The abstract setting used is that of a group action on a scheme . The simple-minded idea of an orbit space i.e. the quotient space of by the group action, runs into difficulties in algebraic geometry, for reasons that are explicable in abstract terms. There is in fact no general reason why equivalence relations should interact well with the (rather rigid) regular functions (polynomial functions), which are at the heart of algebraic geometry. The functions on the orbit space that should be considered are those on that are invariant under the action of . The direct approach can be made, by means of the function field of a variety (i.e. rational functions): take the G-invariant rational functions on it, as the function field of the quotient variety. Unfortunately this — the point of view of birational geometry — can only give a first approximation to the answer. As Mumford put it in the Preface to the book:The problem is, within the set of all models of the resulting birational class, there is one model whose geometric points classify the set of orbits in some action, or the set of algebraic objects in some moduli problem. In Chapter 5 he isolates further the specific technical problem addressed, in a moduli problem of quite classical type — classify the big 'set' of all algebraic varieties subject only to being non-singular (and a requisite condition on polarization). The moduli are supposed to describe the parameter space. For example, for algebraic curves it has been known from the time of Riemann that there should be connected components of dimensions according to the genus ,and the moduli are functions on each component. In the coarse moduli problem Mumford considers the obstructions to be: non-separated topology on the moduli space (i.e. not enough parameters in good standing) infinitely many irreducible components (which isn't avoidable, but local finiteness may hold) failure of components to be representable as schemes, although representable topologically. It is the third point that motivated the whole theory. As Mumford puts it, if the first two difficulties are resolved [the third question] becomes essentially equivalent to the question of whether an orbit space of some locally closed subset of the Hilbert or Chow schemes by the projective group exists. To deal with this he introduced a notion (in fact three) of stability. This enabled him to open up the previously treacherous area — much