arXiv:1011.1806v2 [math.AG] 5 Dec 2016

Vector fields and differential schemes
Colas Bardavid
IRMAR — UMR 6625 du CNRS
Université de Rennes 1 Campus de Beaulieu
35042 Rennes CEDEX FRANCE
April 5, 2018

Abstract – Given a scheme X of characteristic zero and a vector field
V~ on X, we define the leaves of X (for V~ ). Given x ∈ X, there exists
a smallest leaf η of X passing through x : we call it the trajectory
TrajV~ (x) of x and establish some useful properties for it. The trajectory
can also be defined when X is of positive or mixed characteristic. We
apply this tool to give a geometrical interpretation of and generalize the
paper [Car90] of Carrà Ferro. Then, we prove the key point of the paper
: it is always possible to extend, in a unique way, a constant section
defined over U to the open set U δ generated by U under the action of
V~ . Finally, we use the above-mentioned tools to compare three classical
sheaves that have been defined over the differential spectrum. In the
appendix, we give some details about the associated sheaf of a presheaf
of differential rings, and explain why it commutes with the constant
functor.

2000 Mathematics Subject Classification: 34M15, 12H05, 37C10,
14A15
Keywords: Differential schemes, vector fields, leaves, trajectory

1

Contents
1 Introduction
1.1 Differential schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2 Content of the paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3 Plan of the paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 Vector fields, leaves and trajectories for schemes
2.1 Vector fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 Morphisms and category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3 Schemes with vector fields and differential rings . . . .
2.4 Tangent vectors associated to vector fields . . . . . . .
2.5 Leaves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.6 Trajectory of a point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.7 Properties of the trajectory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.8 The case when the schemes are no more defined over Q

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

3
3
4
6
6
6
8
8
11
12
14
15
17

3 The Carrà Ferro topology, the Carrà Ferro sheaf and the Keigher
sheaf
19
3.1 Invariant closed and open sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.2 The Carrà Ferro topology of X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.3 The Carrà Ferro sheaf and the Keigher sheaf on X . . . . . . . . 21
3.4 The Kovacic sheaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4 Extension of constants
23
4.1 Constants in localized rings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.2 A lemma on stalks and trajectories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.3 Proof of Proposition 4.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5 Comparison of the Carrà Ferro, Keigher and Kovacic sheaves 32
5.1 Comparison of the Carrà Ferro and Keigher sheaves . . . . . . . 32
5.2 Comparison of the Keigher sheaf and the Kovacic sheaf . . . . . 34
A The
A.1
A.2
A.3

associated sheaf in the differential context
35
Statement of the first result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Proof of Theorem A.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Associated sheaves and constants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

2

1
1.1

Introduction
Differential schemes

Differential schemes have first been introduced (1) by William Keigher in [Kei75].
The aim of introducing such objects is to give to algebro-differential geometry (2)
sound foundations, just as scheme theory for algebraic geometry. Nevertheless,
and despite the contributions to this task by A. Buium (3) , G. Carrà Ferro (4)
and J. Kovavic (5) , the category of differential schemes is still missing. Let us
explain quickly the several attempts that have been made and why they fail.
One starts with a differential ring (A, ∂) and defines the differential spectrum
of A to be
diff-Spec A =: {p | p is a prime and differential ideal of A} .
Since diff-Spec A ⊂ Spec A, the set diff-Spec A can be seen as a topological
subspace of Spec A. This subspace topology is called the Kolchin topology.
Then, as a topological space, diff-Spec A can be equipped with the restriction
sheaf of OSpec A to diff-Spec A. The resulting objects are called affine differential
schemes. They are differentially ringed spaces, whose stalks are local rings with
a maximal ideal that is differential. The category of differential schemes is
defined to be the category of such differentially ringed spaces that are locally
isomorphic to affine objects.
The first problem with this category (see section 14 of [Kov02a]) is that one
does not know if it has fibered products. Kovacic has proved that they exist,
but only for a restricted class of differential schemes otherwise known as AAD
differential schemes. The second problem is about global sections. Contrary to
schemes, the natural morphism
A −→ Â := Γ(diff-Spec A, Odiff-Spec A )
is neither, in general, injective nor surjective. Under some assumptions (see
Theorem 2.6 of [Bui82], Theorem 10.6 of [Kov02a] or Theorem 8 of [Tru09]),
ˆ
one can prove that Â −→ Â is an isomorphism of differential rings.
There is another definition to differential schemes. It has been proposed by
(CF)
Carrà Ferro in [Car90] and it is based on another structure sheaf Odiff-Spec A
for diff-Spec A. However, this sheaf has not been used or studied elsewhere. It
(1) He

then studied them in a series a papers [Kei77, Kei78, Kei81, Kei82a, Kei82b, Kei83].
the article of Buium and Cassidy in [Kol99] for an excellent survey on algebrodifferential geometry. Algebro-differential varieties appear naturally in, for instance, parametrized Galois theory: in this setting, the Galois group is not an algebraic group but a
differential-algebraic group. See for instance [CS07], [Cas72], [Lan08], [HS08].
(3) [Bui82]
(4) [Car85, Car90]
(5) [Kov02a, Kov03, Kov06, Kov02b]
(2) See

3

seems more complicated than the previous one but it verifies


(CF)
A∼
= Γ diff-Spec A, Odiff-Spec A .
The definition of this sheaf is based on the following lemma:
Lemma (Lemma 1.5 of [Car90]). Let A be a differential scheme. For each open
subset U of diff-Spec A, there exists an open subset U∆ of Spec A such that:
(i) U∆ ∩ diff-Spec A = U ;
(ii) U∆ ⊃ Spec A \ diff-Spec A;
(iii) If V is an open set of Spec A such that V ∩diff-Spec A = U , then V ⊂ U∆ .
(CF)

Then, Odiff-Spec A (U ) is defined to be OSpec A (U∆ ). Nevertheless, this construction needs to be clarified.

1.2

Content of the paper

The goal of this paper is to bring a new point of view on the issue of differential
schemes and to adapt the already existing constructions. Our first idea is to
not restrict ourselves to differential rings but to conduct our study in the frame
of schemes. In this setting, vector fields replace derivations. Schemes with
vector field have already been introduced and studied, in particular by Buium
in [Bui86] and [Bui92] and Dyckerhoff in [Dyc] but also by Umemura in [Ume96].
Of course, vector fields are also implied in [Gro67], but Grothendieck does not
study them extensively (6) . Given a scheme X with a vector field V~ , we define
the leaves of X for V~ . It is, intuitively, the elements η of X that are invariant
under the vector field — or, the irreducible closed subsets tangent to V~ . Then,
we prove that given x ∈ X, there exists a smallest leaf going through x, called
the trajectory of x under V~ , and we denote it by TrajV~ (x). More precisely, we
prove its existence when X is of characteristic zero and explain how to deal when
not. The map TrajV~ : X −→ X satisfies nice and natural properties, and with
the help of it, we endow X with a new topology, that we call the Carrà Ferro
topology. The open sets of this topology are the Zariski open sets of X that are
invariant under V~ . In this context, it is very easy to generalize to schemes with
vector fields the various constructions done for diff-Spec A. In particular, we
give a new perspective on the sheaf defined by Carrà Ferro in [Car90].
Then, with these tools, we compare the different sheaves that have been
defined over diff-Spec A. Actually, this comparison is valid over the set of leaves
(6) At the very beginning of [Gro67], Grothendieck writes “Dans ce paragraphe, nous
présentons, sous forme globale, quelques notions de calcul différentiel particulièrement utiles
en Géométrie algébrique. Nous passons sous silence de nombreux développements, classiques en Géométrie différentielle (connexions, transformations infinitésimales associées à
un champ de vecteurs, jets, etc.), bien que ces notions s’écrivent de façon particulièrement
naturelle dans le cadre des schémas. ”

4

~

X V of any scheme X endowed with a vector field. Three sheaves have been
(Keigher)
defined. First, the restricted sheaf Odiff-Spec A , defined in [Kei81]. Second, the
(Kovacic)

sheaf Odiff-Spec A , defined à la Hartshorne in [Car85], and used by Kovacic in his
(CF)

several papers. Third, the sheaf Odiff-Spec A defined by Carrà Ferro in [Car90].
We prove that
(Keigher)
(Kovacic)
Odiff-Spec A ∼
= Odiff-Spec A
for any differential ring A. For the Carrà Ferro sheaf, we prove (see Theorem
5.1):
Theorem. Let X be a reduced Q-scheme endowed with a vector field. Then,
the Carrà Ferro sheaf and the Keigher sheaf have the same constants:


~
(Keigher)
(CF)
∀ U open in X V ,
C O V~
(U ) ' C O V~ (U ) .
X

X

The main ingredient of the proof of this theorem is the following proposition (see
Proposition 4.1), which has an interest in itself. It says that given a constant
section of OX over U , one can extend it to the open set U δ generated by U
under the action of V~ . It is remarkable because one always restricts sections
but rarely extends it.
Proposition. Let X be a reduced Q-scheme endowed with a vector field V~ . Let
U be an open set of X. Then, for every f ∈ C (OX (U )), there exists a unique

fe in C OX (U δ ) such that fe|U = f .
Furthermore, the extension map
extU →U δ

C (OX (U ))
:

f


/ C OX (U δ )
/ fe


is an isomorphism of rings, whose inverse C OX (U δ ) −→ C (OX (U )) is the
restriction map.
The proof of this proposition relies on the following fact: if (a/b)0 = 0 then
a/b = a0 /b0 . Nevertheless, when one wants to state the property we need —
something like a/b = a(n) /b(n) for all n, under the same assumption — one
needs to follow quite precisely what happens in the computations. This is done
in Proposition 4.2 and Lemma 4.3. In particular, we prove the following result
of commutative algebra.
Proposition. Let A be a differential ring and S a multiplicative subset of A.
If s ∈ S and if i ∈ N, one has


a 0
a
a(i)
= 0 in S −1 A
s
=⇒
= (i)
in S −1 A.
(i)
s
s ∈S
s

5

1.3

Plan of the paper

The paper is organized as follows. Section 1 is this introduction. Section 2 is
devoted to the definition of vector fields, leaves, to the construction of TrajV~
and to the study of its properties. We also study extensively the cases of An
and Pn . In particular, we prove that any vector field on Pn vanishes at some
closed point. That is, any vector field on Pnk , where k is a field and the vector
field acts trivially on on k, has a singular point. We also explain how to define
the trajectory when schemes are not defined over Q. In Section 3, we define the
Carrà Ferro topology of a scheme with a vector field, as well as the Keigher sheaf
and the Carrà Ferro sheaf. Section 4 is devoted to our result on the extension
of constant sections. It starts with a result of commutative algebra on constant
elements in localized rings. In Section 5, we prove our main results on the
(Keigher)
(Kovacic)
(CF)
comparison of Odiff-Spec A , Odiff-Spec A and Odiff-Spec A . Finally, in the appendix,
we explain why the associated sheaf functor, in the case of (pre)sheaves of
differential rings, commutes with the functor of constants.

