arXiv:1506.08738v2 [math.AG] 7 Aug 2015

VARIANTS OF NORMALITY FOR NOETHERIAN SCHEMES
JÁNOS KOLLÁR
Abstract. This note presents a uniform treatment of normality and three of
its variants—topological, weak and seminormality—for Noetherian schemes.
The key is to define these notions for pairs (Z, X) consisting of a (not necessarily reduced) scheme X and a closed, nowhere dense subscheme Z. An
advantage of the new definitions is that, unlike the usual absolute ones, they
are preserved by completions. This shortens some of the proofs and leads to
more general results.

Definition 1. Let X be a scheme and Z ⊂ X a closed, nowhere dense subscheme.
A finite modification of X centered at Z is a finite morphism p : Y → X such that
none of the associated primes of Y is contained in ZY := p−1 (Z) and
p|Y \ZY : Y \ ZY → X \ Z

is an isomorphism.

(1.1)

Let j : X \ Z ֒→ X be the natural injection and JZ ⊂ OX the largest subsheaf
supported on Z. There is a one-to-one correspondence between finite modifications
and coherent OX -algebras
OX /JZ ⊂ p∗ OY ⊂ j∗ OX\Z .

(1.2)

The notion of an integral modification of X centered at Z is defined analogously.
Let A ⊂ j∗ OX\Z be the largest subalgebra that is integral over OX . Then SpecX A
is the maximal integral modification, called the relative normalization of the pair
Z ⊂ X. We denote it by
π : (Z rn ⊂ X rn ) → (Z ⊂ X) or by

π : XZrn → X.

(1.3)

The relative normalization is the limit of all finite modifications centered at Z. (It
would be called the relative normalization of X in X \ Z in the terminology of
[Sta15, Tag 0BAK].)
If (x, X) is semilocal then a finite modification of X centered at Z = {x} is called
a punctual modification of (x, X). The relative normalization
of (x, X) is called the

punctual normalization and denoted by π : xpn , X pn → (x, X).
Definition 2. Let X be a Noetherian scheme and Z ⊂ X a closed, nowhere dense
subscheme. We define 4 properties of such pairs, depending on the behavior of all
finite modifications p : Y → X centered at Z.
N (normality): every p : Y → X is an isomorphism.
TN (topological normality): every p : Y → X is a universal homeomorphism
(Definition 48).
WN (weak normality): if p : Y → X is a universal homeomorphism then it is
an isomorphism.
SN (seminormality): if p : Y → X is a universal homeomorphism that preserves
residue fields (Definition 48) then it is an isomorphism.
1

2

JÁNOS KOLLÁR

We stress that X is an arbitrary Noetherian scheme and these are all properties of
pairs Z ⊂ X. A direct predecessor of these definitions is in the works of S. Kovács
who developed the notions of rational and Du Bois pairs [Kov11a, Kov11b], but
working with pairs instead of schemes has long been a theme of the Minimal Model
Program; see [Kol97, Laz04, KK10, Kol13].
We also say that “Z ⊂ X is a normal pair” and similarly for the other variants.
A semilocal scheme (x, X) is called punctually normal if the pair {x} ⊂ X is normal;
similarly for the other versions.
We say that a scheme X without isolated points satisfies N (or TN, ...) if the
pair Z ⊂ X satisfies N (or TN, ...) for every closed, nowhere dense subscheme Z.
If X has isolated points then in addition we require these points to be reduced for
N, WN and SN.
It would have been possible to formulate all these notions for integral morphisms,
but I prefer to stay with Noetherian schemes. In all results the integral morphism
versions are direct consequences of the finite morphism versions.
In the definition of topological normality it seems artificial to restrict to maps
that are isomorphisms over X \ Z; one should clearly allow universal homeomorphisms over X \ Z. This leads to the following variant of TN.
Definition 3. Let X be a scheme and Z ⊂ X a closed, nowhere dense subscheme.
A finite topological modification of X centered at Z is a finite morphism p : Y → X
such that none of the associated primes of Y is contained in ZY := p−1 (Z) and
p|Y \ZY : Y \ ZY → X \ Z

is a universal homeomorphism.

(3.1)

In analogy with the notion of topological normality we introduce the following.
STN (strong topological normality): every finite topological modification of X
centered at Z is a universal homeomorphism.
This is clearly a topological property. That is, let f : Y → X be a finite, universal
homeomorphism. Then Z ⊂ X is STN iff f −1 (Z) ⊂ Y is STN. In particular, X is
STN iff red X is STN.
It is clear that STN ⇒ TN; eventually we show in Theorem 31 that STN is
equivalent to TN.
Comments 4. The main contribution of this note is Definitions 2–3, or rather the
assertion the these concepts are natural and useful. To support this claim, we show
the following.
• A scheme satisfies N (resp. WN or SN) iff it is normal (resp. weakly or
seminormal) (Proposition 5 and Definition 50).
• All 5 properties in Definitions 2–3 are local, even eqivalent to the punctual
versions (Proposition 10).
• All the properties are preserved by completion (Corollary 17).
• A scheme X is normal (resp. weakly or seminormal) iff the completion
(x̂, X̂) is punctually normal (resp. weakly or seminormal) for every x ∈ X
(Corollary 18).
• All the properties descend for faithfully flat morphisms (Proposition 11).
• All the properties ascend for regular morphisms (Theorem 37).
• Properties TN, STN and being geometrically unibranch coincide (Theorem
31 and Corollary 32).

VARIANTS OF NORMALITY FOR NOETHERIAN SCHEMES

3

• Weak and seminormality can be described in terms of the conductors of the
punctual normalizations (Corollary 28).
• Finiteness of relative normalization is a punctual property (Theorem 19).
• Nagata schemes can be characterized using punctual normalizations or the
reducedness of the formal fibers (Theorem 45).
Note, however, that many of the arguments are either classical or can be traced
back to one of the main sources [Gro60, Har62, Gro68, Tra70, GT80, Man80]; I try
to give more precise references in each section. For many of the topics the best
reference is [Sta15].
(4.1) It would be natural to say that “(x, X) is normal” or “X is normal along
Z” but this is at variance with standard usage since Z ⊂ X can be a normal pair
even if X is not normal at any point of Z. For instance, the pairs
{(0, 0, 0)} ⊂ X1 := (xy = 0) ⊂ A3

and {(0, 0, 0)} ⊂ X2 := (z 2 = 0) ⊂ A3

are both normal by our definition. This may seem somewhat perverse, but the
resulting flexibility is a crucial ingredient in several of our proofs.
(4.2) A key advantage of the above definitions is that the punctual versions
are preserved by completion (17). This makes it possible to study several basic
results that were known for Nagata schemes and extend them to general Noetherian
schemes. In addition, the resulting proofs are shorter and use simpler inductive
steps. Note that completions of normal Noetherian rings can be quite complicated;
see the examples in [Nag62, A.1] and [Lec86, Hei93, CL04, Nis12].
(4.3) It would seem to be natural to introduce another notion TNR (topological
normality preserving residue fields): every finite modification p : Y → X centered
at Z is a universal homeomorphism and preserves residue fields. However, example
(36) shows that TNR is not topological. Thus, although the introduction of TNR
makes the diagram in (4.4) pleasingly symmetrical, it is probably not a useful
concept.
(4.4) For any pair Z ⊂ X we have the following obvious implications between
these notions
TN + WN ⇔ N
⇑
⇓
T N R + SN ⇔ N.
Acknowledgments. I thank A. J. de Jong, W. Heinzer, R. Heitmann, S. Kovács
and S. Loepp for helpful comments and references. Partial financial support was
provided by the NSF under grant number DMS-1362960.
1. Normal pairs
First we show that our definition of normality coincides with the usual one.
Proposition 5. A Noetherian scheme X without isolated points is normal (resp.
weakly or seminormal) iff Z ⊂ X is a normal (resp. weakly or seminormal) pair
for every nowhere dense closed subscheme Z
Proof. Assume that X is normal. Every finite modification centered at Z is
dominated by the normalization, hence necessarily an isomorphism. Similarly, if
X is weakly (resp. semi) normal then every birational, universal homeomorphism
(resp. one that also preserves residue fields) is an isomorphism.

