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 AiAi varies through kk-subalgebras of finite type in AA (all of which are geometrically reduced), we may assume AA is finitely generated over kk.
Then the kk-points are Zariski-dense (as k=ksk=ks) and so the condition on yinY(A)yinY(A) that it lies in X(A)X(A) is that y(xi)inSigmay(xi)inSigma for all kk-points xixi of AA. That describes X(A)X(A) for any (possibly not finitely generated) kk-algebra AA that is geometrically reduced. In general, to check if yinY(A)yinY(A) lies in X(A)X(A) amounts to the same for each local ring of AA, so we can assume AA is local. Then the condition for yy to be in X(A)X(A) is exactly that there is a local map of local kk-algebras BrightarrowABrightarrowA with BB geometrically reduced such that yy is in the image of X(B)X(B) under the induced map Y(B)rightarrowY(A)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)rmGal(ks/k)-stable subset SigmaSigma of Y(ks)Y(ks) provided that we first replace SigmaSigma with with the set of ksks-points of its Zariski-closure in YksYks. Then we just obtain the Galois descent XX of the Zariski closure in YksYks of SigmaSigma. In general X(ks)X(ks) may be larger than SigmaSigma, but nonetheless SigmaSigma is Zariski-dense in XksXks. This is perfectly interesting in practice, regardless of whether or not SigmaSigma is equal to XksXks, 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 kk-group rmPGLnrmPGLn is its own derived group in the sense of algebraic groups, but the commutator subgroup of rmPGLn(ks)rmPGLn(ks) is a proper subgroup whenever kk is imperfect and rmchar(k)|nrmchar(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