2

Vector fields, leaves and trajectories for schemes

We start this paper with some classical and elementary facts about the possible definitions of vector fields for smooth manifolds. This will motivate our
definition for schemes.

2.1

Vector fields

In the case of smooth manifolds, it is well known that one can define global
vector fields in various ways. Given M such a manifold:
a) If the tangent bundle T M has already been defined, as a smooth manifold, one can say that a global vector field is a section s of the canonical
projection π : T M −→ M .
b) It is equivalent to consider a map
∂ : C ∞ (M, R) −→ C ∞ (M, R)
that is R-linear and such that
∀f, g ∈ C ∞ (M, R) ,

∂ (f g) = f ∂(g) + ∂(f )g.

In other words, global vector fields can also be seen as R-derivations of
the R-algebra C ∞ (M, R). The derivation ∂s associated to a section s of
T M −→ M is defined by
∂s (f ) :=

M
p
6

/R
/ dfp • s(p)

for all f ∈ C ∞ (M, R). Let us give more details about this construction,
for the convenience of the reader. First, dfp , by definition, is a linear
application from Tp M to R. By dfp • s(p), we simply mean the image of
the tangent vector s(p) ∈ Tp M by the map dfp . So, by definition, ∂s (f ) is a
real function defined on M . We will not prove that it is actually a smooth
function, but let us see now why the map ∂s : C ∞ (M, R) −→ C ∞ (M, R)
is a derivation. It is a consequence of the following:
Lemma 2.1. Let M be a smooth manifold and f, g ∈ C ∞ (M, R). Let
p ∈ M and ~v ∈ Tp M . Then,
dp (f g) • ~v = f (p) · dp (g) • ~v + g(p) · dp (f ) • ~v .
This lemma is easily deduced from the same result for Rn , n ≥ 1.
c) Actually, given a global vector field, one gets a R-derivation ∂U of C ∞ (U, R)
for all open set U of M . Moreover, these maps are compatible with the restriction maps. Thus, one can attach to a global vector field a R-derivation
of the structure sheaf OM of M .
This motivates the definition:
Definition 2.2. Let X be a scheme. A vector field V~ on X is a derivation of
the structure sheaf OX of X.
Remarks. —– (a) For the convenience of the reader, let us precise what does
this mean. A vector field on X is therefore given by the following data:
• for each open set U of X, a derivation ∂U of the ring OX (U ) such that
• for all open sets U, V of X such that U ⊂ V , the following diagram
commutes
∂U
/ OX (V ) .
OX (V )
ρU,V

ρU,V


OX (U )

∂V


/ OX (U )

(b) Therefore, it is clear that we could have defined in exactly the same way
a vector field for a ringed space.
(c) A scheme can always be endowed with the zero-vector field, which corresponds to the collection of derivations
∂U :

/ OX (U )
/0

OX (U )
f 

for all open set U of X.

7

(d) If (X, OX ) is a scheme, then it is equivalent to consider a vector field V~
on X or to endow the sheaf OX with a structure of sheaf of differential rings:
(X, OX , V~ ) is then what we will call a differentially (locally) ringed space.
(e) In [Gro67], given a S-scheme X, Grothendieck defines the tangent bundle
of X/S. It is a S-scheme, denoted by TX/S , with a S-morphism to X:
TX/S
π


X.

He proves that the S-section of π correspond to the OS -derivations of OX . So,
in the case where X is viewed as a Z-scheme, one gets a correspondence between
the sections of π : TX −→ X and the group of vector fields of X. The OX -module
of S-sections of π is the dual of Ω1X/S . We will denote it by TX/S (or by TX
when S = Spec Z). ♦

2.2

Morphisms and category

If X = (X, V~ ) and Y = (Y, W~ ) are two schemes with vector fields, a morphism
f : X −→ Y will be a morphism f : X −→ Y of schemes such that, for all open
set U of Y , the diagram
#
fU


OX f −1 (U ) o


∂V~,f −1 (U )
#
fU


OX f −1 (U ) o

OY (U )


∂W~ ,U

OY (U )

commutes. In other words, f is a morphism of schemes that is a morphism of
differentially ringed spaces. The category of schemes with vector fields will be
denoted by Sch∂ . Intuitively, as it will be seen in Proposition 2.4, a morphism
f : X −→ Y pushes the vector field of X onto the vector field of Y .

2.3

Schemes with vector fields and differential rings

If (A, ∂) is a differential ring, then the scheme Spec A can be canonically endowed
with a vector field, that will be denoted here by V~A . As a “sheaf” of derivations,
this vector field is defined as follows. First, let us remark that it is sufficient
to define V~A on a basis of open sets. Now, it is well known that the collection
{D(f ), f ∈ A} is a basis of Spec A, where D(f ) denotes the open set D(f ) :=
{p ∈ Spec A | f ∈
/ p}. But, it is also well known that the ring associated to the

8

open set D(f ) (for the structure sheaf of Spec A) is the localisation Af . In other
words:
OSpec A (D(f )) ' Af
naturally.
So, to define V~A , we just need to define a “compatible” collection of derivations
of the rings Af , f ∈ A. Now, we know that the derivation ∂ of A induces a
unique “natural” derivation ∂f of the localisation Af . We leave to the reader the
“natural” task to verify that these derivations ∂f form a “compatible” collection.
This collection hence gives rise to the vector field V~A of Spec A that we wanted
to construct. We will denote this scheme with vector field by Spec∂ A. Actually,
one obtains a functor
Spec∂ : (Rng∂ )op −→ Sch∂ .
We could have defined the schemes with vector field as differentially ringed
spaces locally isomorphic to Spec∂ Ai ’s.
Example. —– Let k be a field and A = k[x]. The derivation ∂ cst of A defined
by ∂ cst |k = 0 and ∂ cst (x) = 1 corresponds to the constant vector field of A1k .
The derivation ∂ rad defined by ∂ rad |k = 0 and ∂ rad (x) = x corresponds to the
radial vector field, as pictured in Figure 1. 4

Vcst

1

Ak

Vrad
Figure 1: The vector fields of A1k associated to the derivations ∂ cst and ∂ rad .

As in the non-differential case, one has the following proposition, whose proof
is left to the reader:
Proposition 2.3. The functors
Spec∂
∂ op

(Rng )

o

>
O(−)

/

Sch∂

form an adjunction: O (−) is a left adjoint to Spec∂ .
In particular, the category of affine schemes endowed with vector field is antiequivalent to the category of differential rings. This allows us to describe the vector
fields of Ank and Pnk , as follows.

9

Examples. —– (a) Vector fields on Ank . Let k be a ring. Let V~ be a vector field
defined on Ank , and constant on k. Then, V~ corresponds to a k-derivation
of k[X1 , . . . , Xn ]. Such a derivation ∂ is fully determined by the elements
∂X1 , . . . , ∂Xn . Hence, the abelian group of vector fields on Ank is isomorphic to
(k[X1 , . . . , Xn ], +)n
(b) Vector fields on Pnk . Let k be a ring. Then, the vector fields defined on
(n ≥ 1) and constant on k all come from linear vector fields of An+1
. This
k
means, precisely, that for any vector field V~ defined on Pnk and constant on k,
there exists a matrix A ∈ Mn+1 (k) such that the morphism
Pnk

π : (Akn+1 \ {0} , V~A )

/ (Pn , V~ )
k

is compatible with the vector fields, where π : An+1
\ {0} −→ Pnk denotes the
k
~
canonical projection and where VA denotes the linear vector field of An+1
ink
duced by the derivation
∂A : k[X0 , . . . , Xn ] −→ k[X0 , . . . , Xn ]
defined by




X0



∂A  ...  := A 
Xn


X0
..  .
. 
Xn

Indeed, the Euler exact sequence can be written
0 −→ OPnk −→ OPnk (1)n+1 −→ TPnk /k −→ 0
as in Example 8.20.1 of [Har77]. Hence, one gets an exact sequence in cohomology:



H 0 Pnk , OPnk (1)n+1 −→ H 0 Pnk , TPnk /k −→ H 1 Pnk , OPnk .

But, one knows that H 1 Pnk , OPnk = 0 (see for instance [Liu02]). So, the map


H 0 Pnk , OPnk (1)n+1 −→ H 0 Pnk , TPnk /k is surjective. Let us write down explicitly what is this map. To a family (L0 , . . . , Ln ) of linear forms in X0 , . . . , Xn ,
it associates the vector field of Pnk , defined on each standard open set Ui =
Spec k [X0 /Xi , . . . , Xn /Xi ] by:
∂(Xk /Xi ) =

Lk · Xi − Li · Xk
.
Xi 2

So, given a vector field V~ of Pnk , one obtains the required matrix A by considering the coefficients of the linear forms L0 , . . . , Ln . 4

10

2.4

Tangent vectors associated to vector fields

Let X be a scheme. Now, we are going to explain how to associate to a vector
field V~ on X and to an element x ∈ X a (Zariski) tangent vector V~ (x) ∈ Tx X.
First, it is easy to check that a vector field V~ , ie a derivation ∂ of OX , induces
a derivation ∂x of the local ring OX,x . We denote by Mx , as usual, the maximal
ideal of OX,x , and κ(x) := OX,x /Mx . We then consider the linear map
Mx

f

/ κ(x)
/ (∂x f )(x)

.