4

JÁNOS KOLLÁR

To see the converse, we may assume that X is affine (cf. Proposition 10). First
we show that X is reduced. If not then there is an irreducible subscheme Z such
that J, the ideal of all nilpotent sections with support in Z, is nonzero. If there
is such a Z that is nowhere dense then SpecX OX /J → X shows that Z ⊂ X is
not a seminormal pair. Otherwise X has no embedded points hence there is an
r ∈ OX such that multiplication by r is injective but not surjective on J. (Here
we use that dim Z > 0.) There is a natural algebra structure on the OX -module
1
OX + r1 J where we set 1r J · r1 J = 0. The
 diagonally embedded δ : J ֒→ OX
 + r J is
1
an ideal and SpecX (OX + r J /δ(J) → X shows that (r = 0) ∩ Z ⊂ X is not a
seminormal pair. Thus X is reduced.
Let X̄ → X be the normalization (resp. weak or seminormalization). We are

done if X = X̄. Otherwise pick any φ ∈ OX̄ \ OX and set Z := Supp OX [φ]/OX .
Then SpecX OX [φ] → X shows that the pair Z ⊂ X is not normal (resp. weakly or
seminormal).

Lemma 6. Let (R, m) be a local Noetherian ring. Then exactly one of the following
holds.
(1) (R, m) is Artinian,
(2) (R, m) is regular of dimension 1,
(3) depthm R ≥ 2 or
(4) (R, m) is a non-normal pair.
Note that (R, m) is a non-normal pair iff there is a ring homomorphism φ : R → S
(other than an isomorphism) whose kernel and cokernel are killed by a power of m
and such that m is not an associated prime of S.
Proof. The proof is essentially the same as that of Serre’s criterion of normality.
(R, m) is not Artinian iff V (m) ⊂ Spec R is nowhere dense; we assume this from
now on.
Let J ⊂ R be the largest ideal killed by a power of m. If J 6= 0 then R → R/J
shows that (R, m) is a non-normal pair.
Otherwise J = 0 and there is an r ∈ m that is not a zero-divisor. If m is not an
associated prime of R/(r) then depthm R ≥ 2. Thus we are left with the case when
there is an a ∈ R \ (r) such that am ⊂ rR.
If am ⊂ rm then, by the determinantal trick [AM69, Prop.2.4], a/r satisfies a
monic polynomial, hence R ⊂ R[a/r] shows that (R, m) is a non-normal pair.
Otherwise there is a t0 ∈ m such that at0 = r; in particular a is not a zerodivisor. For any t ∈ m we have at = rt′ for some t′ ∈ R. Thus a(t − t′ t0 ) =
at − t′ (at0 ) = at − t′ r = 0. Since a is not a zero-divisor this implies that t = t′ t0
and so m = (t0 ). Thus (R, m) is regular of dimension 1.

This directly implies the following claims.
Corollary 7. Let X be a Noetherian scheme and D ⊂ X an effective Cartier
divisor. The pair D ⊂ X is normal iff X is regular at the generic points of D and
D has no embedded points.

Corollary 8. A Noetherian scheme X is S2 iff Z ⊂ X is a normal pair for every
closed subscheme of codimension ≥ 2.

9. All of the properties in Definition 2 can be understood in terms of the relative
normalization πZ : XZrn → X.

VARIANTS OF NORMALITY FOR NOETHERIAN SCHEMES

5

For TN this is clear. Since πZ : XZrn → X is the limit of finite modifications,
Z ⊂ X satisfies TN iff π is a universal homeomorphism. The only complication is
that the relative normalization need not be Noetherian in general. Luckily we will
be able to avoid this issue.
A description of WN and SN in terms of the conductor of the relative normalization is given in (28); this is less straightforward.
2. Punctual nature
For a scheme X and point x ∈ X we set Xx := SpecX Ox,X . Thus (x, Xx )
is a local scheme. We show that our properties can be described in terms of the
local schemes of X and their punctual modifications. These arguments are rather
standard.
Proposition 10 (Punctual nature). Let X be a Noetherian scheme, Z ⊂ X a
closed subscheme and P any of the 5 properties in Definitions 2–3.
(1) If P holds for Z ⊂ X then P holds for (x, Xx ) for every x ∈ Z.
(2) The converse holds except possibly for TN.
Complement. We prove in (31) that TN=STN, hence (10.2) also holds for TN.
Proof. Let f : Y → X be a morphism that shows
 that Z ⊂ X does not satisfy P
and let x be a generic point of Supp f∗ OY /OX . Then localizing at x shows that
(x, Xx ) does not satisfiy P in the cases N, SN and WN. For STN, let g : Z → X
be the purely inseparable closure
of X in Y (51). Then we take x to be a generic

point of Supp f∗ OY /g∗ OZ .
Let fx : (y, Y ) → (x, X) show that (x, Xx ) does not satisfy P. By Corollary 14,
it is obtained as the localization of a finite modification f : Y → X centered at
x̄ ⊂ Z. If P is one of N, TN then f shows that Z ⊂ X does not satisfy P.
If P is WN (resp. SN) then we have to find such an f : Y → X that is a universal
homeomorphism (resp. also preserves residue fields). These are also guaranteed by
(14). For STN we first extend fx to a finite morphism fU : YU → U for some open
neighborhood x ∈ U ⊂ X and then use (13.2) to extend it to f : Y → X.

Even stronger localization can be obtained using the following result which shows
that the properties descend for faithfully flat morphisms.

Proposition 11. Let f : Y → X be a faithfully flat morphism of Noetherian
schemes, Z ⊂ X a closed, nowhere dense subscheme and ZY := f −1 (Z). If ZY ⊂ Y
satisfies any of the 5 properties P in Definitions 2–3 then so does Z ⊂ X.

Proof. Let p : X ′ → X be a finite modification centered at Z. Then pY :=
(p × f ) : Y ′ := X ′ ×X Y → Y is a finite morphism that is an isomorphism over
′
Y \ ZY . Since f is flat, none of the associated primes of Y ′ is contained in p−1
Y (Z ).
′
Thus pY : Y → Y is a finite modification centered at ZY . Furthermore, if p
is a universal homeomorphism or preserves residue fields then pY also has these
properties. If f is faithfully flat then p is an isomorphism off pY is.
Thus if p : X ′ → X shows that Z ⊂ X does not satisfy the property P then
pY : Y ′ → Y shows that ZY ⊂ Y also does not satisfy the property P.

Example 12. If f : (y, Y ) → (x, X) is flat and (y, Y ) satisfies the property P then
(x, X) need not satisfy P. For instance, if (x, X) is any local scheme then the pair
{(x, 0, 0)} ⊂ X × A2 is punctually normal.

6

JÁNOS KOLLÁR

The following could have been an exercise in [Har77, Sec.II.5].
Proposition 13 (Extension of finite morphisms). Let X be a Noetherian scheme,
X 0 ⊂ X an open subscheme and f 0 : Y 0 → X 0 a finite morphism. Then
(1) f 0 can be extended to a finite, surjective morphism f : Y → X.
(2) Let U ⊂ X be an open subset such that f 0 is an isomorphism (resp. partial
weak or seminormalization (50)) over U ∩ X 0 . Then we can choose f to be
an isomorphism (resp. partial weak or seminormalization) over U .
(3) If X is Nagata, Y 0 is reduced and f 0 (Y 0 ) is dense in X then there is a
unique maximal reduced extension.
Proof. By adding X \ X 0 both to X 0 and Y 0 we may assume that X 0 is dense
in X. Then we would like to take Y to be the relative normalization of X in Y 0 ;
see (51) or [Sta15, Tag 0BAK]. In case (3) this gives a finite extension Y → X but
in general the resulting π : Y max → X is only integral. (For example, the relative
normalization of k[x, x−1 , y]/(y 2 ) in k[x, y]/(y 2 ) is k[x, x−r y : r = 0, 1, . . . ]/(y 2 ).)
Thus one needs to prove that a suitable finite subalgebra of π∗ OYmax works; the
proof is very similar to [Har77, Exrc.II.5.15] or see [Sta15, Tag 05K0].
If f 0 is an isomorphism over U ∩ X 0 then first we extend it to U ∪ Y 0 (glued
along U ∩ X 0 ) and then apply (1). Finally, if f 0 is a partial weak (resp. semi)
normalization then first we choose any finite extension f ′ : Y ′ → X and then let Y
be the relative weak (resp. semi) normalization (50) of X in Y ′ .

If Z ′ ⊂ X ′ is a localization of Z ⊂ X and Y ′ → X ′ is a finite modification then
we can first extend it to Y 0 → X 0 for some open subset X 0 ⊂ X and then use (13)
to extend it to Y → X. Thus (13) can be reformulated as follows.

Corollary 14. The relative normalization XZrn commutes with localization. The
same holds for the relative weak and seminormalization XZrwn and XZrsn (51).

3. Formal nature

A key advantage of the punctual versions of the 4 properties in Definition 2 is
that they are preserved by completions. This is in contrast with the usual notions
of normality (resp. weak or seminormality); these are not always preserved by
completions and it is frequently not easy to understand the cases when they are
preserved.
The following is a special case of formal gluing originated in [Art70]. For a
thorough general discussion see [Sta15, Tags 05E5 and 0AEP]. We give a short
proof below using only the simpler methods employed there.
Proposition 15. Let X be a Noetherian scheme and Z ⊂ X a closed, nowhere
dense subscheme with ideal sheaf I ⊂ OX . Let X̂ denote the I-adic completion of
X and Z ∼
= Ẑ ⊂ X̂ the corresponding subscheme. Then completion provides an
equivalence of categories
{finite modifications of Z ⊂ X} ⇔ {finite modifications of Ẑ ⊂ X̂}.
Proof. The question is local hence we may assume that X is affine. We may also
assume that none of the associated primes of X is contained in Z.
Let τ : U := X \ Z ֒→ X be the natural open embedding; similarly we have
τ̂ : Û := X̂ \ Ẑ ֒→ X̂. Set R := H 0 (X, OX ), S := H 0 (U, OU ) = H 0 (X, τ∗ OU ) and,
similarly R̂ := H 0 (X̂, OX̂ ), Ŝ := H 0 (Û , OÛ ) = H 0 (X̂, τ̂∗ OÛ ).

VARIANTS OF NORMALITY FOR NOETHERIAN SCHEMES

7

Since X̂ → X is flat, cohomology and base change for τ : U → X says that
Ŝ = S ⊗R R̂.
As we noted in (1.2), finite modifications of Z ⊂ X correspond to subalgebras
R ⊂ R′ ⊂ S that are finite over R.
In general, let R be a Noetherian ring, I ⊂ R an ideal and S ⊃ R an R-algebra
such that I is nilpotent on S/R. If R ⊂ R′ ⊂ S is a subalgebra that is finite over
R then I m R′ ⊂ R for some m > 0 and hence R′ ⊂ R : I m . Multiplication gives a
map

φ : (R : I m )/I m ⊗ (R : I m )/I m → (R : I 2m )/R and φ R′ /I m , R′ /I m ⊂ R′ /R.

Conversely, if R ⊂ M ⊂ (R : I m ) is any submodule such that φ M/I m , M/I m ⊂
M/R then M is a subalgebra.
Take now the I-adic completion R̂ and set Ŝ := R̂ ⊗R S. Since I is nilpotent on
S/R, we see that Ŝ/R̂ ∼
= (R̂ : Iˆm )/Iˆm for every m > 0.
= S/R and so (R : I m )/I m ∼
This gives an equivalence of categories between algebras R ⊂ R′ ⊂ S that are finite
over R and algebras R̂ ⊂ R̂′ ⊂ Ŝ that are finite over R̂.

By passing to the limit on both sides, we get the following.
Corollary 16. Let X be a Noetherian scheme and Z ⊂ X a closed, nowhere dense
subscheme. Then
X̂Ẑrn = XZrn ×X X̂. 
Corollary 17 (Formal nature). Using the notation of (15) let P denote any of the
4 properties in Definition 2. Then P holds for Z ⊂ X iff it holds for Ẑ ⊂ X̂.
Complement. We prove in (31) that STN=TN, hence (17) also holds for STN.
Proof. The if part follows from (11) since X̂ is faithfully flat over X.
To see the converse, let p̂ : Ŷ → X̂ be any finite modification. By (15) there is
a finite modification p : Y → X such that Ŷ = Y ×X X̂. Since X̂ is faithfully flat
over X, p̂ is an isomorphism (resp. universal homeomorphism) iff p is.

The above result, together with (5) and (10) gives the following.
Corollary 18. A Noetherian scheme X is normal (resp. weakly or seminormal) iff
the completion (x̂, X̂) is punctually normal (resp. weakly or seminormal) for every
x ∈ X.

4. Finiteness properties
Next we study when a relative normalization is finite over X.
Theorem 19. Let X be a Noetherian scheme and Z ⊂ X a closed, nowhere dense
subscheme. The following are equivalent.
(1) The relative normalization πZ : XZrn → X isfinite.
(2) The punctual normalization πx : xpn , X pn → (x, X) is finite for every
x ∈ Z.

Proof. (1) ⇒ (2) since πx : xpn , X pn → (x, X) is the localization of πx̄ : Xx̄rn →
X by (14) and XZrn dominates Xx̄rn if x̄ ⊂ Z.
Conversely, assume that (2) holds. We may assume that none of the associated
points of X are contained in Z.

8

JÁNOS KOLLÁR

We repeatedly use the following
 construction. For any point x ∈ X take the
punctual normalization xpn , X pn → (x, X) and then extend it to a finite modification p1 : X1 → X centered at x̄ using (13). As we note in (23), the assumptions
of (2) also hold for X1 and Z1 := p−1
1 (Z).
The canonical choice would seem to be to apply this construction first to the
closed points where X is not punctually normal. This works well and we get
X1 that is punctually normal at all closed points. However, when we apply the
procedure to X1 , we eliminate the 1-dimensional points where X1 is not punctually
normal but we may generate new punctually non-normal closed points. Thus we
have to proceed from the other end. The price we pay is that the procedure itself
is non-canonical.
First we apply the construction to the points of Z that have codimension 1 in
X. We get p1 : X1 → X such that X1 is regular at all points of Z1 that have
codimension 1 in X1 . By (20) there are only finitely points x1 ∈ Z1 such that the
pair (x1 , X1 ) is not normal. The closures of these points form a closed subset W1 .
Next we repeat the procedure for the generic points of W1 to get p2 : X2 → X1 .
After finitely many steps we get a finite partial modification π : Xr → X centered
at Z such that Xr is punctually normal at all points of π −1 (Z). Thus π : Xr → X
is the relative normalization of the pair Z ⊂ X by Proposition 10.

Lemma 20. Let X be a Noetherian scheme and W ⊂ X a closed subscheme that
does not contain any of the associated points of X. Then there are only finitely
many points x ∈ W such that the pair (x, X) is not normal.
Proof. The question is local so we may assume that X is affine. By our assumptions there is a Cartier divisor (g = 0) containing W . By Lemma 6, if a pair (x, X)
is not normal then either x has codimension 1 in X (thus x is a generic point of Z)
or depthx X = 1 and codimX x ≥ 2. By Corollary 7 such an x is an associated point
of (g = 0). Since X is Noetherian, there are only finitely many such points.

