Let $X$ be a smooth separated integral variety over an algebraically closed field.



> 
> **Question:**
> 
> 
> Is it true that a basis for the Zariski topology is given by the family $$\mathcal{U}=\{X\setminus \mathrm{Supp}(\mathrm{div}(f))\mid f\in K(X)\}$$
>  where $\mathrm{div}(f)$ is the principal divisor defined by $f$?
> 
> 
> 


Some ideas that I have had


* If $X=\mathrm{Spec}(A)$ is an affine integral variety this is true because for $f\in A$ we have that $X\setminus\mathrm{div}(f)$ is equal to the principal open set $D(f)$ and these generate the topology.
* The question is equivalent to the following:



> 
> For each prime divisor $D$ on $X$ and a point $x$ outside $D$ there is a rational function $f$ vanishing on $D$ and invertible on $x$.
> 
> 
> 


Indeed, if $\mathcal{U}$ is a basis then we can find a function $f$ such that $x\notin \mathrm{div}(f)$ (i.e $f$ is invertible at $x$) and $D$ is a component of $\mathrm{div}(f)$. Then either $f$ or $f^{-1}$ works.


Conversely, consider an open set $U$ and $x\in U$. The complement $F=X\setminus U$ is a closed set with some irreducible components $F\_i$. Take a function $h\_i\in \mathcal{O}\_{X,x}\setminus \mathcal{O}\_{X,F\_i}$. Then divisor of poles $\mathrm{div}\_{\infty}(h\_i)$ contains $F\_i$ but not $x$. Let $D=\bigcup \mathrm{div}\_{\infty}(h\_i)$. By the hypothesis, for each component $D\_j$ of $D$ there is a function $f\_j$ vanishing on $D\_j$ but invertible on $x$. Then, $f=\prod\_j f\_j^{n\_j}$ vanish on $D$ and is invertible on $x$ for some appropriate choice of $n\_j\in \mathbb{Z}$. 


* If $X$ is a quasiprojective variety this is also true. We can see this using the idea in the previous point. Given a prime divisor $D$ and a point $x$ not in $D$ take an ample divisor $H$ different from $D$ and not containing $x$. Then for some $n$ big $nH-D$ is very ample (because the ample cone is open) then it is base-point free and so it has a section $f$ not vanishing at $x$ but vanishing at $D$.


I think this question is related to the concept of divisorial variety (cf. the remark after definition 3.1 in Divisorial Varieties, Borelli, 1963). In some sense, a variety satisfying this is like a *principally divisorial variety*.


If this is not true for smoothness, it would be still nice if we have the result for something less restrictive than quasi-projective. Something that contains smooth proper toric varieties for example.



The Zariski topology of a variety is determined by its principal Cartier divisors
Let $U$ be a an affine open set of $X$ containing $x$. If $U$ contains $D$, we choose $f$ as in your first bullet point vanishing on $D$ but not on $x$. If $U$ does not contain $D$, there must exist some $f$ on $U$ with a pole at $D$. If $f$ vanishes at $x$, add $1$ to $f$.


Why must there exist some $f$ on $U$ with a pole at $D$? Otherwise, we get a map $\operatorname{Spec} R \to U$ where $R$ is the local ring of $X$ at $D$, which consists of all rational functions on $X$ without a pole at $D$. This means we have two different maps $\operatorname{Spec} R \to X$, both compatible with $\operatorname{Spec} K \to X$, contradicting separatedness.