This map sends elements of M2x to zero, since
∂x (f g)(x) = ((∂x f )g + f (∂x g)) (x) = 0
for f, g ∈ Mx . Hence, we get a map
Mx /M2x −→ κ(x),
which is κ(x)-linear: in other words, we get a element of Tx X the Zariski tangent
space of X in x. We denote this element by V~ (x). We then have the formula:
Proposition 2.4. Let X = (X, V~ ) and Y = (Y, W~ ) be two schemes with
vector fields. Let f : X −→ Y be a morphism. Then
∀x ∈ X,

Tx f • V~ (x) = ix ◦ W~ (f (x)).

where ix : κ(f (x)) −→ κ(x) is the inclusion of residual fields induced by f
Proof. —– Since the definition of V~ (x) is local, it is sufficient to prove this
statement when X and Y are affine. So, let (A, ∂A ) and (B, ∂B ) be two differential rings, and let ϕ : (A, ∂A ) −→(B, ∂B ) be a morphism. We denote by
f : Spec∂ B −→ Spec∂ A the corresponding morphism of schemes with vector
fields. Let x ∈ Spec B, ie let px be a prime ideal of B. The image of x by f is
py := ϕ−1 (px ). The morphism ϕ induces, by localisation, an arrow
ϕ
b : Apy −→ Bpx .
Better, if we denote by Mx and My the maximal ideals of Apx and Apy , ϕ
induces morphisms
ϕ : My /M2y −→ Mx /M2x

and

ix : Bpy /My −→ Apx /Mx ,

this latter being injective. Now, the tangent vector V~ (x) corresponds to the
morphism
/ Bpx /Mx
Mx /M2x
∂x :
,

/ ∂B (ψ) mod. Mx
ψ
11

and there is a similar description of W~ (y). The image of V~ (x) by the differential
Tx f is the map ∂y making the diagram
ϕ

My /M2y

/ Mx /M2x
∂x

% 
Apx /Mx

∂y

commute. Let ψ ∈ My . We have:


∂y (ψ mod. M2y ) = ∂x ϕ(ψ mod. M2y ) = ∂x ϕ(ψ)
b
mod. M2x
= ∂B (ϕ(ψ))
b
mod. Mx
=ϕ
b (∂A (ψ)) mod. Mx
= ix (∂A (ψ) mod. My ) .
In other words, Tx f • V~ (x) = ix ◦ W~ (f (x)). 

2.5

Leaves

We are now able to define leaves:
Definition 2.5. Let X = (X, V~ ) be a scheme with a vector field. Let η ∈ X.
We say that η is a leaf of X (or a leaf for V~ ) when V~ (η) = 0. The set of leaves
~
of X will be denoted by X V .
Let us check that the leaves of Spec∂ A correspond to the differential prime
ideals of A, when A is a differential ring. Let p be a prime ideal of A. Let’s
assume that p is a leaf of Spec∂ A. Let f ∈ p: from V~ (p) = 0, we deduce that
the image of f under the map
∂

A
pAp = Mp −→ Mp /M2p −→
Mp /M2p −→ Ap /Mp

is zero. Hence, ∂A (f ) ∈ Mp = pAp and so, f ∈ p: the ideal p is differential.
Conversely, one can check that if p is a differential ideal, then it is a leaf of
Spec∂ A. This fundamental remark shows that
~

XV ⊂ X
is the exact non-affine analogue of
diff-Spec A ⊂ Spec A.
Examples. —– (a) The scheme A1k endowed with the constant vector field has
12

only one leaf: its generic point η. With the radial vector field, it has two leaves:
the closed point 0 and η.
(b) Let’s consider the ring A = k[X1 , . . . , Xn ] with a k-derivation ∂. The
derivation ∂ is characterized par the elements
P1 := ∂(X1 )

P2 := ∂(X2 )

···

Pn := ∂(Xn ).

One can check that the corresponding vector field V~ satisfies, for all x1 , . . . , xn ∈
k:


P1 (x1 , . . . , xn )


..
V~ (x1 , . . . xn ) = 
.
.
Pn (x1 , . . . , xn )
Let’s take n = 2 (we denote A = k[x, y]) with the derivation
∂(x) = −2y

and

∂(y) = 3x2 .

By a simple computation, one checks that the prime ideal ηc = (x3 + y 2 − c) is
differential, for all c ∈ k: consequently, (ηc )c∈k is a family of leaves.
(c) As noticed by Buium in [Bui86] (Lemma (2.1) of Chapter 1), if X is a
Q-scheme and if F is an irreducible closed set of X, then the generic point ηF
of F is always a leaf, for any vector field V~ .
(d) Let k be a ring. Any vector field on Pnk vanishes on a closed point — a
kind of analogue of the hairy ball theorem. Indeed, as explained in (2.3), if V~
is a vector field of Pnk constant on k, then there exists A ∈ Mn+1 (k) such that
V~ comes from the vector field of An+1
defined by
k




X0
X0




∂  ...  := A  ...  .
Xn

Xn

Now, let K be a residual field of k, ie let ϕ : k −→ K be a surjective morphism.
There exists a finite extension of fields K −→ L such that the matrix A, when
viewed in L, has an eigenvector ~v . This implies that the image of ~v under the
map πL : An+1
−→ PnL , denoted by xL , and which is clearly a closed point, is
L
a leaf for V~L — in other words, V~L vanishes on xL . By Proposition 2.4, one
knows that the image of xL under the map
f : PnL −→ PnK −→ Pnk ,
denoted by xk , will also be a leaf for V~ . Hence, we just need to see why xk is a
closed point. This comes from the following facts:

13

— First, since L/K is finite, Spec L −→ Spec K is a proper map and so is
PnL −→ PnK . In particular, it is a closed map.
— Second, since Spec K −→ Spec k is a closed immersion, the morphism
PnK −→ Pnk is also a closed immersion. In particular, it is a closed map.
— So, PnL −→ Pnk is a closed map, and sends closed points to closed points:
xk is a closed point.
4

2.6

Trajectory of a point

Now, let X = (X, V~ ) be in Sch∂ . We would like to associate to any x ∈ X
“its algebraic trajectory under the vector field V~ ”. This is possible, thanks to
the following theorem, which is an analogue for schemes of the Cauchy-Peano
theorem:
Theorem 2.6. Let X = (X, V~ ) be a scheme with a vector field, defined over
Q. Let x ∈ X. Then, the ordered set


η
x
η∈X
η is a leaf of X
has a least element. We denote this element by TrajV~ (x) and call it the trajectory
of x (under V~ ).
Remark. —– Here, the order that we consider is: z ≥ y if and only if y ∈ {z}.
In this case, we say that z is a generization of y and that y is a specialization
of z; we denote z
y. The properties of this order are classical (see [Gro60],
Chapter 0, (2.1.1)). For instance, open sets are stable under generization and,
dually, closed sets are stable under specialization. ♦
Proof. —– We keep the notations of the theorem. Let x ∈ X and U an affine
neighborhood of x. Since all the generizations of x are elements of U , one can
assume X affine. So, let A be a differential Q-algebra and p a prime ideal of A.
Since the generization order is the opposite of the inclusion order on ideals, one
needs to prove that


q is a differential prime ideal
q ∈ Spec A
q⊂p
has a greatest element. Let’s consider, as in [Kei77], the set
n
o
p# := f ∈ A | ∀n ≥ 0, f (n) ∈ p .
Keigher’s Proposition 1.5 says that p# is a prime ideal (it’s there that Q ⊂ A
is needed). It is then easy to check that p# is the required ideal. We will see
14

further a proof of the primality of p# is a more general context. Let’s remark
that, in any case, I# is the greatest differential ideal contained in I. 
Examples. —– (a) For all leaf η ∈ X, TrajV~ (η) = η.
(b) Since X = A1k endowed with the constant vector field has only η as a
leaf, one has: ∀x ∈ X, TrajV~ (x) = η. If we consider the radial vector field, the
trajectory of all x ∈ X but 0 is η.
(c) Let’s consider the vector field on A2C defined by
∂x = 1 − xy 2

and

∂y = x2 − y 3 ,

whose smooth real leaves are drawn in Picture 2. Jouanolou proved in [Jou79]
that no non-constant smooth leaf of this vector field is algebraic. Thus, the
leaves for this vector field are just η the generic point and the point (1, 1). 4

p=(1,1)

0

2

AR

Figure 2: Smooth leaves of the vector field defined by ∂x = 1 − xy 2 and ∂y =
x2 − y 3 .

2.7

Properties of the trajectory

First, we prove that the map TrajV~ is “compatible” with morphisms of Sch∂ ,
namely:

15

Proposition 2.7. Let X = (X, V~ ) and Y = (Y, W~ ) be two Q-schemes with
vector fields, and let f : X −→ Y be a morphism. Then, for all x ∈ X,

f TrajV~ (x) = TrajW~ (f (x)).
Proof. —– By considering affine neighborhoods of f (x) and x, it suffices to prove
this proposition in the affine case. Hence, let A and B be two Q-differential
algebras, let ϕ : A −→ B be a morphism of differential rings. Let p be a prime
ideal of B. We want to prove that


ϕ−1 p# = ϕ−1 p # .
But,
n
o
(n)
ϕ−1 (p# ) = {x ∈ A | ϕ(x) ∈ p# } = x ∈ A | ∀n ∈ N, ϕ(x) ∈ p
n
o n
o

= x ∈ A | ∀n ∈ N, ϕ x(n) ∈ p = x ∈ A | ∀n ∈ N, x(n) ∈ ϕ−1 p

= ϕ−1 p # ,
which concludes the proof. 
The trajectory defines a map
~

TrajV~ : X −→ X V .
~

~

Since X V ⊂ X, it is possible to endow the set X V of leaves with the topology
induced by the Zariski topology. Then:
Proposition 2.8. Let X be Q-scheme endowed with a vector field V~ . Then,
~
TrajV~ : X −→ X V is continuous and open.
Proof. —– First, let’s show that it is continuous. Since this property is local,
~
let’s assume that X = Spec∂ A, with A a differential ring. Let U = V ∩ X V be
~
an open set of X V , where V is a Zariski open set of X. Let I be an ideal of A
such that V = X \ V (I). Let’s prove that
TrajV~

−1

U = X \ V (hIi),

where hIi denotes the differential ideal generated by I. Let p be a prime ideal
of A. Then, one has
TrajV~ (p) ∈ U ⇐⇒ p# ∈ U
⇐⇒ p# ∈ V
⇐⇒ I ⊂ p# .