Definition 21. A Noetherian scheme X is called punctually N-1 at x ∈ X if the
punctual normalization πx : xpn , X pn → (x, X) is finite. X is called punctually
N-1 if this holds for every x ∈ X.
If X is reduced then the normalization of a local ring dominates its punctual
normalization, hence if the local rings are N-1 (44) then X is also punctually N-1.
(The converse probably does not hold; see (22) and (54).)
The following is closely related to [Sta15, Tag 0333].
Proposition 22. A Noetherian integral scheme X is N-1 iff it is punctually N-1
and there are only finitely many points xi ∈ X such that (xi , X) is not punctually
normal.
n
Proof. Let X n → X denote the normalization with structure sheaf OX
and
pn
Xipn → X the punctual normalization at xi with structure sheaf OX
.
Since
Xn
i
pn
dominates Xi we get injections
pn
n
/OX ֒→ OX
/OX .
OX
i

pn
n
is a coherent OX -sheaf then OX
If OX
is also coherent and there are only finitey
i
n
/OX .
many of them since each xi is an associated point of OX
Conversely, assume that X is punctually N-1 and there are only finitely many
points xi ∈ X such that (xi , X) is not punctually normal. Apply (19) with Z :=

VARIANTS OF NORMALITY FOR NOETHERIAN SCHEMES

9

∪i x̄i . The relative normalization πZ : XZrn → X is finite and punctually normal
along the preimage of Z. Since πZ is an isomorphism over X \ Z, we conclude that

XZrn is punctually normal everyhere hence normal by Propositions 5 and 10.
Lemma 23. Let g : Y → X be a finite modification of Noetherian schemes centered
at some W ⊂ X. Assume that none of the associated points of X is contained in
W . Pick a point x ∈ X and set y := red g −1 (x). Then X is punctually N-1 at x iff
Y is punctually N-1 at y.
∼ Yy so the claim is interesting only if x ∈ W .
Proof. If x 6∈ W then Xx =
Y pn dominates X pn, so the only if part is clear. To see the converse, we may
assume that X is affine. Then there is a non-zerodivisor φ ∈ OX such that φ · OY ⊂
pn
pn
OX . Thus φ · OYpn ⊂ OX
hence if OX
is coherent then so is OYpn .

Next we study the effect of nilpotents on the relative normalization.
24 (Structure of the relative normalization). Let X be a Noetherian scheme, Z ⊂ X
a closed, nowhere dense subscheme and j : U := X \ Z ֒→ X the natural open
embedding. Assume for notational simplicity that none of the associated primes of
X is contained in Z. Let J ⊂ OX be a nilpotent ideal. Note that j∗ (J|U ) ⊂ j∗ OU
is nilpotent, hence its sections are integral over X. Thus we have exact sequences
0
0

→ j∗ (J|U )
→ j∗ (J|U )

→ j∗ OU
rn
→ OX

ρ

→ j∗ (OU /J|U )
ρ
→ (OX /J)rn

→ R1 j∗ (J|U )
→ R1 j∗ (J|U )

(24.1)

rn
where OX
and (OX /J)rn denote the structure sheaves of the relative normalizations
of the pairs Z ⊂ X and Z ⊂ SpecX (OX /J). It is rather unclear when ρ is surjective;
see (36) for an example. However, if R1 j∗ (J|U ) = 0 then ρ is surjective and we
obtain the following.

Claim 24.2. If dim Supp J = 1 then every finite modification of the pair Z ⊂
SpecX (OX /J) lifts to a finite modification of Z ⊂ X. In particular, Z ⊂ X satisfies
TN iff Z ⊂ SpecX (OX /J) does.

rn
The second sequence in (24.1) shows that if OX
is coherent then so is j∗ (J|U ).
By the easy direction of [Gro60, IV.5.11.1] (or by the argument in Proposition 5)
this implies the following.

Claim 24.3. Assume that XZrn → X is finite and let J ⊂ OX be a nilpotent ideal.
Then either Supp J ⊂ Z or Z ∩ Supp J has codimension ≥ 2 in Supp J.
Thus if XZrn → X is finite for every Z then the nilradical of OX has zerodimensional support.


nil
−1
Next let I ⊂ OX be the nilradical and set OX := ρ
Ored X . We have an
exact sequence
nil ρ
0 → j∗ (I|U ) → OX
→ Ored X
(24.4)
nil
→ X is a limit of residue field preserving universal homeomorand π : SpecX OX
phisms. Note that π is an isomorphism iff I = j∗ (I|U ); equivalently, if depthZ I ≥ 2.
Thus we obtain the following.

Claim 24.5. Let Z ⊂ X be a seminormal pair and I ⊂ OX the nilradical. Then
depthZ I ≥ 2 and so codimW (Z ∩ W ) ≥ 2 for every associated prime W of I. 
The implication of (24.3) becomes an equivalence for Nagata schemes (44).

10

JÁNOS KOLLÁR

Proposition 25. Let X be a Nagata scheme and Z ⊂ X a closed, nowhere dense
subscheme. The following are equivalent.
(1) The relative normalization XZrn → X is finite over X.
(2) Let J ⊂ OX be a nilpotent ideal. Then either Supp J ⊂ Z or Z ∩ Supp J
has codimension ≥ 2 in Supp J.
Proof. (1) ⇒ (2) follows from (24.3).
To see the converse, let I ⊂ OX be the nilradical. By assumption, if W ⊂ X is
any associated prime of I then either W ⊂ Z or Z ∩ W has codimension ≥ 2 in
W . Thus j∗ (I|U ) is coherent by [Gro60, IV.5.11.1]. The normalization (red X)n is
finite over red X since X is Nagata and (24.1) gives the exact sequence
ρ

rn
n
0 → j∗ (I|U ) → OX
→ Ored
X. 

A complete semilocal ring is Nagata [Nag62, 32.1] and, again using [Gro60,
IV.5.11.1], we see that j∗ OU is coherent iff X does not have 1-dimensional irreducible components. Hence we have proved the following.
Corollary 26. Let (x, X) be a Noetherian, semilocal, complete scheme without
isolated points and j : U := X \ {x} ֒→ X the natural embedding.

(1) The punctual normalization π : xpn , X pn → (x, X) is finite iff OX has
no nilpotent ideals with 1-dimensional support.
(2) The punctual hull j∗ OU is integral over OX iff X does not have 1-dimensional
irreducible components.
(3) The punctual hull j∗ OU is finite over OX iff X does not have 1-dimensional
associated primes.

Combining (26) and (15) gives a characterization of punctually N-1 local schemes.
The 1-dimensional case is essentially in [Kru30]; see also [Kol07, Sec.1.13].
Corollary 27. Let (x, X) be a Noetherian, semilocal scheme without isolated points
and j : U := X \ {x} ֒→ X the natural embedding.

(1) The punctual normalization π : xpn , X pn → (x, X) is finite iff the completion X̂ has no nilpotent ideals with 1-dimensional support.
(2) The punctual hull j∗ OU is integral over OX iff X̂ does not have 1-dimensional
irreducible components.
(3) The punctual hull j∗ OU is finite over OX iff X̂ does not have 1-dimensional
associated primes.

These give a characterization of weakly and seminormal schemes in terms of the
conductor of the normalization. This is well known if the normalization is finite
(53), but in general the (global) conductor ideal could be trivial. We go around
this problem by working punctually.
Corollary 28. For a Noetherian scheme X the following are equivalent.
(1) X is semi (resp. weakly) normal.
(2) X is reduced and for every x ∈ X, the punctual normalization πx : Xxpn →
X is finite and its conductor Cxpn ⊂ Xxpn is reduced (resp. {x} is purely
inseparably closed in Cxpn ).
Note that in (2) the conductor Cxpn is 0-dimensional, so these are very simple
conditions.

VARIANTS OF NORMALITY FOR NOETHERIAN SCHEMES

11

Proof. If X is seminormal then the punctual normalization (xpn , X pn ) → (x, X)
is finite by (24.5), (17) and (27). (This should also follow from a theorem of
Chevalley and Mori; see [Nag62, 33.10].) Then (2) holds by (53).
Conversely, if (2) holds then (x, X) satisfies SN (resp. WN) for every x ∈ X by
(53) hence X is semi (resp. weakly) normal by (10).

Observe that if X is a Noetherian, integral, seminormal scheme whose normalization is not finite then, by (22), there are infinitely many distinct points xi ∈ X
such that (xi , X) is not punctually normal.
5. Factoring topological modifications
Theorem 29. Let X be a Noetherian scheme, Z ⊂ X a closed, nowhere dense
subscheme and g : Y → X a finite, topological modification centered at Z. Then g
can be factored as
g′

π

g : Y → X′ → X
where g ′ is a finite, universal homeomorphism and π is a finite modification centered
at Z.
Remark 30. The factorization is not unique and there does not seem to be a
canonical choice for it, except when dim Z = 0 (33). For example, C[x2 , xy, y] →
C[x, y] can be factored as
C[x2 , xy, y] → C[x2 , x2n+1 , xy, y] → C[x, y]

for any n ≥ 0, thus there is no minimal choice for X ′ . Similarly, C[x, y]/(x2 y 2 ) →
C[x] + C[y] can be factored as
C[x, y]/(x2 y 2 ) → C[x, x−n ǫ] + C[y, y −n ǫ] → C[x] + C[y]

for any n ≥ 0, thus there is no maximal choice for X ′ .

Corollary 31. Let X be a Noetherian scheme and Z ⊂ X a closed, nowhere dense
subscheme. Then Z ⊂ X satisfies TN iff it satisfies STN.
Proof. It is clear that STN ⇒ TN. Next assume that we have g : Y → X showing
that STN fails for Z ⊂ X. Using (29) we get π : X ′ → X which shows that TN
fails for Z ⊂ X.

Corollary 32. For a Noetherian scheme X the following are equivalent.
(1) X is topologically normal,
(2) X is geometrially unibranch (see [Gro60, Sec.IV.6.15] or [Sta15, Tag 06DJ]),
(3) the normalization X n → X is a universal homeomorphism,
(4) the weak normalization X wn is normal.

33 (Punctual topological normalization). Let (x, X) be a complete local scheme
and p : (y, Y ) → (x, X) a finite morphism. Let A ⊂ k(y) be the separable closure
of k(x). There is a (unique) finite, étale morphism (x′ , X ′ ) → (x, X) whose fiber
over x is isomorphic to Spec A. Furthermore, p lifts to pY : (y, Y ) → (x′ , X ′ ) since
(x′ , X ′ ) → (x, X) is formally smooth and (y, Y ) is complete.
Assume next that p : Y \ {y} → X \ {x} is a universal homeomorphism. Then
red(pY (Y )) is a union of some of the irreducible components of red(X ′ ). Thus there
is a largest subscheme X u ⊂ X ′ such that red(X u ) = red(pY (Y )) and x is not an
associated point of X u . Then X u \ {x′ } → X \ {x} is étale and an isomorphism on
the underlying reduced subschemes, hence an isomorphism.

12

JÁNOS KOLLÁR

We have thus factored p as
pu

p′

p : (y, Y ) → (xu , X u ) → (x, X)

(33.1)

′

u

where p is an unramified punctual modification and p is a universal homeomorphism. By (15), this factorization also exists even if (x, X) is not complete. This
proves (29) in the special case when Z is a closed point.
Applying this to p : x̂pn , (red X̂)pn → (x̂, red X̂) → (x̂, X̂) and then descending
to X we obtain the following.
Claim 33.2. Let (x, X) be a semilocal, Noetherian scheme. Then there is a
unique punctual modification

π ptn : xptn , X ptn → (x, X)

such that π ptn is unramified and xptn , X ptn is the smallest topologically normal
punctual modification of (x, X).

Note that if (x, X) is Henselian with perfect residue field then X ptn is simply
the disjoint union of the closures of the connected components of X \ {x}; cf. (43).
De Jong pointed out that (33.2) can also be obtained from this by Galois descent.
34 (Proof of Theorem 29). We use Noetherian induction on g −1 (Z) ⊂ Y .
Let x ∈ X be the generic points of Z. After localizing at x we obtain a punctual,
topological modification p : (y, Y ) → (x, X). By (33.1) it can be factored as
p′

p′′

p : (y, Y ) → (x′ , X ′ ) → (x, X),

(34.1)

where p′′ is an unramified punctual modification and p′ is a universal homeomorphism. We extend (34.1) first to an open neighborhood and then, using (13), we
get morphisms
g1

p1

g : Y → X1 → X,

(34.2)

where p1 is a finite modification centered at Z and g1 : Y → X1 is a finite morphism
that is a universal homeomorphism outside p−1
1 (Z) and also over the generic points
of p−1
(Z).
By
Noetherian
induction,
g
can
be factored as
1
1
g′

π

1
g1 : Y →
X1′ →1 X1

(34.3)

where g1′ is a finite, universal homeomorphism and π1 is a finite modification centered at p−1 (Z). Thus we can set X ′ := X1′ , g ′ := g1′ and
g′

p1 ◦π1

g : Y → X ′ −→ X
gives the required factorization for g.

(34.4)


Arguing as in (19) and using (33.2), this implies the following.
Corollary 35. Let X be a Noetherian scheme and Z ⊂ X a closed, nowhere dense
subscheme. Then there is a finite modification π : Y → X centered at Z such that
the pair π −1 (Z) ⊂ Y is topologically normal.

The following example shows that there does not seem to be a good notion of
strong topological normality with residue field preservation.

VARIANTS OF NORMALITY FOR NOETHERIAN SCHEMES

13

Example 36. Start with the function field K = k(t) with char k = 2. Set
√
√ √
R := K[x, y, tx, ty] ⊂ K( t)[x, y].
√
Note
√ that the normalization of R is K( t)[x, y] and the conductor ideal is (x, y) ⊂
K( t)[x, y]. Thus R is seminormal but not weakly normal and does not satisfy
TNR.
√ √
We can embed Spec R into A4K by (x, y, tx, ty) 7→ (u1 , v1 , u2 , v2 ). The image
is defined by the obvious equations
u1 v2 − u2 v1 = tu1 v1 − u2 v2 = tu21 − u22 = tv12 − v22 = 0.

Let X ⊂ A4K be defined by the last 2 equations. It is a complete intersection, hence
S2 and so {0} ⊂ X is a normal pair which also satisfies TNR.
On the other hand, the last 2 equations imply that
(u1 v2 − u2 v1 )2 = (tu1 v1 − u2 v2 )2 = 0,

hence red X ∼
= Spec R. Thus {0} ⊂ X satisfies TNR but {0} ⊂ red X does not.
6. Flat families
All 5 properties behave well for flat families.
Theorem 37. Let f : Y → X be a flat morphism of Noetherian schemes with
(geometrically) reduced fibers and P any of the 5 properties in Definitions 2–3.
Assume that X and the geometric generic fibers satisfy P. Then Y also satisfies
P.
For normality this is classical; see for instance [Mat86, 23.9]. For seminormality
this is proved in [GT80], for weak normality in [Man80]; in both cases for N1 schemes (called Mori schemes in these papers). The argument below uses the
method of [GT80].
Proof. Pick any point y ∈ Y and set x := f (y). If Y is contained in a generic
fiber then (y, Y ) satisfies P by assumption. If y is a generic point of its fiber Yx
then, as we prove in (38), (y, Y ) satisfies P.
X is reduced by Proposition 5 in cases N, SN, WN and for every other point we
have
depthy Y = depthx X + depthy Yx ≥ 1 + 1 = 2,
(37.1)
hence (y, Y ) is even punctually normal by Lemma 6 and it satisfies P for every P.
As we noted in (4.4), in case TN it is enough to show that red Y satisfies TN.
We may replace X and Y by red X and red Y . We do not actually need that red X
satisfies TN. It is S1 and this is all we used in (37.1).

Proposition 38. Let f : Y → X be a flat, regular morphism of Noetherian
schemes. If X satisfies any of the 5 properties P in Definitions 2–3 then so does
Y.
Proof. Pick a point y ∈ Y and set x := f (y). By (17),
 X̂x satisfies P. Note
that Y ×X X̂x → Y is faithfully flat. Thus if y, Y ×X X̂x satisfies P then so does
(y, Y ) by Proposition 11. Thus it is sufficient to prove (38) in case (x, X) is local
and complete. We need slightly different arguments in the various cases.
If (x, X) is punctually normal then either X is regular (of dimension 1) hence Y
is also regular, or depthx X ≥ 2 hence depthy Y ≥ 2.

14

JÁNOS KOLLÁR

For TN we may assume, using (24.2), that OX has no nilpotent ideals with 1dimensional support, and then the punctual normalization (xpn , X pn ) → (x, X) is
finite by (26). It is also a universal homeomorphism by our assumptions. Thus
Y ×X X pn → Y is also a universal homeomorphism (resp. also preserves residue
fields). By the already established normal case the pair Y ×X xpn ⊂ Y ×X X pn is
normal. Therefore, as we noted in Paragraph 9, Y satisfies TN.
For SN and WN we use (28), thus the punctual normalization π : X pn → X
pn
is finite and its conductor CX
⊂ X pn is reduced (resp. {x} is purely inseparably
pn
closed in CX ). Therefore the conductor CYpn of Y ×X X pn → Y is also reduced
and Yx := Y ×X x is purely inseparably closed in it in the weakly normal case by
(52). Thus Y satisfies WN (resp. SN) by (53).

Example 39. It is natural to ask what happens if in (37) we only assume that
the fibers are topologically normal in codimension m for some m. There are easy
counter examples.
The fibers of Spec k[x, y]/(y 2 − x2 ) → Spec k[x] are 0-dimensional, hence topologically normal yet Spec k[x, y]/(y 2 − x2 ) is not topologically normal.
Similarly, let R ⊂ k[x, y] consist of those polynomials for which p(0, 0) = p(0, 1).
Then the fibers of Spec R → Spec k[x] are 1-dimensional hence topologically normal
in codimension 2 yet Spec R is not topologically normal in codimension 2.
Nonetheless, these are essentially the only counter examples. We can even keep
track of the codimension as in (41).
Proposition 40. Fix n, m ≥ 1. Let g : X → S be a morphism of pure relative
dimension n for some n and W ⊂ X a closed subset. Assume that
(1) X \ W is topologically normal in codimension m.
(2) every fiber Xs is topologically normal in codimension m and
(3) codimXs (W ∩ Xs ) ≥ m for every s ∈ S.
Then X is topologically normal in codimension m.
Proof. Let f : Y → X be a finite modification centered at Z ⊂ X that is a
putative counter example. We need to show that f is a universal homeomorphism.
By assumption (1) this holds over X \ W , we can thus assume that Z ⊂ W .
We claim that Ys has pure dimension n for every s ∈ S. It is enough to prove
the claim when S is local and irreducible. If s ∈ S has codimension r then s is
set-theoretically the complete intersection of r Cartier divisors, thus Ys is also settheoretically the complete intersection of r Cartier divisors, hence every irreducible
component of Ys has dimension ≥ n. Since Xs has pure dimension n and Ys → Xs
is finite, this implies that Ys has pure dimension n.
In particular, none of the irreducible components of Ys is contained in fs−1 (W ∩
Xs ) hence fs : Ys → Xs is a finite topological modification centered at W ∩ Xs .
Then fs is a universal homeomorphism by assumption (2) and so is f .

7. Connectedness properties
A version of topological normality first appeared in [Har62] where it is proved
that depthx X ≥ 2 implies that (x, X) is punctually TN. More generally, one can
understand topological normality in codimension ≥ m in terms of connectedness
properties of étale covers of X. Many parts of the following theorem are discussed
in [Har62] and [Gro68, III.3 and XIII.2].

VARIANTS OF NORMALITY FOR NOETHERIAN SCHEMES

15

Theorem 41. Fix a natural number m ≥ 1. For a Noetherian scheme X the
following are equivalent.
(1) Z ⊂ X is topologically normal for every subscheme of codimension ≥ m.
(2) For every point x ∈ X of codimension ≥ m any of the following holds:
(a) (x, X) is topologically normal,

(b) the Henselization xh , X h is topologically
normal,

sh
sh
(c) the strict Henselization x , X
is topologically normal,
(d) X sh \ {xsh } is connected
or

(e) the completion x̂, X̂ is topologically normal.
(3) For every quasi-finite étale morphism g : Y → X with Y connected, the
complement of any closed subset W ⊂ Y of codimension ≥ m is connected.
Proof. The equivalence of (1) and (2.a) follows by noting that the arguments of
Proposition 10 preserve the codimension.
(2.a) is equivalent to (2.b) and (2.c) by (11) and Proposition 38 and to (2.e) by
(17). (2.c) and (2.d) are equivalent by (43).
Finally (42) shows that (2.c) ⇒ (3); here we also use that quasifinite morphisms
do not decrease the codimension. Since the strict Henselization is the limit of
quasi-finite étale morphisms, (3) ⇒ (2.d) is clear.

Lemma 42. If Z ⊂ X is topologically normal then X and X \ Z have the same
connected components.
Proof. We may assume that X is connected. If X \ Z is disconnected, write it as
Y1 ∪ Y2 where the Yi are disjoint, closed subschemes. Let Ȳi ⊂ X denote the closure
of Yi . Then the natural map Ȳ1 ∐ Ȳ2 → X shows that Z ⊂ X is not a topologically
normal pair.

Proposition 43. Let (x, X) be a Henselian local scheme with separably closed
residue field k(x). The following are equivalent.
(1) (x, X) is strongly topologically normal,
(2) (x, X) is topologically normal and
(3) X \ {x} is connected.
Proof. (1) ⇒ (2) is clear and (2) ⇒ (3) follows from (42). To see (3) ⇒ (1),
let g : X ′ → X be a finite morphism that is a universal homeomorphism over
X \{x}. If X is Henselian, there is a one–to–one correspondence between connected
components of X ′ and connected components of x′ := g −1 (x); see [Mil80, I.4.2]. If
k(x′ )/k(x) is not purely inseparable then x′ is not connected hence X ′ \ {x′ } is also
not connected. The latter is, however, homeomorphic to X \ {x}.

8. Nagata schemes
Definition 44. An integral Noetherian scheme X is called N-1 if its normalization
in k(X) is finite over X and N-2 if its normalization in any finite field extension
of k(X) is finite over X. The latter is equivalent to the following: every integral
scheme with a finite, dominant morphism X ′ → X is N-1.
A Noetherian scheme X is Nagata if every integral subscheme W ⊂ X is N-2;
see for instance [Mat86, p.264] or [Sta15, Tag 033R].
We obtain a characterization of local Nagata schemes in terms of punctual normalizations and formal fibers. Most parts of this have been known. A local Nagata

16

JÁNOS KOLLÁR

domain is analytically unramified and an analytically unramified domain is N-1;
see [Nag62, 32.2] and [Sta15, Tag 0331]. (Recall that a reduced, semilocal scheme
(x, X) is called analytically unramified iff its completion X̂ is reduced.) The connection with formal fibers is essentially part of the argument that shows that a
quasi-excellent scheme is Nagata, see [Mat80, 33.H] or [Sta15, Tag 07QV].
For a scheme X let SiS(X) denote the set of all semilocal, integral X-schemes
obtained by localizing an X-scheme that is finite over X.
Theorem 45. For a Noetherian scheme the following are equivalent.
(1) All local rings of X are Nagata.
(2) For every (y, Y ) ∈ SiS(X) the normalization Y n → Y is finite. 
(3) For every (y, Y ) ∈ SiS(X) the punctual normalization y pn , Y pn → (y, Y )
is finite.
(4) Every (y, Y ) ∈ SiS(X) is analytically unramified.
(5) For every (y, Y ) ∈ SiS(X) the geometric generic fibers of (ŷ, Ŷ ) → (y, Y )
are reduced.
(6) For every x ∈ X the morphism (x̂, X̂) → (x, X) has (geometrically) reduced
fibers.
Remark 46. This suggests that one should call a Noetherian scheme locally Nagata
if it satsifies the condition (45.2). By the theorem, this is equivalent to assuming
that all local rings of X are Nagata.
The condition (45.5) should be compared with the defining property of G-rings:
For every x ∈ X the morphism (x̂, X̂) → (x, X) has (geometrically) regular fibers;
see [Mat86, p.256] or [Sta15, Tag 07GG]. Hence every G-ring is locally Nagata.
47 (Proof of Theorem 45). We may assume that X is integral and affine. By
induction we may assume that the equivalence holds over any integral X-scheme
such that Z → X is finite and not dominant.
First note
that (1) ⇒ (2) by definition and (2) ⇒ (3) since Y n dominates

