Confusion on the definition of “locally of finite presentation”

algebraic-geometry

A morphism of schemes $f: X \rightarrow S$ is called locally of finite presentation if $S$ is covered by affine open sets $V = \operatorname{Spec} R$, and $f^{-1}(V)$ is covered by affine open sets $U = \operatorname{Spec} A$ such that the ring map $R \rightarrow A$ corresponding to $U \rightarrow V$ is a finitely presented ring homomorphism, i.e. $A$ is the quotient of some $R[t_1, … , t_n]$ by a finitely generated ideal.

Here is the definition of an unramified morphism given in the book Neron Models.

enter image description here

To make life easy, let's only consider $S = \operatorname{Spec} R$ affine. It's claimed that the definition implies $f$ must be locally of finite presentation, but I'm not so sure of this. My issue is that they are saying "$S$-immersion," rather than "closed $S$-immersion."

Here is what I mean. Let's say that $X = \operatorname{Spec} A$ is affine and itself admits an $S$-immersion into $\mathbb A_S^n$. This means that $X$ is a closed subscheme of an open subscheme $W$ of $\mathbb A_S^n = \operatorname{Spec} R[t_1, … , t_n] = R[\underline{t}]$. If we pass to a principal affine open subset $D(f)$ of $W$ containing $x$, then this induces a closed immersion $X \cap D(f) \rightarrow D(f)$, which on the ring side looks like

$$R[\underline{t}]_f \rightarrow R[\underline{t}]_f/\mathfrak a$$

for a finitely generated ideal $\mathfrak a$ of $R[\underline{t}]_f$.

So, this doesn't look like locally of finite presentation in the usual definition, because locally, we aren't just saying $X$ looks like the quotient of a polynomial ring by a finitely generated ideal. Rather, $X$ locally looks like the a quotient of a polynomial ring by a finitely generated ideal, localized at some element of the polynomial ring.

If we just say "closed $S$-immersion" instead of "$S$-immersion," this technicality goes away, and $f$ will be finitely presented in the usual sense.

However, this (seemingly) weaker condition than locally of finite presentation clearly doesn't affect the definition of unramified or its various equivalent formalations, since they are concerned with stalks.

Best Answer

If $B$ is a ring and $f\in B$, then $B_f=B[x]/(xf-1)$.

In your case, this gives that $R[\underline{t}]_f=R[\underline{t},x]/(fx-1)$. Now for any ideal in this ring, i.e. an ideal $\mathfrak{a}$ of $R[\underline{t},x]$ containing $fx-1$, you obtain that its quotient is $R[\underline{t},x]/\mathfrak{a}$. And if $\mathfrak{a}/(fx-1)$ is finitely generated as an ideal of $R[\underline{t},x]/(fx-1)$, then so will be $\mathfrak{a}$ as an ideal of $R[\underline{t},x]$.