16

But, the latter is equivalent to hIi ⊂ p. Indeed, if I ⊂ p# , since p# is a
differential ideal, one has hIi ⊂ p# and since p# ⊂ p, one has indeed hIi ⊂ p.
On the other hand, if hIi ⊂ p, since p# is greatest differential ideal contained
−1
in p, one has hIi ⊂ p# and so I ⊂ p# . This proves indeed that TrajV~
U=
X \ V (hIi).
Let’s prove now that TrajV~ is open. Let X be a Q-scheme endowed with
~

a vector field V~ . Let U be an open set of X. Since, for all η ∈ X V , one has
TrajV~ (η) = η, it is easy to check that
~

TrajV~ (U ) = U ∩ X V .
Hence, the map TrajV~ is indeed open. 

2.8

The case when the schemes are no more defined over Q

A crucial hypothesis in Theorem 2.6 is that the schemes have to be defined over
Q. This comes from the fact that, when differentiating f n , one gets n · f n−1 f 0 :
if n can be simplified, much more things can be done. In general, Theorem 2.6
is false when the schemes are not defined over Q. Nevertheless, it is possible to
solve this problem by defining Hasse-Schmidt vector fields. Recall that, when
A is a ring, a Hasse-Schmidt derivation of A is a family D = (Di )i≥0 of map
A −→ A satisfying
(i) for all i ≥ 0, Di : A −→ A is an additive map, and D0 = IdA .
(ii) the generalized Leibniz rule: for all i and all f, g ∈ A:
X
Di (f g) =
Dk (f )D` (g).
k+`=i

(iii) iterativity: for all i, j ≥ 0, Di ◦ Dj =

i+j
i



Di+j .

If A is a Q-algebra, then, there is a one-to-one correspondance between derivations of A and Hasse-Schmidt derivations of A given by
∂



/ D :=



∂i
i!


.
i≥0

Subsequently, if X is a scheme, we call Hasse-Schmidt vector field of X any
Hasse-Schmidt derivation of the structure sheaf OX , ie any family (DU )U of
compatible Hasse-Schmidt derivations OX (U ) −→ OX (U ) for all open set U .
Let’s now define what would be a leaf for a Hasse-Schmidt vector field. The
situation is more complicated than for classical vector fields. For any HasseSchmidt derivation D of OX and any x ∈ X, it is possible to consider the

17

restriction Dx of D to the local ring OX,x : it is a Hasse-Schmidt derivation of
OX,x , and we denote Dx = (Dx,i )i≥0 . For all i ≥ 1, the map
evx,i :

/ κ(x)

Mix /Mi+1
x

f

/ Dx,i (f )(x)

is well defined, since
∀f ∈ Mi+1
x ,

Dx,i (f )(x) = 0.

Indeed, if A is a ring and if D = (D0 , D1 , . . .) is a Hasse-Schmidt derivation of
A, the generalized Leibniz rule generalises to
X
D`1 (f1 ) · · · D`p (fp ),
∀i ≥ 0, ∀p ≥ 1,
Di (f1 f2 · · · fp ) =
`1 ,...,`p ≥0
`1 +···+`p =i

for all f1 , . . . , fp ∈ A. We say that x is a leaf for this Hasse-Schmidt derivation
if the maps evx,i are zero for all i ≥ 1. Then we have:
Theorem 2.9. Let X be a scheme endowed with a Hasse-Schmidt vector field
V~ . Let x ∈ X. Then, the ordered set


η
x
η∈X
η is a leaf for V~
has a least element.
The proof of this theorem is based on the following proposition:
Proposition 2.10. Let A be a ring and D = (Di )i≥0 a Hasse-Schmidt derivation of A. Let p be a prime ideal of A. Then,
p# := {f ∈ A | ∀i ≥ 0, Di (f ) ∈ p}
is a prime ideal invariant by D.
Proof. —– The set p# is clearly stable under addition. If f ∈ p# and λ ∈ A, then
the generalized Leibniz rule proves that λf ∈ p# . Furthermore, the iterativity
of D proves that for all i ≥ 0, the ideal p# is stable under Di . Let’s prove that
p# is a prime ideal. Let f, g ∈ A such that f, g ∈
/ p# . Thus, let i0 and j0 ≥ 0
be the least integers such that
Di0 (f ) ∈
/p

and

Dj0 (g) ∈
/ p.

Let’s prove that f g ∈
/ p# by considering
X
Di0 +j0 (f g) =

Dk (f )D` (g).

k+`=i0 +j0

18

In this sum, the terms split in three parts: the Dk (f )D` (g)’s for k < i0 , which
are in p by definition of i0 , the Dk (f )D` (g)’s for ` < j0 , which are in p for the
same reason, and finally Di0 (f )Dj0 (g). This latter isn’t in p for p is a prime
ideal. Thus, Di0 +j0 (f g) ∈
/ p and so, f g ∈
/ p# . This proves that p# is a prime
ideal. 

3

The Carrà Ferro topology, the Carrà Ferro
sheaf and the Keigher sheaf

In this section, we reinterpret the paper [Car90], with the help of vector fields,
leaves and trajectories. This new approach allow us to generalize the constructions of Carrà Ferro to the non-affine case and, much more important, to get a
geometric understanding of these latter.

3.1

Invariant closed and open sets

We begin this section by defining invariant closed and open sets. For the sake of
simplicity, we stick to Q-schemes with vector fields but all what follows should
work for schemes with Hasse-Schmidt derivations.
Definition 3.1. Let X be a Q-scheme with a vector field V~ . A closed set F of
X will be said invariant under V~ when
∀x ∈ F,

TrajV~ (x) ∈ F.

An open set U of X will be said invariant under V~ when the closed set X \ U
is.
We now prove an analogue of Theorem 2.6 for open sets:
Proposition 3.2. Let X be a Q-scheme endowed with a vector field V~ . Let U
be an open set of X. Then, the set


U ⊂V
V
V is an invariant open set of X
has a least element. We denote it by U δ , and call it the invariant open set
associated to U .
Remark. —– Of course, dually, there also exists a greatest invariant closed set
included in F , when F is a closed set of X. ♦
Proof. —– We keep the notations of the statement. Let’s consider the set

V0 = x ∈ X | TrajV~ (x) ∈ U .

19

Since the map TrajV~ is continuous, V0 is an open set of X. Furthermore,
U ⊂ V0 , for we always have TrajV~ (x)
x, and for open sets are stable under
generization. Now, let’s check
that
V
is
invariant:
let x ∈
/ V0 . Then, TrajV~ (x) ∈
/
0

V0 , since TrajV~ TrajV~ (x) = TrajV~ (x) ∈
/ U . Last, let’s prove that V0 is the
least such set. Let V ⊃ U be an invariant open set and x ∈ V0 . If x ∈
/ V , then,
by invariance, one would have TrajV~ (x) ∈
/ V . But, by definition of x ∈ V0 , one
has TrajV~ (x) ∈ U and thus TrajV~ (x) ∈ V . This is absurd. Hence, x ∈ V and
so, V0 ⊂ V . 
If A is a differential ring, if X = Spec∂ A and if U is the open set of X defined by
an ideal I, then U δ is the open set defind by the differential ideal hIi. Indeed,
one has
−1
U δ = TrajV~
U = X \ V (hIi),
as it has been shown in the proof of Proposition 2.8.

3.2

The Carrà Ferro topology of X

We now prove that the invariant open sets form a topology:
Proposition 3.3. Let X = (X, V~ ) be a Q-scheme endowed with a vector field.
Let (Ui )i∈I be a family of open sets of X. Then:
!δ
[
i∈I

Ui

!δ
=

[

Ui

δ

and, when I is finite,

i∈I

\
i∈I

Ui

=

\

Ui δ .

i∈I

In particular, the invariant open sets of X form a topology of X. We call it the
Carrà Ferro topology fo X .
Proof. —– This comes from the fact that for any map f : E → F , f −1 commutes
with unions and intersections, applied to f = TrajV~ . 
~

Consequently, the subset X V of X can be endowed with two induced topologies: the one induced by Zariski, and the one induced by Carrà Ferro. They are
the same:
Proposition 3.4. Let X = (X, V~ ) be Q-scheme endowed with a vector field.
Then, the Zariski topology of X and the Carrà Ferro topology of X induce the
~
same topology on X V .
Proof. —– Since, the Carrà Ferro topology is a subtopology of the Zariski topology, it suffices to prove that, if U is Zariski open set of X, then, there exists an
invariant open set V of X such that:
~

~

U ∩ XV = V ∩ XV .
It suffices to take V := U δ . 
20

3.3

The Carrà Ferro sheaf and the Keigher sheaf on X
~

Now, we would like to equip the topological space X V with a sheaf. For this,
we have three possibilities.
a) First, if we denote by XZar the scheme X endowed with the Zariski topology, then the inclusion map
~

iZar : X V −→ XZar
is a continuous map. Since XZar comes with the scheme-structure scheaf
OX , one can consider the pull-back of OX by iZar . In other words, one can
~
consider the restriction of OX to the subspace X V . It is a sheaf denoted
by
(iZar )−1 OX
and defined as the sheaf associated to the preasheaf
U 7→ colim V open in X OX (V ) .
−−−→ and U ⊂V
Indeed, this latter is not always a sheaf. This sheaf is naturally a sheaf of
differential Q-algebras.
b) Second, we can do the same but with the Carrà Ferro topology instead of
the Zariski one. So, if we denote by XCF the scheme X equipped with the
Carrà Ferro topology, it is still possible to consider the inclusion map
~

iCF : X V −→ XCF :
it is also a continuous map. The sheaf OX , defined on XZar , induces
naturally a sheaf on XCF , which we still denote by OX . Thus, similarly,
one can consider the sheaf
(iCF )−1 OX .
~

c) Third, there is another sheaf that one can define on X V . Indeed, since
~
TrajV~ : XZar −→ X V is a continuous map and since XZar comes with the
sheaf OX , one can consider the push-forward of OX by TrajV~ . It is a sheaf
denoted by
(TrajV~ )∗ OX
and whose definition is simplier than for the pull-back: if U is a open set
~
of X V , one has, by definition

(TrajV~ )∗ OX (U ) := OX (TrajV~ )−1 U .

21

~

Notation 3.5. When U is a open set of X V , we denote

U∆ := (TrajV~ )−1 U = x ∈ X | TrajV~ (x) ∈ U .
It is easy to check that U∆ is an invariant open set of X. With this notation,
we have (TrajV~ )∗ OX (U ) = OX (U∆ ). We have:
Proposition 3.6. Let X = (X, V~ ) be Q-scheme endowed with a vector field.
Then,
(iCF )−1 OX = (TrajV~ )∗ OX .
Proof. —– We keep the notations of the proposition. Let U be an open set
~
of X V . We will prove that OX (U∆ ) is an inductive limit of the OX (V ), for
V invariant open set of X such that U ⊂ V . So, let V be an invariant open
set containing U . Then, U∆ ⊂ V . Hence, the restrictions form a bunch of
compatible maps
ψV : OX (V ) −→ OX (U∆ ) .
Let’s prove that these maps make OX (U∆ ) an inductive limit. It’s easy. Let A
be a differential ring, equipped with compatible maps ϕV : OX (V ) −→ A for all
invariant open set V containing U . In particular, there is a map
f := ϕU∆ : OX (U∆ ) −→ A.
What we want to prove is that, for every V , the diagram
OX (V )

ψV

/ OX (U∆ )

f

/7 A

ϕV

commutes. This follows from the compatibility of the family (ϕV )V . 
Definition 3.7. Let X = (X, V~ ) be Q-scheme endowed with a vector field.
~
The Keigher sheaf on X V is
O

(Keigher)
X V~

:= (iZar )−1 OX .

~

The Carrà Ferro sheaf on X V is
(CF)
X V~

O

:= (iCF )−1 OX = (TrajV~ )∗ OX .

With these definitions, Corollary 2.4 of [Car90] generalizes to the following:

22

Proposition 3.8. Let X = (X, V~ ) be Q-scheme endowed with a vector field.
Then,
~
(CF) 
Γ X V , O V~ = Γ(X, OX ).
X

In particular, if A is Q-differential algebra,

(CF)
Γ diff-Spec A, Odiff-Spec A = A.
Proof. —– By definition,
~

Γ XV , O

(CF) 
X V~

~

= Γ((X V )δ , OX ).

~

But, it is clear that (X V )∆ = X and thus, the result follows. 

3.4

The Kovacic sheaf

When X is affine, a third sheaf has been studied. Although it has been defined
for the first time by Carr Ferro in [Car85], we call it the Kovacic sheaf. Indeed,
in a series of papers [Kov02a, Kov02b, Kov03, Kov06], Kovacic intensively uses
and studies this sheaf. Here is its definition:
Definition 3.9. Let A be a differential ring and U an open set of diff-Spec A.
(Kov)
The Kovacic sheaf Odiff-Spec A , is defined by
(Kov)

Odiff-Spec A (U ) :=












∀p ∈ U, s(p) ∈ Ap

(i)
s : U −→

a
p∈U

Ap
(ii)

∃ (Ui )i∈I open covering of U,
∃(ai )i∈I , (bi )i∈I ∈ AI ,
∀p ∈ U, ∀i ∈ I, p ∈ Ui =⇒ (bi ∈
/ p and s(p) =
(Kov)












ai
bi )

(Keigher)

We will prove further that Odiff-Spec A and Odiff-Spec A are isomorphic.

4

Extension of constants

In this section, we prove the following result, which will be our main tool to
compare the Keigher sheaf and the Carrà Ferro sheaf. If A is a differential ring,
we denote by C(A) the ring of constants of A.
Proposition 4.1. Let X = (X, V~ ) be a reduced Q-scheme endowed with a
vector field. Let U be an open set of X. Then, for every f ∈ C (OX (U )), there

exists a unique fe in C OX (U δ ) such that fe|U = f .

23

.

Furthermore, this extension map
extU →U δ


/ C OX (U δ )

C (OX (U ))
:
f 

/ fe


is an isomorphism of rings, whose inverse C OX (U δ ) −→ C (OX (U )) is the
restriction map.

4.1

Constants in localized rings

In order to prove Proposition 4.1, we need to study the properties of constant
elements in differential rings of the form S −1 A. If x = a/s is such an element,
by differentiating x, one gets
a0 s − s0 a
=0
s2

in S −1 A.

One would like to derive from this, identities such as
a0 s − s0 a = 0

and so

a
a0
= 0
s
s

and so

∀i ∈ N,

a
a(i)
= (i) .
s
s

Unfortunately, these latters are false, since we don’t have a0 s − s0 a = 0 but only
∃t ∈ S, t · (a0 s − s0 a) = 0, and since the elements s(i) do not necessarily belong
to S. Nevertheless, when s(i) ∈ S, we do have a/s = a(i) /s(i) in S −1 A. This is
what tells us the following proposition.
Proposition 4.2. Let A be a differential ring. Let θ, a, b ∈ A such that
θ · (a0 b − ab0 ) = 0.
1) Then, for all N ∈ N≥3 and for all 0 ≤ i ≤ N , one has
θ · (a0 b − ab0 ) = 0
bN −1 θN

θ2 · (a00 b − ab00 ) = 0


· b(i) a(N −i) − a(i) b(N −i) = 0.

2) In particular, when S is a multiplicative subset of A, if s ∈ S and if i ∈ N,
one has


a 0
a
a(i)
= 0 in S −1 A
s
=⇒
=
in S −1 A.
s
s(i) ∈ S
s(i)
In order to prove this proposition, we need the following lemma :

24

Lemma 4.3. Let A be a differential ring and let t, A1 , A2 , B1 , B2 ∈ A. Then,
t · (A1 B2 − B1 A2 ) = 0
⇓
2

2

t · B2 ·

(B1 A01

−

A1 B10 )


− B1 2 · (A02 B2 − B20 A2 ) = 0.

Proof of Lemma 4.3. —– Let A be a differential ring and t, A1 , A2 , B1 , B2 ∈ A.
Let’s denote Θ = t · (A1 B2 − B1 A2 ). A simple computation shows that
tB1 B2

∂Θ
− tB1 B20 · Θ − tB10 B2 Θ − t0 B1 B2 Θ
∂x
=


t2 · B2 2 · (A01 B1 − A1 B10 ) − B1 2 · (A02 B2 − A2 B20 ) .
Hence, when Θ = 0, one gets the required identity. 
Now, we can prove Proposition 4.2 :
Proof of Proposition 4.2. —– We keep the notations of the proposition. In particular, we assume that θ · (a0 b − ab0 ) = 0. We denote


EN,i := bN −1 θN · b(i) a(N −i) − a(i) b(N −i) .
Let’s begin by showing the assertion 1): we want to prove
θ · (a0 b − ab0 ) = 0

∀N ≥ 3,

∀0 ≤ i ≤ N,

θ2 · (a00 b − ab00 ) = 0


bN −1 θN · b(i) a(N −i) − a(i) b(N −i) = 0.

The first identity is our assumption; one gets the second one by differentiating
the first one and by multiplying it by θ. For the bunch of next identities, we
proceed by induction. For N = 3, let’s remark that, when differentiating the
second identity and multiplying it by θ, one gets:
θ3 · ((a00 b0 − a0 b00 ) + (a000 b − ab000 )) = 0.

(1)

But, by applying Lemma 4.3 with t = θ, A1 = a, B2 = b0 , B1 = b et A2 = a0 ,
one gets
b2 θ2 · (b0 a00 − a0 b00 ) = 0;
hence, in particular, one has
b2 θ3 · (b0 a00 − a0 b00 ) = 0

and, with (1),

25

b2 θ3 · (a000 b − ab000 ) = 0

Now, let’s assume the assertion 1) true for n ≤ N and let’s show it for N + 1.
First, a simple computation shows that
bθ ·

∂EN,i
= EN +1,i+1 + EN +1,i .
∂x

Thus, for 0 ≤ i ≤ N , one has EN +1,i+1 + EN +1,i = 0. A consequence of these
identities is that, if there exists i0 such that EN +1,i0 = 0 then all the EN +1,i
are zero. Indeed, in that case, one would have
1
0
.
.
.











1
1

0
1

..

.



..

.

···
···

|

···

0

0
1
i0

0

1
0
···

1
1

{z








EN +1,0

  EN +1,1 

· 
 = 0.
..



.

0 EN +1,N +1

1

}

A

N +i

0
and thus
But, developing along the last line, one finds that det A = (−1)
that A is invertible. So, it suffices to find i0 such that EN +1,i0 = 0. We consider
two cases. If N + 1 = 2k is even, then one has


EN +1,k = bN θN +1 · b(k) a((N +1)−k) − a(k) b((N +1)−k)


= bN θN +1 · b(k) a(k) − a(k) bk) = 0,

and we can conclude. If N + 1 = 2k + 1 is odd, we know, by the induction
assumption, that


Ek,0 = bk−1 θk · a(k) b + b(k) a = 0.
Then, if we use Lemma 4.3 with the data

t = bk−1 θk
A1 = a(k) B2 = b

B1 = b(k)

A2 = A,

we get
bk−1 θk



2  2  (k) (k+1)
2
· b · b a
− a(k) b(k+1) + b(k) · (a0 b − b0 a) = 0.

So, given θ · (a0 b − b0 a) = 0, we get


b2k θ2k · b(k) a(k+1) − a(k) b(k+1) = 0.
26

Mulitplying it by θ, we get EN +1,k = 0 — and so, all the EN +1,i are zero.
Now, let’s move to the assertion 2). It is an easy consequence of 1). Indeed,
let S be a multiplicative subset of A and let (a, s) ∈ A × S such that
 a 0
s

in S −1 A.

=0

It means that there exists θ ∈ S such that θ · (a0 s − s0 a) = 0. Let’s assume now
that i ∈ N verifies s(i) ∈ S. The identity Ei,0 = 0 that we have just shown tells
us that

 
si−1 θi · a(i) s − as(i) = 0.
| {z }
∈S

For s(i) ∈ S, this implies
a
a(i)
= (i)
s
s

in S −1 A.



4.2

A lemma on stalks and trajectories

We will also need the following:
Lemma 4.4. Let (X, V~ ) be a Q-scheme endowed with a vector field. Let x ∈ X,
let U be an open neighborhood of x and let f ∈ OX (U ). Then,
(i)
(ii)

fTrajV~ (x) = 0

=⇒

n

∃ n ∈ N | (fx ) = 0.

(fTrajV~ (x) = 0 and f 0 = 0)

=⇒

fx = 0.

Remark. —– This result is false out of the differential context: if X is a scheme,
if x ∈ X and if η
x is a generization of x, then
fη = 0

n

=⇒
/ ∃n ∈ N | (fx ) = 0.

To see this, it suffices to consider the closed subscheme of A2C , union of the axes
x = 0 and y = 0 : X = Spec C[x, y]/(xy). In this scheme, the function y is zero
in OX,ηx — where ηx stands for the generic point of the axe y = 0 — although
y is not nilpotent in OX,(0,0) . ♦
Proof. —– For the property we want to show is local, it suffices to prove it for
affine schemes. So, let A be a differential ring. To begin with, let’s prove the
small following result :
∀(θ, f ) ∈ A2 ,

θf = 0

=⇒

27

(∀n ∈ N,

θ(n) f n+1 = 0).

We proceed by induction: if θ(n) f n+1 = 0, by differentiating this identity, one
gets
θ(n+1) f n+1 + (n + 1)θ(n) f 0 f n = 0.
By multiplying the latter by f , one gets θ(n+1) f n+2 = 0. Now let’s move to
assertion (i): let p be a prime ideal of A and let f ∈ A such that
f =0

in Ap# .

This means that there exists θ ∈
/ p# such that θf = 0. But, θ ∈
/ p# means that
there exists n ∈ N such that θ(n) ∈
/ p. Since, we know that θ(n) f n+1 = 0, we
have
f n+1 = 0
in Ap .
Lastly, let’s prove (ii). With the previous notations, we assume, in addition
that f 0 = 0. From θf = 0, one gets, by induction, that θ(m) f = 0 for all m. In
particular, one has that θ(n) f = 0 and so f = 0 in Ap . 

4.3

Proof of Proposition 4.1

Now, we come to the proof of our result on the extension of constant sections
of the structure sheaf. So, let X be reduced Q-scheme, equipped
 with a vector
field V~ . Let U be an open set of X and let f ∈ C OX (U ) . We start by

proving the unicity of a extension of f to U δ . So, let fe1 , fe2 ∈ C OX (U δ ) such
1
2
that fe|U
= fe|U
= f . Let x ∈ U δ . This means that TrajV~ (x) ∈ U . Let’s denote
y := TrajV~ (x). Thus, one has
fey1 = fey2 .
Consequently, by lemma 4.4.(ii), one has fex1 = fex2 . Hence, fe1 = fe2 , what we
wanted to show.
Let’s prove now existence of such a extension. Let’s assume that we had
shown it in the affine case and let’s show it in the general case. Let (Ωi )i∈I be a
basis of open affine sets of X. We denote Ui = U ∩ Ωi and fi = f|Ui . According
to the affine case, one hence has


fei ∈ C OΩi Ui δ(⊂Ωi )
such that fi = fei |Ui , where Ui δ(⊂Ωi ) stands for the invariant open set of Ωi
associated to Ui :

Ui δ(⊂Ωi ) := x ∈ Ωi | TrajV~ (x) ∈ Ui .
Let’s prove that the fei patch together, so that one can derive from them a
function fe extending f on U δ . First, remark that
[
Ui δ(⊂Ωi ) = U δ .
i∈I

28

This follows from
Ui δ(⊂Ωi ) = U δ ∩ Ωi .
Now, if i and j are such that Ωj ⊂ Ωi , since Uj δ(⊂Ωj ) = Ui δ(⊂Ωi ) ∩ Ωj and by
unicity of the extension, one has
fej = (fei )|Ωj .
Finally, if we denote by fe the patching of the fei , it is clear that fe0 = 0 and that
fe|U = f .
Last, but not least, let’s prove the result for affine schemes. For this sake,
let’s assume that this following lemma is true. We will prove it after.
Lemma 4.5. Let A be a differential reduced ring and let U be an open subset
(Kov)
of diff-Spec A. Let s ∈ Odiff-Spec A (U ). Then,
(i) there exist a Zariski open set W of Spec A, containing U , and t ∈ OSpec A (W )
such that for all x ∈ U , the stalk tx equals s(x). Moreover, when W ⊂ U∆ ,
this extension t is unique.
(ii) If, moreover, s0 = 0, this W can be taken to be equal to U∆ : there exists
a unique t ∈ C OSpec A (U∆ ) such that
∀x ∈ U,

tx = s(x).

So, let A be a reduced Q-differential algebra, let V be an open set of X :=
Spec A, and let f ∈ OX (V ) a section satisfying f 0 = 0. We denote U :=
V ∩ diff-Spec A. Then, we have V δ = U∆ . If we consider the Hartshorne-like
[Har77] definition of f , then it is clear that f induces on U a constant section s
of the Kovacic sheaf. Applying Lemma 4.5.(ii) to s, one gets a constant section

fe ∈ C OX (V δ ) . We just know that fe and f coincide (in a stalkwise sense) on
U . But, since X is reduced, by Lemma 4.4 this is sufficient to prove that they
coincide stalkwisely in U∆ and so that they are equal. Now, to conclude the
proof of Proposition 4.1, all that remains is to prove Lemma 4.5.
Proof of Lemma 4.5. —– We keep the notations of the lemma. We start by
proving the point (ii). Hence, let s be a constant section of the Kovacic sheaf.
It comes with a covering (Ui )i∈I of U and two families (ai )i and (bi )i fulfilling
the required conditions. The unicity is a consequence of Lemma 4.4.(ii), as for
Proposition 4.1. For the existence, we use the Hartshorne [Har77] definition of
the structure sheaf of Spec A. Hence, we look for
a) a family (t(p))p∈U δ , where t(p) ∈ Ap for each p, such that
∀p ∈ U,

t(p) = s(p)

and

29

∀p ∈ U δ ,

t(p)0 = 0.

b) a covering (Ω` )` of U δ and two families (α` )` and (β` )` such that


α`
δ
∀p ∈ U , ∀`,
p ∈ Ω` =⇒ β` ∈
/ p and t(p) =
in Ap .
β`
For the item a), we proceed as follows. Let p ∈ U δ : this means that p# ∈ U .
Hence, one can consider s(p# ) and denote
s(p# ) =

ap
,
bp

with bp ∈
/ p# . This means that there exists a integer n such that bp (n) ∈
/ p. We
will denote the least of these integers by np . Then, we define
t(p) :=

ap (np )
bp (np )

∈ Ap .

Let’s check that this family fulfill the two required conditions. If p ∈ U , then
p# = p. So, we want to check that
ap
ap (np )
= (n )
bp
bp p

in Ap# ,

but this follows from the point 2) of Proposition 4.2. Let p ∈ U δ . Since, s is
a constant section of the Kovacic sheaf, we know that s(p# )0 = 0. That means
that
ap 0 bp − ap bp 0
=0
in Ap# ;
bp 2
thus, there exists θ ∈
/ p# such that
θ · (ap 0 bp − ap bp 0 ) = 0.
Now, by point 1) of Proposition 4.2, we know:


bp 2np θ2np +1 · ap (np +1) bp (np ) − bp (np +1) ap (np ) = 0.

(2)

Let’s denote c := bp 2np θ2np +1 . It is an element that doesn’t belong to p# and
so, let m ∈ N such that c(m) ∈
/ p. As in the proof of Lemma 4.4, one deduces
from (2) that

m+1
c(m) · ap (np +1) bp (np ) − bp (np +1) ap (np )
=0


m+1
and so
c(m) · ap (np +1) bp (np ) − bp (np +1) ap (np )
= 0.
Since A is reduced, one has


c(m) · ap (np +1) bp (np ) − bp (np +1) ap (np ) = 0.
30

This implies
ap (np )

!0

bp (np )

=0

in Ap .

In other words, it means that t(p)0 = 0 for all p ∈ U .
Let’s move now to the item b). For the covering of U δ , we choose

Vi,n := Ui δ ∩ D bi (n)
for i ∈ I and n ∈ N.
Indeed, let p ∈ U δ ; this means that p# ∈ U . Hence, let i ∈ I such that p# ∈ Ui .
Then, since p# ∈ Ui , we know that bi ∈
/ p# . Thus, there exists n ∈ N such that

(n)
(n)
bi
∈
/ p; in other words, p ∈ D bi
. Hence, we have found a couple (i, n)
such that p ∈ Vi,n . As families of elements, we choose
αi,n := ai (n)

and

βi,n := bi (n) .

So, let p ∈ U δ and (i, n) such that p ∈ Vi,n . First, we have βi,n ∈
/ p. So, we have
to check that
ai (n)
αi,n
in Ap
= (n)
t(p) =
βi,n
bi
By assumption, we have p# ∈ Ui and so
s(p# ) :=

ai
ap
=
bp
bi

in Ap# .

