]
26.20 Valuative criterion for universal closedness - Stacks Project
Let f be a quasi-compact morphism of schemes. Then f is universally closed if and only if f satisfies the existence part of the valuative criterion.Missing: sets | Show results with:sets
[18]
69.20 Higher direct images of coherent sheaves - Stacks Project
In this section we prove the fundamental fact that the higher direct images of a coherent sheaf under a proper morphism are coherent.
[19]
proper map in nLab
Nov 1, 2025 · A proper map is a continuous function where 'X is compact, relative to Y', meaning X is compact when considered in relation to Y.Definition · Via nets · As a continuous family of... · Further characterizations
[20]
proper morphism in nLab
Aug 24, 2024 · Between schemes. A proper morphism of schemes is by definition a morphism f : X → Y f:X\to Y which is. separated,. of finite type · universally ...
[21]
Section 5.17 (005M): Characterizing proper maps—The Stacks project
If X is quasi-compact and Y is Hausdorff, then f is universally closed. Proof. Since every point of Y is closed, we see from Lemma 5.12.3 that the closed subset ...
[22]
Section 81.14 (0F44): Compactifications—The Stacks project
Let f : X \to Y be a proper morphism of quasi-compact and quasi-separated algebraic spaces over S. Let V \subset Y be a quasi-compact open and U = f^{-1}(V).Missing: characterization | Show results with:characterization
[23]
On Relative Birational Geometry and Nagata's Compactification for ...
In this article, we clarify that theory and extend it to morphisms between algebraic spaces. ... proper morphism Y → X ⁠. Since any affine morphism of ...
[24]
[PDF] FOUNDATIONS OF ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY CLASS 26
Jan 26, 2006 · Definition. We say a map of topological spaces (i.e. a continuous ... (a) The notion of “proper morphism” is stable under base change.
[25]
Section 55.8 (0C2R): Models—The Stacks project
A minimal model will be a regular, proper model X for C such that X does not contain an exceptional curve of the first kind (Resolution of Surfaces, Section ...Missing: DVR Liu
[26]
https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/0AHY
[27]
Section 29.42 (0BX4): Valuative criteria—The Stacks project
... Noetherian schemes and morphisms of finite type. Lemma 29.42.1 (Valuative ... universally closed. If moreover f is quasi-separated, then f is separated ...
[28]
55.10 Uniqueness of the minimal model - Stacks project
However as X is a minimal model it contains no exceptional curves of the first kind, hence m = 0 and X = Y.) Lemma 55.10.Missing: DVR | Show results with:DVR
[29]
Section 87.31 (0AM5): Proper morphisms—The Stacks project
Let S be a scheme. Let f : Y \to X be a morphism of formal algebraic spaces over S. We say f is proper if f is representable by algebraic spaces.
[30]
Section 87.2 (0AHY): Formal schemes à la EGA—The Stacks project
In this section we review the construction of formal schemes in [EGA]. This notion, although very useful in algebraic geometry, may not always be the correct ...
[31]
[PDF] Siegfried Bosch - Lectures on Formal and Rigid Geometry
closed unit disk around 0 in K. A subset U X is called a standard set if ... a proper morphism of rigid K-spaces. Then, for any closed analytic ...
[32]
Lemma 29.41.7 (01W6)—The Stacks project
Hence the first morphism is proper (Lemma 29.41.6). The projection X \times _ S Y \to Y is the base change of a universally closed (resp. proper) morphism ...
[33]
https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/0CPT
[34]
https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/0CL5
[35]
Section 101.37 (0CL4): Proper morphisms—The Stacks project
A proper morphism of algebraic stacks is defined as a morphism that is separated, finite type, and universally closed.
[36]
86.9 Relative dualizing complexes for proper flat morphisms
Let X \to Y be a proper, flat morphism of algebraic spaces which is of finite presentation. If (\omega _{X/Y}^\bullet , \tau ) is a relative dualizing ...