# Glossary of algebraic geometry

See also glossary of commutative algebra, glossary of classical algebraic geometry, and glossary of ring theory. For the number-theoretic applications, see glossary of arithmetic and Diophantine geometry.

For simplicity, a reference to the base scheme is often omitted; i.e., a scheme will be a scheme over some fixed base scheme *S* and a morphism an *S*-morphism.

Algebraic geometry occupied a central place in the mathematics of the last century. The deepest results of Abel, Riemann, Weierstrass, many of the most important papers of Klein and Poincare belong to this domain. At the end of the last and the beginning of the present century the attitude towards algebraic geometry changed abruptly. ... The style of thinking that was fully developed in algebraic geometry at that time was too far removed from the set-theoretical and axiomatic spirit, which then determined the development of mathematics. ... Around the middle of the present century algebraic geometry had undergone to a large extent such a reshaping process. As a result, it can again lay claim to the position it once occupied in mathematics.

*X*is the Kodaira dimension of its canonical sheaf.

While much of the early work on moduli, especially since [Mum65], put the emphasis on the construction of fine or coarse moduli spaces, recently the emphasis shifted towards the study of the families of varieties, that is towards moduli functors and moduli stacks. The main task is to understand what kind of objects form "nice" families. Once a good concept of "nice families" is established, the existence of a coarse moduli space should be nearly automatic. The coarse moduli space is not the fundamental object any longer, rather it is only a convenient way to keep track of certain information that is only latent in the moduli functor or moduli stack.

On Grothendieck's own view there should be almost no history of schemes, but only a history of the resistance to them: ... There is no serious historical question of how Grothendieck found his definition of schemes. It was in the air. Serre has well said that no one invented schemes (conversation 1995). The question is, what made Grothendieck believe he should use this definition to simplify an 80 page paper by Serre into some 1000 pages of *Éléments de géométrie algébrique*?

The higher-dimensional analog of étale morphisms are *smooth morphisms*. There are many different characterisations of smoothness. The following are equivalent definitions of smoothness of the morphism *f* : *Y* → *X*: