Fundamental group of an open subscheme of a normal scheme











up vote
2
down vote

favorite












Let $X$ be an irreducible normal projective scheme over $mathbb{C}$. Let $U$ be the open subscheme of smooth points of $X$. Consider the closed subscheme $Z = X setminus U$. Suppose that the codimension of $Z$ in $X$ is at least $2$. Is it true that the fundamental group of $U$ and $X$ are isomorphic?



Edit: Is it true for $X$ an integral normal projective scheme over $mathbb{C}$?










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 4




    In codimension $2$, is it not a cone over an elliptic curve a counterexample?
    – Francesco Polizzi
    yesterday








  • 1




    @FrancescoPolizzi Is cone over an elliptic curve reduced? (sorry for asking a stupid question). Actually, I want to know the result for X normal projective integral scheme over $mathbb{C}$.
    – Anonymous
    yesterday










  • Of course it is reduced
    – Francesco Polizzi
    yesterday















up vote
2
down vote

favorite












Let $X$ be an irreducible normal projective scheme over $mathbb{C}$. Let $U$ be the open subscheme of smooth points of $X$. Consider the closed subscheme $Z = X setminus U$. Suppose that the codimension of $Z$ in $X$ is at least $2$. Is it true that the fundamental group of $U$ and $X$ are isomorphic?



Edit: Is it true for $X$ an integral normal projective scheme over $mathbb{C}$?










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 4




    In codimension $2$, is it not a cone over an elliptic curve a counterexample?
    – Francesco Polizzi
    yesterday








  • 1




    @FrancescoPolizzi Is cone over an elliptic curve reduced? (sorry for asking a stupid question). Actually, I want to know the result for X normal projective integral scheme over $mathbb{C}$.
    – Anonymous
    yesterday










  • Of course it is reduced
    – Francesco Polizzi
    yesterday













up vote
2
down vote

favorite









up vote
2
down vote

favorite











Let $X$ be an irreducible normal projective scheme over $mathbb{C}$. Let $U$ be the open subscheme of smooth points of $X$. Consider the closed subscheme $Z = X setminus U$. Suppose that the codimension of $Z$ in $X$ is at least $2$. Is it true that the fundamental group of $U$ and $X$ are isomorphic?



Edit: Is it true for $X$ an integral normal projective scheme over $mathbb{C}$?










share|cite|improve this question















Let $X$ be an irreducible normal projective scheme over $mathbb{C}$. Let $U$ be the open subscheme of smooth points of $X$. Consider the closed subscheme $Z = X setminus U$. Suppose that the codimension of $Z$ in $X$ is at least $2$. Is it true that the fundamental group of $U$ and $X$ are isomorphic?



Edit: Is it true for $X$ an integral normal projective scheme over $mathbb{C}$?







ag.algebraic-geometry






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited yesterday

























asked yesterday









Anonymous

935




935








  • 4




    In codimension $2$, is it not a cone over an elliptic curve a counterexample?
    – Francesco Polizzi
    yesterday








  • 1




    @FrancescoPolizzi Is cone over an elliptic curve reduced? (sorry for asking a stupid question). Actually, I want to know the result for X normal projective integral scheme over $mathbb{C}$.
    – Anonymous
    yesterday










  • Of course it is reduced
    – Francesco Polizzi
    yesterday














  • 4




    In codimension $2$, is it not a cone over an elliptic curve a counterexample?
    – Francesco Polizzi
    yesterday








  • 1




    @FrancescoPolizzi Is cone over an elliptic curve reduced? (sorry for asking a stupid question). Actually, I want to know the result for X normal projective integral scheme over $mathbb{C}$.
    – Anonymous
    yesterday










  • Of course it is reduced
    – Francesco Polizzi
    yesterday








4




4




In codimension $2$, is it not a cone over an elliptic curve a counterexample?
– Francesco Polizzi
yesterday






In codimension $2$, is it not a cone over an elliptic curve a counterexample?
– Francesco Polizzi
yesterday






1




1




@FrancescoPolizzi Is cone over an elliptic curve reduced? (sorry for asking a stupid question). Actually, I want to know the result for X normal projective integral scheme over $mathbb{C}$.
– Anonymous
yesterday




@FrancescoPolizzi Is cone over an elliptic curve reduced? (sorry for asking a stupid question). Actually, I want to know the result for X normal projective integral scheme over $mathbb{C}$.
– Anonymous
yesterday












Of course it is reduced
– Francesco Polizzi
yesterday




Of course it is reduced
– Francesco Polizzi
yesterday










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
3
down vote



accepted










Let me expand my comment into an answer.



