Fundamental group of an open subscheme of a normal scheme












2












$begingroup$


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











$endgroup$








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    In codimension $2$, is it not a cone over an elliptic curve a counterexample?
    $endgroup$
    – Francesco Polizzi
    Nov 19 '18 at 16:05








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @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 $mathbb{C}$.
    $endgroup$
    – Anonymous
    Nov 19 '18 at 16:53










  • $begingroup$
    Of course it is reduced
    $endgroup$
    – Francesco Polizzi
    Nov 19 '18 at 17:02
















2












$begingroup$


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











$endgroup$








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    In codimension $2$, is it not a cone over an elliptic curve a counterexample?
    $endgroup$
    – Francesco Polizzi
    Nov 19 '18 at 16:05








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @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 $mathbb{C}$.
    $endgroup$
    – Anonymous
    Nov 19 '18 at 16:53










  • $begingroup$
    Of course it is reduced
    $endgroup$
    – Francesco Polizzi
    Nov 19 '18 at 17:02














2












2








2


1



$begingroup$


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











$endgroup$




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 Nov 19 '18 at 16:56







Anonymous

















asked Nov 19 '18 at 15:48









AnonymousAnonymous

1286




1286








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    In codimension $2$, is it not a cone over an elliptic curve a counterexample?
    $endgroup$
    – Francesco Polizzi
    Nov 19 '18 at 16:05








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @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 $mathbb{C}$.
    $endgroup$
    – Anonymous
    Nov 19 '18 at 16:53










  • $begingroup$
    Of course it is reduced
    $endgroup$
    – Francesco Polizzi
    Nov 19 '18 at 17:02














  • 4




    $begingroup$
    In codimension $2$, is it not a cone over an elliptic curve a counterexample?
    $endgroup$
    – Francesco Polizzi
    Nov 19 '18 at 16:05








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @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 $mathbb{C}$.
    $endgroup$
    – Anonymous
    Nov 19 '18 at 16:53










  • $begingroup$
    Of course it is reduced
    $endgroup$
    – Francesco Polizzi
    Nov 19 '18 at 17:02








4




4




$begingroup$
In codimension $2$, is it not a cone over an elliptic curve a counterexample?
$endgroup$
– Francesco Polizzi
Nov 19 '18 at 16:05






$begingroup$
In codimension $2$, is it not a cone over an elliptic curve a counterexample?
$endgroup$
– Francesco Polizzi
Nov 19 '18 at 16:05






1




1




$begingroup$
@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 $mathbb{C}$.
$endgroup$
– Anonymous
Nov 19 '18 at 16:53




$begingroup$
@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 $mathbb{C}$.
$endgroup$
– Anonymous
Nov 19 '18 at 16:53












$begingroup$
Of course it is reduced
$endgroup$
– Francesco Polizzi
Nov 19 '18 at 17:02




$begingroup$
Of course it is reduced
$endgroup$
– Francesco Polizzi
Nov 19 '18 at 17:02










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















4












$begingroup$

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









$endgroup$





















    3












    $begingroup$

    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











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Well, strictly speaking, $X$ is not projective in your example.
      $endgroup$
      – Francesco Polizzi
      Nov 19 '18 at 17:04











    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',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    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









    4












    $begingroup$

    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









    $endgroup$


















      4












      $begingroup$

      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









      $endgroup$
















        4












        4








        4





        $begingroup$

        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









        $endgroup$



        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 Nov 19 '18 at 17:24









        Francesco PolizziFrancesco Polizzi

        47.6k3127207




        47.6k3127207























            3












            $begingroup$

            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











            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              Well, strictly speaking, $X$ is not projective in your example.
              $endgroup$
              – Francesco Polizzi
              Nov 19 '18 at 17:04
















            3












            $begingroup$

            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











            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              Well, strictly speaking, $X$ is not projective in your example.
              $endgroup$
              – Francesco Polizzi
              Nov 19 '18 at 17:04














            3












            3








            3





            $begingroup$

            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











            $endgroup$



            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 Nov 19 '18 at 17:16

























            answered Nov 19 '18 at 17:02









            Piotr AchingerPiotr Achinger

            8,27812852




            8,27812852












            • $begingroup$
              Well, strictly speaking, $X$ is not projective in your example.
              $endgroup$
              – Francesco Polizzi
              Nov 19 '18 at 17:04


















            • $begingroup$
              Well, strictly speaking, $X$ is not projective in your example.
              $endgroup$
              – Francesco Polizzi
              Nov 19 '18 at 17:04
















            $begingroup$
            Well, strictly speaking, $X$ is not projective in your example.
            $endgroup$
            – Francesco Polizzi
            Nov 19 '18 at 17:04




            $begingroup$
            Well, strictly speaking, $X$ is not projective in your example.
            $endgroup$
            – Francesco Polizzi
            Nov 19 '18 at 17:04


















            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            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

            Guess what letter conforming each word

            Port of Spain

            Run scheduled task as local user group (not BUILTIN)