Sunday, 30 December 2007

ag.algebraic geometry - Points of a variety defined by Galois descent

The following seems to give a reasonable affirmative answer which avoids computing the coordinate ring directly, and replaces condition (2) with the more natural condition that the subset Sigma:=X(overlinek)Sigma:=X(overlinek) in (1) is stable under the action of the Galois group on overlineknoverlinekn.



Let's be cleaner by working more generally over an arbitrary (not necessarily perfect) field kk and with geometrically reduced closed subschemes XX in a fixed separated kk-scheme YY locally of finite type. (Note: now affine schemes are gone; can take YY to be an affine space, but this is irrelevant.) The
rmGal(ks/k)rmGal(ks/k)-stable set Sigma=X(ks)Sigma=X(ks) in Y(ks)Y(ks) recovers XX as follows. For a kk-algebra AA, X(A)X(A) is the rmGal(ks/k)rmGal(ks/k)-invariants in X(Aks)X(Aks), so we just need to describe X(Aks)X(Aks) as a rmGal(ks/k)rmGal(ks/k)-stable subset of Y(Aks)Y(Aks). The description in this latter case will be in terms of SigmaSigma, and the rmGal(ks/k)rmGal(ks/k)-stability of SigmaSigma inside of Y(ks)Y(ks) will ensure that the description we give for X(Aks)X(Aks) is rmGal(ks/k)rmGal(ks/k)-stable inside of Y(Aks)Y(Aks). That being noted, we rename ksks as kk so that kk is separably closed and SigmaSigma is simply a set of kk-rational points of YY (so the notation is now marginally cleaner).



First assume AA is geometrically reduced in the sense that AKAK is reduced for any extension field K/kK/k. Since X(A)X(A) is the direct limit (inside Y(A)Y(A)) of the X(Ai)X(Ai) as Ai varies through k-subalgebras of finite type in A (all of which are geometrically reduced), we may assume A is finitely generated over k.
Then the k-points are Zariski-dense (as k=ks) and so the condition on yinY(A) that it lies in X(A) is that y(xi)inSigma for all k-points xi of A. That describes X(A) for any (possibly not finitely generated) k-algebra A that is geometrically reduced. In general, to check if yinY(A) lies in X(A) amounts to the same for each local ring of A, so we can assume A is local. Then the condition for y to be in X(A) is exactly that there is a local map of local k-algebras BrightarrowA with B geometrically reduced such that y is in the image of X(B) under the induced map Y(B)rightarrowY(A). I don't claim this formulation is the best way to think about it, but it "works".



Of course, one can apply this process to any rmGal(ks/k)-stable subset Sigma of Y(ks) provided that we first replace Sigma with with the set of ks-points of its Zariski-closure in Yks. Then we just obtain the Galois descent X of the Zariski closure in Yks of Sigma. In general X(ks) may be larger than Sigma, but nonetheless Sigma is Zariski-dense in Xks. This is perfectly interesting in practice, regardless of whether or not Sigma is equal to Xks, since it is what underlies the construction of derived groups, commutator subgroups, images, orbits, and related things in the theory of linear algebraic groups over a general field. For example, the k-group rmPGLn is its own derived group in the sense of algebraic groups, but the commutator subgroup of rmPGLn(ks) is a proper subgroup whenever k is imperfect and rmchar(k)|n.



To give a nifty application, suppose one begins with an arbitrary closed subscheme X in Y (such as X=Y!), then forms the rmGal(ks/k)-stable set X(ks) (which could well be empty, or somehow really tiny), and then applies the above procedure to get a geometrically reduced closed subscheme X in X. What is it? It is the maximal geometrically reduced closed subscheme of X, and one can check its formation is compatible with products (as well as separable extensions K/k, such as completions kv/k for a global field k). If k is perfect then X=Xrmred, so this is more interesting when k is imperfect. It is especially interesting in the special case when X is equipped with a structure of k-group scheme. Then X is its maximal smooth closed k-subgroup, since geometrically reduced k-groups locally of finite type are smooth. So what? If one is faced with the task of studying the Tate-Shararevich set for such an X (e.g., maybe X is a nasty automorphism scheme of something nice) then all that really intervenes is X since it captures all of the local points, so for some purposes we can replace the possibly bad X with the smooth X. (This trick is used in the proof of finiteness of Tate-Shafarevich sets for arbitrary affine groups of finite type over global function fields.) But beware: if the k-group X is connected (and k is imperfect) then X may be disconnected and have much smaller dimension; see Remark C.4.2 in the book "Pseudo-reductive groups" for an example.

No comments:

Post a Comment