pn
pn
y ,Y
.
Assume that (3) holds and fix a point x ∈ X. We aim to show that (x̂, X̂) →
(x, X) has reduced geometric generic fibers. Pick any g ∈ mx . As in the proof of
Theorem 19 (and using Corollary 7), after replacing X by a suitable finite partial
normalization, we may assume that X is regular at the generic points of (g = 0) and
the latter has no embedded primes. By induction, we already know that red(g = 0)
is analytically unramified. Under these conditions, [Sta15, Tag 0330] says that X
is analytically unramified. Thus (3) ⇒ (4).
In order to see the equivalence of (5) and (6) fix π : Y → X and set x := π(y).
Note that Ŷ = Y ×X X̂ where we complete Y at y and X at x. If X̂ → X
has geometrically reduced fibers then so does Ŷ → Y . Conversely, pick any point
p ∈ X and let L ⊃ k(p) be a finite field extension. We can realize Spec L → p
as the generic fiber of a suitable (y, Y ) ∈ SiS(X). Thus if (5) holds for Y then
Spec L ×p X̂ is reduced, hence (6) holds. (It is sufficient to check that the fibers
stay reduced after finite field extensions; see [Sta15, Tag 030V].)
It is clear that (4) implies (5) and if X̂ → X has geometrically reduced fibers
then so does Ŷ → Y . Thus Ŷ is reduced and Y is analytically unramified, proving
(6) ⇒ (4).

VARIANTS OF NORMALITY FOR NOETHERIAN SCHEMES

17

Finally a strictly increasing chain of partial normalizations · · · → Yi+1 → Yi →
· · · → Y gives a a strictly increasing chain of morphisms
· · · → Ŷ ×Y Yi+1 → Ŷ ×Y Yi → · · · → Ŷ

and these are partial normalizations if Ŷ is reduced. This is impossible since a
complete semilocal ring is Nagata [Nag62, 32.1], thus (4) implies (1).

9. Universal homeomorphisms
We recall the basic propeties of universal homeomorphisms that we use.
Definition 48. A morphism of schemes g : U → V is a universal homeomorphism
if for every W → V the induced morphism U ×V W → W is a homeomorphism.
This notion is called “radiciel” in [Gro71, I.3.7], “radicial” in [Sta15, Tag 01S2] and
a “purely inseparable morphism” by some authors. The reason for the latter is the
following observation.
Pick a point v ∈ V and base-change to the algebraic closure of k(v). We obtain
that the set-theoretic fiber g −1 (v) is a single point v ′ and k(v ′ ) is a purely inseparable field extension of k(v). We say that g is residue field preserving if k(v ′ ) = k(v)
for every v ∈ V .
A universal homeomorphism is affine and integral; see [Sta15, Tag 04DF]. For
integral morphisms the notion of universal homeomorphism is pretty much set theoretic since a continuous proper map of topological spaces which is injective and
surjective is a homeomorphism.
The following summarizes the basic characterizations.
Lemma 49. [Gro71, I.3.7–8] For an integral morphism g : U → V the following
are equivalent.
(1) g is a universal homeomorphism.
(2) g is surjective
 and universally injective.
(3) k red g −1 (v) /k(v) is a purely inseparable for every v ∈ V .
(4) g is surjective and injective on geometric points.
In concrete situations it is usually easiest to check (49.3). Note that for a finite
type morphism g : U → V the points v ∈ V that satisfy (49.3) form a constructible
set.
Using property (49.3) we also obtain that if p : V ′ → V is surjective then an
integral morphism g : U → V is a universal homeomorphism iff the pull back
p∗ g : V ′ ×V U → V ′ is.
10. Weakly normal and seminormal schemes
We recall the definitions and basic properties of weakly normal and seminormal
schemes, following [AN67, AB69, GT80, Man80].
Definition 50. A morphism of schemes g : X ′ → X is called a partial normalization if X ′ is reduced, g is integral and red(g) : X ′ → red(X) is birational [Kol13,
1.11]. Thus a partial normalization is dominated by the normalization (red X)n of
red X which is the limit of all finite, partial normalizations. A scheme is normal iff
every finite, partial normalization g : X ′ → X is an isomorphism.
A partial normalization
g : X ′ → X is called a partial seminormalization if, in

−1
addition, k red g (x) = g ∗ k(x) for every x ∈ X and a partial weak normalization

18

JÁNOS KOLLÁR


if k red g −1 (x) /g ∗ k(x) is a purely inseparable field extension for every x ∈ X. (If
X has residue characteristic 0 then these 2 notions coincide.)
There is a unique largest partial weak (resp. semi) normalization X wn → X (resp.
sn
X → X ) that dominates every other partial weak (resp. semi) normalization of
X. It is called the weak normalization (resp. seminormalization) of X.
The weak normalization X wn → X is a universal homeomorphism and it is the
maximal universal homeomorphism that is dominated by the normalization.
A scheme X is called weakly normal (resp. seminormal) iff every finite, partial
weak (resp. semi) normalization g : X ′ → X is an isomorphism.
Note that seminormalization is a functor; that is, every morphism f : Y → X
lifts to the seminormalizations f sn : Y sn → X sn . By contrast, f : Y → X lifts to
the weak normalizations f wn : Y wn → X wn if every irreducible component of Y
dominates an irreducible component of X but not otherwise.
It is easy to see using (13) that an open subscheme of a weakly (resp. semi)
normal scheme is also weakly (resp. semi) normal and being weakly (resp. semi)
normal is a local property. For excellent schemes weak (resp. semi) normality a
formal-local property; see [GT80, Man80].
Definition 51 (Constrained normalization). More generally, let π : Y → X be any
morphism. The π-constrained normalization (resp. weak or seminormalization) of
X is the unique largest partial normalization (resp. weak or semi normalization)
X ′ → X such that red(π) factors as red(Y ) → X ′ → X. (Note that we do not
require π to be dominant.)
The weak or semi normalization constrained by the relative normalization XZrn →
X is called the relative weak or seminormalization of the pair Z ⊂ X. These are
denoted by XZrwn → X and XZrsn → X.
As in [Sta15, Tag 0BAK], let Aint ⊂ π∗ OY denote the maximal subalgebra
that is integral over OX and Api ⊂ π∗ OY the maximal subalgebra that is purely
inseparable over OX . (That is, SpecX Api → X is a universal homeomorphism and
maximal with this property.) Then SpecX Aint is called the relative normalization
of X in Y and SpecX Api the purely inseparable closure of X in Y . (The relative
normalization frequently agrees with the constrained normalization but the notions
are quite different if π is not birational.)
Example 52. Let k be a field and i : k ֒→ A a finite, semisimple k-algebra; that is,
a sum of finite field extensions. If A is separable then k is purely inseparably closed
in A but the converse does not hold. For instance, k(sp , tp ) is purely inseparably
closed in A := k(s, tp ) + k(sp , t) where p = char k.
In order to get a characterization, [Man80] considers the complex
(i,i)

δ

k −→ A + A −→ A ⊗k A

(52.1)

where δ(a1 , a2 ) = a1 ⊗ 1 − 1 ⊗ a2 . Let red(A ⊗k A) denote the quotient of A ⊗k A
by its nil-radical. We claim that
(i,i)

δ

k −→ A + A −→ red(A ⊗k A)

(52.2)

is exact iff Spec k is weakly normal in Spec A. To see this, pick (a1 , a2 ) ∈ A + A
and set q = (char k)m for some m ≥ 1. Then
(a1 ⊗ 1 − 1 ⊗ a2 )q = (a1 ⊗ 1)q − (1 ⊗ a2 )q = aq1 ⊗ 1 − 1 ⊗ aq2 ,

hence δ(a1 , a2 ) is nilpotent iff aq1 = aq2 ∈ k for some q = (char k)m .

VARIANTS OF NORMALITY FOR NOETHERIAN SCHEMES

19

Let Yk be a geometrically regular k-scheme. Then

red(A ⊗k A) ⊗k OYk = red OYA ⊗OYk OYA ,
thus, if the sequence (52.2) is exact, then so is the tensored sequence

(i,i)
δ
OX −→ OYA + OYA −→ red OYA ⊗OYk OYA .

(52.3)

Therefore, if k is purely inseparably closed in A then Yk is purely inseparably closed
in YA .
The next result connecting the absolute and relative versions of weak and seminormality is very useful in inductive treatments. The proof follows [GT80, Man80].
Proposition 53. Let f : Y → X be a finite modification with conductor subschemes
CY ⊂ Y and CX ⊂ X. Assume that the pair CY ⊂ Y satisfies WN (resp. SN).
Then the pair CX ⊂ X satisfies WN (resp. SN) iff CY (and hence also CX ) are
reduced and CX is its own purely inseparable closure in CY (resp. its own f |CY constrained seminormalization).

√
Proof: If CY is not reduced then SpecX OX + condY → X is a universal
homeomorphism that is not an isomorphism, where condY ⊂ OY denotes the conductor ideal. Let CY → C̃ → CX denote the purely inseparable closure (resp.
f |CY -constrained seminormalization) and F ⊂ f∗ OY the preimage of OC̃ . Then
SpecX F → X is a universal homeomorphism (res. also preserves residue fields)
that is not an isomorphism. Thus the conditions are necessary.
Conversely, assume that p : X ′ → X is a universal homeomorphism (resp. also
preserves residue fields) that is an isomorphism over X \ CX . Let OY ′ be the composite of f∗ OY and p∗ OX ′ inside j∗ OU where U := X \ CX . Then Y ′ → Y is
a universal homeomorphism (resp. also preserves residue fields) hence an isomorphism by assumption. Thus p∗ OX ′ ⊂ f∗ OY and hence p∗ OX ′ / condX ⊂ OCY . The
corresponding map SpecX p∗ OX ′ / condX → CX is a universal homeomorphism
(resp. partial seminormalization), hence an isomorphism if CY is reduced and CX
is its own purely inseparable closure in red CY (resp. f |CY -constrained seminormalization). Thus p : X ′ → X is an isomorphism.

11. Open problems
Let R be an integral domain with normalization Rn . Then R is not punctually
normal at a prime ideal p ⊂ R iff p is an associated prime of Rn /R. It is not hard
to construct 1-dimensional, Noetherian, seminormal domains with infinitely many
prime ideals, all of which are associated primes of Rn /R.
The situation seems more complicated in higher dimensions. By (20), for every
q 6= (0), only fintely many of the primes p ⊃ q can be associated primes of Rn /R.
This leads to the following problems.
Question 54. Are there integral domains of every dimension such that every height
1 prime is an associated prime of Rn /R?
Question 55. Are there seminormal integral domains of every dimension such that
every height 1 prime is an associated prime of Rn /R?
Question 56. What can one say about the height ≥ 2 associated primes of Rn /R?

20

JÁNOS KOLLÁR

References
[AB69] A. Andreotti and E. Bombieri, Sugli omeomorfismi delle varietà algebriche, Ann. Scuola
Norm. Sup Pisa (3) 23 (1969), 431–450. MR 0266923 (42 #1825)
[AM69] M. F. Atiyah and I. G. Macdonald, Introduction to commutative algebra, Addison-Wesley
Publishing Co., Reading, Mass.-London-Don Mills, Ont., 1969. MR 0242802 (39 #4129)
[AN67] Aldo Andreotti and François Norguet, La convexité holomorphe dans l’espace analytique
des cycles d’une variété algébrique, Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa (3) 21 (1967), 31–82.
MR 0239118 (39 #477)
[Art70] Michael Artin, Algebraization of formal moduli. II. Existence of modifications, Ann. of
Math. (2) 91 (1970), 88–135. MR 0260747 (41 #5370)
[CL04] P. Charters and S. Loepp, Semilocal generic formal fibers, J. Algebra 278 (2004), no. 1,
370–382. MR 2068083 (2005e:13008)
[Gro60] Alexander Grothendieck, Éléments de géométrie algébrique. I–IV., Inst. Hautes Études
Sci. Publ. Math. (1960), no. 4,8,11,17,20,24,28,32.
, Cohomologie locale des faisceaux cohérents et théorèmes de Lefschetz locaux
[Gro68]
et globaux (SGA 2), North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1968, Augmenté d’un
exposé par Michèle Raynaud, Séminaire de Géométrie Algébrique du Bois-Marie, 1962,
Advanced Studies in Pure Mathematics, Vol. 2. MR 0476737 (57 #16294)
, Éléments de géométrie algébrique. I., Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, 1971.
[Gro71]
[GT80] S. Greco and C. Traverso, On seminormal schemes, Compositio Math. 40 (1980), no. 3,
325–365. MR 571055 (81j:14030)
[Har62] Robin Hartshorne, Complete intersections and connectedness, Amer. J. Math. 84 (1962),
497–508. MR 0142547 (26 #116)
, Algebraic geometry, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1977, Graduate Texts in Math[Har77]
ematics, No. 52. MR 0463157 (57 #3116)
[Hei93] Raymond C. Heitmann, Characterization of completions of unique factorization domains,
Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 337 (1993), no. 1, 379–387. MR 1102888 (93g:13006)
[KK10] János Kollár and Sándor J Kovács, Log canonical singularities are Du Bois, J. Amer.
Math. Soc. 23 (2010), no. 3, 791–813. MR 2629988
[Kol97] János Kollár, Singularities of pairs, Algebraic geometry—Santa Cruz 1995, Proc. Sympos.
Pure Math., vol. 62, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1997, pp. 221–287.
, Lectures on resolution of singularities, Annals of Mathematics Studies, vol. 166,
[Kol07]
Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2007.
[Kol13]
, Singularities of the minimal model program, Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics,
vol. 200, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013, With the collaboration of Sándor
Kovács.
[Kov11a] Sándor J Kovács, Du Bois pairs and vanishing theorems, Kyoto J. Math. 51 (2011),
no. 1, 47–69. MR 2784747 (2012d:14028)
, Irrational centers, Pure Appl. Math. Q. 7 (2011), no. 4, Special Issue: In
[Kov11b]
memory of Eckart Viehweg, 1495–1515. MR 2918171
[Kru30] Wolfgang Krull, Ein Satz über primäre Integritätsbereiche, Math. Ann. 103 (1930), no. 1,
450–465. MR 1512631
[Laz04] Robert Lazarsfeld, Positivity in algebraic geometry. I-II, Ergebnisse der Mathematik und
ihrer Grenzgebiete. 3. Folge., vol. 48–49, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2004. MR 2095471
(2005k:14001a)
[Lec86] Christer Lech, A method for constructing bad Noetherian local rings, Algebra, algebraic
topology and their interactions (Stockholm, 1983), Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 1183,
Springer, Berlin, 1986, pp. 241–247. MR 846452 (87m:13010a)
[Man80] Mirella Manaresi, Some properties of weakly normal varieties, Nagoya Math. J. 77
(1980), 61–74. MR 556308 (81e:13011)
[Mat80] Hideyuki Matsumura, Commutative algebra, second ed., Mathematics Lecture Note Series, vol. 56, Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co., Inc., Reading, Mass., 1980. MR 575344
(82i:13003)
[Mat86]
, Commutative ring theory, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 8,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1986, Translated from the Japanese by M. Reid.
MR 879273 (88h:13001)

VARIANTS OF NORMALITY FOR NOETHERIAN SCHEMES

21

[Mil80] James S. Milne, Étale cohomology, Princeton Mathematical Series, vol. 33, Princeton
University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1980. MR 559531 (81j:14002)
[Nag62] Masayoshi Nagata, Local rings, Interscience Tracts in Pure and Applied Mathematics,
No. 13, Interscience Publishers a division of John Wiley & Sons New York-London, 1962.
MR MR0155856 (27 #5790)
[Nis12] Jun-ichi Nishimura, A few examples of local rings, I, Kyoto J. Math. 52 (2012), no. 1,
51–87. MR 2892767
[Sta15] The Stacks Project Authors, Stacks Project, http://stacks.math.columbia.edu, 2015.
[Tra70] Carlo Traverso, Seminormality and Picard group, Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa (3) 24
(1970), 585–595. MR 0277542 (43 #3275)

JK: Princeton University, Princeton NJ 08544-1000
kollar@math.princeton.edu