Then, since these two elements have a zero derivative, and since, on the other
(n )
hand, we know that bp p ∈
/ p and bi (n) ∈
/ p, Proposition 4.2 tells us that
ap (np )
bp

(np )

=

ai (n)
bi (n)

in Ap# .

Then, applying Lemma 4.4.(i) and using the fact that A is reduced, we infer
that
ai (n)
ap (np )
=
in Ap .
bp (np )
bi (n)
This concludes the proof of (ii).
Now, let’s indicate quickly why (i) is true. We start with a section s ∈
(Kov)
Odiff-Spec A (U ), a covering (Ui )i of U and two families (ai )i and (bi )i of A such
that


ai
∀p ∈ U, p ∈ Ui =⇒ bi ∈
/ p and s(p) =
in Ap .
bi
By definition, one can find Zariski open sets Wi of Spec A such that Ui =
fi defined by
Wi ∩ diff-Spec A, for all i. One can replace the Wi ’s by the W
fi := Wi ∩ D(bi ).
W
31

S f
Then, one considers W = i W
i . This is a Zariski open set of Spec A containing
fi and p ∈ W
fj for two indexes i and j. Then,
U . Let p ∈ W and assume p ∈ W
ai
aj
=
bi
bj

in Ap .

(3)

Indeed, p# lies in Ui and in Uj and so ai /bi = aj /bj in Ap# . But, by Lemma
4.4 and for A is reduced, this implies (3). Then, one can define t ∈ OSpec A (W )
fi . The statement on unicity comes from
by setting t(x) = ai /bi when x ∈ W
Lemma 4.4. 

5
5.1

Comparison of the Carrà Ferro, Keigher and
Kovacic sheaves
Comparison of the Carrà Ferro and Keigher sheaves

We now come to the main result of this paper:
Theorem 5.1. Let X be a reduced Q-scheme endowed with a vector field. Then,
the Carrà Ferro sheaf and the Keigher sheaf have the same constants:




~
(Keigher)
(CF)
∀ U open in X V ,
C O V~
(U ) ' C O V~ (U ) .
X

X

Proof. —– We keep the notations of the theorem. The Keigher sheaf is defined
as the associated sheaf to a certain presheaf. Hence, thanks to Proposition A.3,
the constant of the Keigher sheaf is the same as the associated sheaf to the
constant of this certain presheaf. More precisely, one has
C



(Keigher)
O V~
(U )
X



!!†
'

U 7→ C

colim open in X OX (V )
−−−→V and
U ⊂V

.

Naturally, one would like to interchange C(−) with colim . This is not possible in
−−−→
general. For instance, the reader might search a example where C (A1 ⊗B A2 ) 6=
C(A1 ) ⊗C(B) C (A2 ).
But, in this situation, the colimit that we want to compute is of a very
special kind : it is a filtered colimit. And, for such colimits, one has

C colim Ai ' colim C(Ai ).
−−−→i
−−−→i
Indeed, one knows, as explained in chapters 9 and 11 of [Sch72], and after
Theorem 11.5.7 of the same book, that in the category Rng∂ filtered colimits
commute with finite limits. But, given a differential ring A, its ring of constants
32

can be characterized as a finite limit. More precisely, C(A) can be characterized
as the following kernel :
/A

C(A)

Id+∂(·)ε
Id

/
/ A[ε]/ε2 .

Hence, C(−) commutes with filtered colimits. So, one gets that
C





(Keigher)
(U )
O V~
X

!†
'

U 7→ colim V open in X C(OX (V ))
−−−→ and U ⊂V

.

Now, let U be an open set of X. We will prove that

colim V open in X C(OX (V )) = C OX (U δ ) .
−−−→ and U ⊂V
To begin with, if V is a Zariski open set of X that contains U , one has a map

ϕV : C (OX (V )) −→ C OX (U δ ) .
This comes from Proposition 4.1: ϕV is the composition of the extension map
OX (V ) −→ OX (V δ ) with the restriction map to OX (U δ ). Let’s prove that the
ϕV ’s make OX (U δ ) the sought colimit. Let A be a differential ring together
with compatible maps ψV : C (OX (V )) −→ A. In particular one has a map
ψU δ : C OX (U δ ) −→ A. Let V be a Zariski open set containing U . All that
we have to prove is that the diagram
C (OX (V ))
ψV
ϕV

'

C OX (U δ )

ψU δ

/+ A

commutes. But, in the diagram
C (OX (V ))
ψV
ϕV
1

extV →V δ

'

C OX (U δ )
7
2

restric



C OX (V δ )
the diagram

1

/+3 A ,

ψU δ

ψV δ

commutes by definition of ϕV , the diagram

33

2

commutes for the

ψW ’s form a compatible family, and the big triangle
C (OX (V ))
ψV

3+ A

extV →V δ



C OX (V δ )

ψV δ

commutes for the same reason, and for the restriction map and the extension
map are inverse one of each other. So, the last triangle
C (OX (V ))
ψV
ϕV

'

C OX (U δ )

/+ A

ψU δ


indeed commutes and C OX (U δ ) is the colimit that we wanted to compute.
Now, the end of the proof is easy. Since the constant of a sheaf is still a
sheaf, the presheaf

U 7→ C OX (U δ ) ,
which is actually the constant of the Carrà Ferro sheaf, is a sheaf. So, it is its
own associated sheaf. 
(Keigher)
X V~

Remark. —– In general, the sheaves O

(CF)
X V~

and O

are not isomorphic.
~

For instance, if X is
with the constant vector field, as we already told, X V
contains only one element, the generic point. The global sections are C[t] for
the Carrà Ferro sheaf and C(t) for the Keigher sheaf. ♦
A1C

5.2

Comparison of the Keigher sheaf and the Kovacic sheaf

We now prove the following proposition, that compares the two classical sheaves
over diff-Spec A:
Proposition 5.2. Let A be a differential ring. Then,
(Keigher)

(Kov)

Odiff-Spec A ' Odiff-Spec A .
As an immediate consequence of Theorem 5.1 and of the latter proposition,
one gets:

34

Corollary 5.3. Let A be Q-reduced differential algebra. Then,


(Keigher) 
(Kov)
(CF)
C Odiff-Spec A ' C Odiff-Spec A ' C Odiff-Spec A .
(Kov)

(Keigher)

Proof of Proposition 5.2. —– First, let us remark (7) that Odiff-Spec A and Odiff-Spec A
have the same stalks: for all p ∈ diff-Spec A, the stalks at p are isomorphic to
Ap . So, to prove that they are isomorphic, it is sufficient to show that there exists a morphism between them, inducing isomorphisms on stalks. Let us indicate
(Keigher)
(Kov)
how to construct such a morphism Odiff-Spec A −→ Odiff-Spec A . By the universal
property of the associated sheaf, it is sufficient to built a similar morphism
colim
−−−→

(Kov)

OSpec A (V ) −→ Odiff-Spec A (U ),

U ⊃V
V Zariski open
in Spec A

functorial in U . But, to define such a morphism, it is sufficient to consider a
compatible family of morphisms
(Kov)

OSpec A (V ) −→ Odiff-Spec A (U )
for all Zariski open set V containing U . If one consider the Hartshorne-like
definition of OSpec A , it is easy to define these maps, by restriction. 

A

The associated sheaf in the differential context

The two goals of this appendix are:
(i) to explain why the existence of the associated sheaf F † in the context
of sheaves and presheaves of sets implies its existence in the context of
differential rings;
(ii) to explain why the functor F 7→ F † commutes with the functor of constants.

A.1

Statement of the first result

To begin with, we fix some notations. If X is a topological space, we denote by
PrSh(X)

PrShAb (X)

PrShRng (X)

PrShRng∂ (X)

Sh(X)

ShAb (X)

ShRng (X)

ShRng∂ (X)

(7) It follows, for the Keigher sheaf, from the fact that a sheaf and its restriction to a subset
have the same stalks.

35

the respective categories of presheaves and sheaves of sets, abelian groups, rings
and differential rings. These categories come naturally with forgetful functors.
We also denote by
C(Sh) : PrShRng∂ (X) −→ PrShRng (X)
C(PrSh) : ShRng∂ (X) −→ ShRng (X)

and

the functors that associate to a (pre)sheaf F of differential rings the (pre)sheaf
of rings U 7→ C (F (U )). Finally, we also recall that one denotes
C o

/

F
>
G

D

when (F, G) establishes an adjunction between C and D, ie when G is left
adjoint to F . We want to prove:
Theorem A.1. Let X be a topological space and let F be a presheaf of sets
over X. Then, the sheaf of sets F † , associated to F , can be endowed with a
structure of sheaf of abelian groups (resp. rings, differential rings) when F has
a structure of presheaf of abelian groups (resp. rings, differential rings) .
But, more precisely, what we will prove is the following
Theorem A.2. Given a topological space X, there exist four adjonctions
Sh(X) o

ω
>
∗

/

ωRng

ShRng (X) o

/

ωAb

ShAb (X) o

PrSh(X)

>

/

>
∗Ab

ωRng∂

ShRng∂ (X) o

PrShRng (X)

∗Rng

>
∗Rng∂

PrShAb (X)
/

PrShRng∂ (X)

making the following diagram commute:
ShRng∂ (X)
O
∗Rng∂

ω1

ωRng∂


PrShRng∂ (X)

/ ShRng (X)
O
∗Rng

ω4

ω2

ωRng

/ ShAb (X)
O
∗Ab


/ PrShRng (X)

ω5

ω3

ωAb


/ PrShAb (X)

/ Sh(X) .
O
∗

ω6

ω


/ PrSh(X)

Moreover, the functors ∗, ∗Ab , ∗Rng and ∗Rng∂ commute with general colimits
and finite limits.
With these notations, the left adjoint functor to ω : Sh(X) → PrSh(X),
denoted here by ∗ : PrSh(X) → Sh(X), is the functor that associates to a
presheaf F its associated sheaf F † .

36

A.2

Proof of Theorem A.2

To begin with, we assume that the existence of the associated sheaf, and the fact
that it commutes with finite limits, is known for presheaves of sets. It is proved,
for instance, in [Har77] or [MM94]. We denote by ∗ : PrSh(X) → Sh(X) the
functor that maps F to its associated sheaf F † .
Now, let C be a category with finite products. We denote by 1 a terminal
object of C . Following [MM94, Ch. II, §7], but the interested reader should
also consult [Sch72, Ch. 11], we consider the category Ab (C ) of abelian group
objects of C . It is defined as follows :
— the objets of Ab (C ) are 4-uplets (X, a, v, u) where X ∈ ob (C ) and where
a : X × X → X, v : X → X and u : 1 → X are arrows satisfying some
conditions. Intuitively, one wants a to be the addition law, v to be the
subtraction law and u to be the zero.
— the arrows of Ab (C ) are arrows f : X −→ Y that commutes with addition.
For instance, Ab (Sets) is isomorphic, as a category, to the category of abelian
groups. Similarly, for every topological space X, the categories Ab (PrSh(X))
and Ab (Sh(X)) are isomorphic to PrShAb (X) and to ShAb (X).
Now, let X be a topological space and let F be presheaf of abelian groups.
We want to construst the associated sheaf F † to F . First, one can see F as
an object of Ab (PrSh(X)): F is preasheaf of sets endowed with maps
a : F × F −→ F ,

v : F −→ F

and

u : {?} −→ F

where {?} denotes the final object of PrSh(X). Then, one can apply to F and
to these maps the functor ∗. Since, ∗ commutes with finite limits, one gets
∗(a) : F † × F † −→ F † ,

∗(v) : F † −→ F †

and

†

∗ (u) : {?} −→ F † .

Furthermore, these maps still verify the axioms of Ab (C ), since ∗ maps commutative diagrams to commutative diagrams. Therefore, F † has naturally a
structure of sheaf of abelian groups. One can also verify that ∗ maps additive
morphisms of additive morphisms. Thus, one has a functor
∗Ab : PrShAb (X) −→ ShAb (X)
and one can prove that it is the left adjoint that we were looking for. Last, since
∗Ab is left adjoint to ωAb , one knows that it commutes with all colimits. For
finite limits, one proceeds as follows:
1. Let (Fi , ϕij ) be a finite system of abelian presheaves and let ϕi : F −→ Fi
be its limit in PrShAb (X). Then, F , seen as a presheaf of sets is still
a limit. This comes, for instance, from the fact that the functor ω6 :
PrShAb (X) −→ PrSh(X) has a left adjoint. This adjoint maps a presheaf
of sets G to the presheaf of abelian groups U 7→ Z(G (U )) .
37

2. Hence, ϕi : F −→ Fi is still a limit, seen in PrSh(X). For ∗ commutes
with finite limits, one gets that ∗(ϕi ) : F † −→ Fi † is a limit in Sh(X).
Furthermore, by definition, Fi † , F † can be seen as sheaves of abelian
groups and the morphism ∗(ϕi ) are additive.
3. Last, if G is a sheaf of abelian groups given with morphisms ψi : G −→ Fi † ,
one wants to find an arrow f : G −→ F † that factorizes the ψi . For F † is
a limit in Sh(X), one can find such an arrow f , in Sh(X). But then, one
has to prove that this arrow is additive. This comes from the additiveness
of the ψi and the unicity of factorizations.
So, this is how one can prove the existence of the left adjoint ∗Ab and its
properties. The same arguments apply for (pre)sheaves of rings and differential
rings: one remarks that it is possible to defines ring objects and differential ring
objets in a category C with finite limits, and that this definition only involves
finite products, maps and commutative diagrams.

A.3

Associated sheaves and constants

Now, we prove
Proposition A.3. Let X be a topological space. Then, the diagram
ShRng∂ (X)
O

/ ShRng (X)
O

C(Sh)

∗Rng∂

∗Rng

PrShRng∂ (X)

C(PrSh)

/ PrShRng (X)

commutes, up to isomorphism.
This means that, if F is a presheaf of differential rings, when one wants
to compute the constant of F † , it suffices to compute the associated sheaf to
C (F ): in other words, C(F )† ' C(F † ).
Proof. —– Let X be a topological space and let F ∈ PrShRng∂ (X). The
constant of F , denoted by C (F ) is a finite limit; more precisely, it is a kernel
(in PrSh(X), and in Sh(X) for sheaves):
C (F )

/F

∂
0

/

/ F.

For ∗ commutes with finite limits, one has
†

C (F )

/ F†

∂
0

38

/

†
/F :


†
hence, C (F ) is isomorphic to C F † , as sheaves of sets. But, this enough
to infer that they are isomorphic as sheaves of rings. Indeed, first, the map
†
C (F ) −→ F † is a morphism of sheaves of differential rings; second, if U is
†
any open set, the map C (F ) (U ) −→ F † (U ) is injective (this is because it is

†
isomorphic to C(F † )(U ) −→ F † ); third, as sets, C F † (U ) and C (F ) (U )
are isomorphic. 

39

References
[Bui82] A. Buium – “Ritt schemes and torsion theory”, Pacific J. Math. 98
(1982), no. 2, p. 281–293.
[Bui86] A. Buium, Differential function fields and moduli of algebraic varieties,
Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1226, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1986.
[Bui92] A. Buium, Differential algebraic groups of finite dimension, Lecture
Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1506, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1992.
[Car85] G. Carrà Ferro – “The ring of global sections of the structure sheaf
on the differential spectrum”, Rev. Roumaine Math. Pures Appl. 30
(1985), no. 10, p. 809–814.
[Car90] G. Carrà Ferro, “Kolchin schemes”, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 63
(1990), no. 1, p. 13–27.
[Cas72] P. J. Cassidy – “Differential algebraic groups”, Amer. J. Math. 94
(1972), p. 891–954.
[CS07] P. J. Cassidy & M. F. Singer – “Galois theory of parameterized differential equations and linear differential algebraic groups”, in Differential equations and quantum groups, IRMA Lect. Math. Theor. Phys.,
vol. 9, Eur. Math. Soc., Zürich, 2007, p. 113–155.
[Dyc]

T. Dyckerhoff – “Differential Galois theory of schemes”, unpublished.

[Gro60] A. Grothendieck – “Éléments de géométrie algébrique. I. Le langage
des schémas”, Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math. (1960), no. 4, p. 228.
[Gro67] A. Grothendieck, “Éléments de géométrie algébrique. IV. étude locale des schémas et des morphismes de schémas IV”, Inst. Hautes
Études Sci. Publ. Math. (1967), no. 32, p. 361.
[Har77] R. Hartshorne – Algebraic geometry, GTM, no. 52, Springer-Verlag,
1977.
[HS08] C. Hardouin & M. F. Singer – “Differential Galois theory of linear
difference equations”, Math. Ann. 342 (2008), no. 2, p. 333–377.
[Jou79] J. P. Jouanolou – Équations de Pfaff algébriques, Lecture Notes in
Mathematics, vol. 708, Springer, Berlin, 1979.
[Kei75] W. F. Keigher – “Adjunctions and comonads in differential algebra”,
Pacific J. Math. 59 (1975), no. 1, p. 99–112.
[Kei77] W. F. Keigher, “Prime differential ideals in differential rings”, in Contributions to algebra (collection of papers dedicated to Ellis Kolchin),
Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 239–249.
40

[Kei78] W. F. Keigher, “Quasi-prime ideals in differential rings”, Houston J.
Math. 4 (1978), no. 3, p. 379–388.
[Kei81] W. F. Keigher, “On the quasi-affine scheme of a differential ring”,
Adv. in Math. 42 (1981), no. 2, p. 143–153.
[Kei82a] W. F. Keigher, “Differential rings constructed from quasiprime ideals”, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 26 (1982), no. 2, p. 191–201.
[Kei82b] W. F. Keigher, “Differential schemes and premodels of differential
fields”, J. Algebra 79 (1982), no. 1, p. 37–50.
[Kei83] W. F. Keigher, “On the structure presheaf of a differential ring”, J.
Pure Appl. Algebra 27 (1983), no. 2, p. 163–172.
[Kol99] E. Kolchin – Selected works of Ellis Kolchin with commentary, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1999, Commentaries by Armand Borel, Michael F. Singer, Bruno Poizat, Alexandru Buium and
Phyllis J. Cassidy, Edited and with a preface by Hyman Bass, Buium
and Cassidy.
[Kov02a] J. J. Kovacic – “Differential schemes”, in Differential algebra and
related topics (Newark, NJ, 2000), World Sci. Publ., River Edge, NJ,
2002, p. 71–94.
[Kov02b] J. J. Kovacic, “Global sections of diffspec”, J. Pure Appl. Algebra
171 (2002), no. 2-3, p. 265–288.
[Kov03] J. J. Kovacic, “The differential Galois theory of strongly normal extensions”, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 355 (2003), no. 11, p. 4475–4522
(electronic).
[Kov06] J. J. Kovacic, “Geometric characterization of strongly normal extensions”, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 358 (2006), no. 9, p. 4135–4157
(electronic).
[Lan08] P. Landesman – “Generalized differential Galois theory”, Trans.
Amer. Math. Soc. 360 (2008), no. 8, p. 4441–4495.
[Liu02] Q. Liu – Algebraic geometry and arithmetic curves, Oxford Graduate
Texts in Mathematics, vol. 6, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002,
Translated from the French by Reinie Erné, Oxford Science Publications.
[MM94] S. Mac Lane & I. Moerdijk – Sheaves in geometry and logic, Universitext, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1994, A first introduction to topos
theory, Corrected reprint of the 1992 edition.
[Sch72] H. Schubert – Categories, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1972, Translated from the German by Eva Gray.

41

[Tru09] D. V. Trushin – “Global sections of structure sheafs of keigher rings”,
arXiv:0907.4422v1, 2009.
[Ume96] H. Umemura – “Galois theory of algebraic and differential equations”,
Nagoya Math. J. 144 (1996), p. 1–58.

42