Take as $X$ the cone of vertex $v$ over an elliptic curve $E$. Then $X$ is simply connected (this is a general property of projective cones). However, $U = X-{v}$ is not simply connected: in fact, the projection $pi colon U to E$ onto the basis gives $X$ the structure of a topological fibration with fiber homeomorphic to $mathbb{R}$, so the corresponding long exact sequence of homotopy groups yields $$pi_1(U) = pi_1(E) = mathbb{Z} oplus mathbb{Z}.$$






share|cite|improve this answer




























    up vote
    3
    down vote













    In fact, quite the opposite tends to be true. Mumford [1] showed that for $(X,0)$ the germ of a normal surface singularity (over $mathbf{C}$), $U=Xsetminus 0$, one has $pi_1(U)={1}$ if and only if $X$ is smooth. At the same time, $pi_1(X) = {1}$ since $0to X$ is a homotopy equivalence.



    If $X$ is smooth, this is true (the etale variant is called "Zariski-Nagata purity").



    EDIT. To address Francesco's comment: of course the example is not projective. The easiest projective example was given by Francesco in his comment: $X$ is the (projective) cone over an elliptic curve $E$ and $U$ the complement of the vertex. Then $pi_1(U)= pi_1(E) = mathbb{Z}^2$ and $pi_1(X) = {1}$.



    [1] Mumford, D., The topology of normal singularities of an algebraic surface and a criterion for simplicity, Publ. Math., Inst. Hautes Étud. Sci. 9, 5-22 (1961). ZBL0108.16801.






    share|cite|improve this answer























    • Well, strictly speaking, $X$ is not projective in your example.
      – Francesco Polizzi
      yesterday











    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "504"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f315697%2ffundamental-group-of-an-open-subscheme-of-a-normal-scheme%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    3
    down vote



    accepted










    Let me expand my comment into an answer.



    Take as $X$ the cone of vertex $v$ over an elliptic curve $E$. Then $X$ is simply connected (this is a general property of projective cones). However, $U = X-{v}$ is not simply connected: in fact, the projection $pi colon U to E$ onto the basis gives $X$ the structure of a topological fibration with fiber homeomorphic to $mathbb{R}$, so the corresponding long exact sequence of homotopy groups yields $$pi_1(U) = pi_1(E) = mathbb{Z} oplus mathbb{Z}.$$






    share|cite|improve this answer

























      up vote
      3
      down vote



      accepted










      Let me expand my comment into an answer.



      Take as $X$ the cone of vertex $v$ over an elliptic curve $E$. Then $X$ is simply connected (this is a general property of projective cones). However, $U = X-{v}$ is not simply connected: in fact, the projection $pi colon U to E$ onto the basis gives $X$ the structure of a topological fibration with fiber homeomorphic to $mathbb{R}$, so the corresponding long exact sequence of homotopy groups yields $$pi_1(U) = pi_1(E) = mathbb{Z} oplus mathbb{Z}.$$






      share|cite|improve this answer























        up vote
        3
        down vote



        accepted







        up vote
        3
        down vote



        accepted






        Let me expand my comment into an answer.



        Take as $X$ the cone of vertex $v$ over an elliptic curve $E$. Then $X$ is simply connected (this is a general property of projective cones). However, $U = X-{v}$ is not simply connected: in fact, the projection $pi colon U to E$ onto the basis gives $X$ the structure of a topological fibration with fiber homeomorphic to $mathbb{R}$, so the corresponding long exact sequence of homotopy groups yields $$pi_1(U) = pi_1(E) = mathbb{Z} oplus mathbb{Z}.$$






        share|cite|improve this answer












        Let me expand my comment into an answer.



        Take as $X$ the cone of vertex $v$ over an elliptic curve $E$. Then $X$ is simply connected (this is a general property of projective cones). However, $U = X-{v}$ is not simply connected: in fact, the projection $pi colon U to E$ onto the basis gives $X$ the structure of a topological fibration with fiber homeomorphic to $mathbb{R}$, so the corresponding long exact sequence of homotopy groups yields $$pi_1(U) = pi_1(E) = mathbb{Z} oplus mathbb{Z}.$$







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered yesterday









        Francesco Polizzi

        47k3124201




        47k3124201






















            up vote
            3
            down vote













            In fact, quite the opposite tends to be true. Mumford [1] showed that for $(X,0)$ the germ of a normal surface singularity (over $mathbf{C}$), $U=Xsetminus 0$, one has $pi_1(U)={1}$ if and only if $X$ is smooth. At the same time, $pi_1(X) = {1}$ since $0to X$ is a homotopy equivalence.



            If $X$ is smooth, this is true (the etale variant is called "Zariski-Nagata purity").



            EDIT. To address Francesco's comment: of course the example is not projective. The easiest projective example was given by Francesco in his comment: $X$ is the (projective) cone over an elliptic curve $E$ and $U$ the complement of the vertex. Then $pi_1(U)= pi_1(E) = mathbb{Z}^2$ and $pi_1(X) = {1}$.



            [1] Mumford, D., The topology of normal singularities of an algebraic surface and a criterion for simplicity, Publ. Math., Inst. Hautes Étud. Sci. 9, 5-22 (1961). ZBL0108.16801.






            share|cite|improve this answer























            • Well, strictly speaking, $X$ is not projective in your example.
              – Francesco Polizzi
              yesterday















            up vote
            3
            down vote













            In fact, quite the opposite tends to be true. Mumford [1] showed that for $(X,0)$ the germ of a normal surface singularity (over $mathbf{C}$), $U=Xsetminus 0$, one has $pi_1(U)={1}$ if and only if $X$ is smooth. At the same time, $pi_1(X) = {1}$ since $0to X$ is a homotopy equivalence.



            If $X$ is smooth, this is true (the etale variant is called "Zariski-Nagata purity").



            EDIT. To address Francesco's comment: of course the example is not projective. The easiest projective example was given by Francesco in his comment: $X$ is the (projective) cone over an elliptic curve $E$ and $U$ the complement of the vertex. Then $pi_1(U)= pi_1(E) = mathbb{Z}^2$ and $pi_1(X) = {1}$.



            [1] Mumford, D., The topology of normal singularities of an algebraic surface and a criterion for simplicity, Publ. Math., Inst. Hautes Étud. Sci. 9, 5-22 (1961). ZBL0108.16801.






            share|cite|improve this answer























            • Well, strictly speaking, $X$ is not projective in your example.
              – Francesco Polizzi
              yesterday













            up vote
            3
            down vote










            up vote
            3
            down vote









            In fact, quite the opposite tends to be true. Mumford [1] showed that for $(X,0)$ the germ of a normal surface singularity (over $mathbf{C}$), $U=Xsetminus 0$, one has $pi_1(U)={1}$ if and only if $X$ is smooth. At the same time, $pi_1(X) = {1}$ since $0to X$ is a homotopy equivalence.



            If $X$ is smooth, this is true (the etale variant is called "Zariski-Nagata purity").



            EDIT. To address Francesco's comment: of course the example is not projective. The easiest projective example was given by Francesco in his comment: $X$ is the (projective) cone over an elliptic curve $E$ and $U$ the complement of the vertex. Then $pi_1(U)= pi_1(E) = mathbb{Z}^2$ and $pi_1(X) = {1}$.



            [1] Mumford, D., The topology of normal singularities of an algebraic surface and a criterion for simplicity, Publ. Math., Inst. Hautes Étud. Sci. 9, 5-22 (1961). ZBL0108.16801.






            share|cite|improve this answer














            In fact, quite the opposite tends to be true. Mumford [1] showed that for $(X,0)$ the germ of a normal surface singularity (over $mathbf{C}$), $U=Xsetminus 0$, one has $pi_1(U)={1}$ if and only if $X$ is smooth. At the same time, $pi_1(X) = {1}$ since $0to X$ is a homotopy equivalence.



            If $X$ is smooth, this is true (the etale variant is called "Zariski-Nagata purity").



            EDIT. To address Francesco's comment: of course the example is not projective. The easiest projective example was given by Francesco in his comment: $X$ is the (projective) cone over an elliptic curve $E$ and $U$ the complement of the vertex. Then $pi_1(U)= pi_1(E) = mathbb{Z}^2$ and $pi_1(X) = {1}$.



            [1] Mumford, D., The topology of normal singularities of an algebraic surface and a criterion for simplicity, Publ. Math., Inst. Hautes Étud. Sci. 9, 5-22 (1961). ZBL0108.16801.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited yesterday

























            answered yesterday









            Piotr Achinger

            7,89312751




            7,89312751












            • Well, strictly speaking, $X$ is not projective in your example.
              – Francesco Polizzi
              yesterday


















            • Well, strictly speaking, $X$ is not projective in your example.
              – Francesco Polizzi
              yesterday
















            Well, strictly speaking, $X$ is not projective in your example.
            – Francesco Polizzi
            yesterday




            Well, strictly speaking, $X$ is not projective in your example.
            – Francesco Polizzi
            yesterday


















             

            draft saved


            draft discarded



















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f315697%2ffundamental-group-of-an-open-subscheme-of-a-normal-scheme%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            flock() on closed filehandle LOCK_FILE at /usr/bin/apt-mirror

            Mangá

            Eduardo VII do Reino Unido