Every source I've looked at defines open subschemes and closed subschemes, but the definitions always look ad-hoc and not closely related to one another. Are there other kinds of subschemes? If not, can we give a definition for a "subscheme" and then deduce that the only ones that exist are open and closed subschemes?
For instance, EGA I, Definition 4.1.3, says (roughly):
We say a ringed space $(Y, \mathcal{O}_Y)$ is a subprescheme of a prescheme $(X, \mathcal{O}_X)$ if:
- $Y$ is a locally closed subset of $X$, and
- If $U$ denotes the largest open set of $X$ containing $Y$ and such that $X$ is closed in $U$, then $(Y, \mathcal{O}_Y)$ is a subprescheme of $(U, \mathcal{O}_X|_U)$ defined by a quasicoherent sheaf of ideals of $\mathcal{O}_X|_U$.
Is there some way to characterize this in terms of morphisms without having to build in the locally closed condition from the beginning?
I think a reasonable definition of an immersion of ringed topological spaces $f : X\to Y$ is :
$f$ induces a homeomorphism $X\to f(X)$;
For any $x\in X$, the canonical homomorphism $O_{Y, f(x)}\to O_{X,x}$ is surjective.
In the category of schemes, this implies that $f$ is a monomorphism (see http://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/01L6). Let us call such morphisms of schemes R-immersions (R for ringed topological spaces). Immersions of schemes in the standard sense (EGA, stacks project) are R-immersions.
Fact 1. If $X, Y$ are algebraic varieties over field $k$ (schemes of finite type over $k$), then any R-immersion $f: X\to Y$ is actually an immersion.
Fact 2. More generally, an R-immersion $f :X\to Y$ is an immersion if and only if $f$ is locally of finite type.
Now why immersions are prefered to R-immersions ? I don't really know. Fact 1 above could be an explanation. One question I don't know the answer is whether R-immersions are stable by base change (this is the case for immersions). If the answer is no, then this is one more reason to prefer immersions to R-immersions.
Example of an R-immersion which is not an immersion. Let $X$ be a scheme and let $x\in X$. Then the canonical morphism $i_x: \mathrm{Spec}(O_{X,x})\to X$ is an $R$-immersion. However, if e.g. $X$ is an infinite integral scheme, and if $\xi$ is its generic point, then $i_\xi$ is not an immersion because $\{ \xi\}$ is not locally closed in $X$.
Edit: afterthought.
The initial question can be interpreted as follows: given a subset $X$ in a scheme $(Y, O_Y)$, is it possible to endow $X$ with the structure of a scheme $(X, O_X)$, the latter being related in some manner to $(Y, O_Y)$ ? A first natural requirement is the underlying topological space of $X$ is given the induced topology, this is Condition (1) in my tentative definition of $R$-immersion. For the sheaf of regular functions, it is also natural to ask that the regular functions on $X$ are "induced" by regular functions on $Y$ and my Condition (2) is a natural candidate.
Then it turns out that the answer is positive for locally closed subsets of $Y$. I don't see other natural category of subsets for which the answer is positive. Anyway it seems hard to characterize subsets of $Y$ for which the answer is positive. A necessary condition is being pro-constructible (roughly speaking, possibly infinite intersection of constructible subsets), but even constructible is not enough to a get the structure of subscheme in the sense of $R$-immersion (one can show this for the classical example of constructible but non-locally closed subset of the affine plane: remove the $x$-axe and add the origin back).