3
$\begingroup$

If $X$ is a smooth quasi-projective variety over $\mathbb{C}$ and $G$ is a finite group acting faithfully on $X$, then the Shepard-Todd theorem gives us some criterion for $X/G$ to be smooth.

My question goes a little bit backward. Assume that $X$ is a variety (irreducible, reduced and separated scheme of finite typer over $\mathbb{C}$) with a faithful action of finite group $G$ on it.

Assume that the quotient $X/G$ is smooth. Can we say something on $X$ (is it Cohen-Macaulay?) Or on the quotient morphism $p : X \rightarrow X/G$ (is it flat?).

Thanks a lot!

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

7
$\begingroup$

Here's an example: Take $\mathbb C^2$ minus the origin and identify the points $(1,1)$ and $(-1,-1)$ and let this be $X$. Then $G=\mathbb Z/2$ acts by $(x,y) \mapsto (-x,-y)$ and the quotient is smooth, but $X$ is not Cohen-Macauley (two planes intersecting in a point is not Cohen-Macaulay). The quotient map is not flat either, since a finite morphism with smooth target is flat iff the source is CM.

$\endgroup$
13
  • $\begingroup$ This seems to be a nice answer, but could you explain why the quotient is smooth at the image of $(1,1) = (-1,-1)$? $\endgroup$
    – Libli
    Jul 8, 2014 at 9:43
  • $\begingroup$ Is it also clear that your $X$ is quasi-projective? $\endgroup$
    – Libli
    Jul 8, 2014 at 10:18
  • $\begingroup$ If you consider $\mathbb C^2 \setminus \{0,0\}$ and divide by $\pm 1$, the quotient is just $\mathbb C^2 \setminus \{0,0\}$. The same is true for $X / \pm 1$; informally, $(1,1)$ and $(-1,-1)$ were going to be identified in the quotient anyway, so it does not matter if we identify them before quotienting. Yes, it should be clear that it is quasi-projective, but a direct argument escapes me at the moment. You can prove it by a nuke: contracting a closed subscheme of an affine variety to a point produces a new affine variety, so $\mathbb C^2$ with two points identified is affine... $\endgroup$ Jul 8, 2014 at 13:19
  • $\begingroup$ ... and the nuke is in a paper of Karl Schwede on gluing and pushouts of schemes. $\endgroup$ Jul 8, 2014 at 13:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @rita but $X$ is not irreducible in that case and this is also an important hypothesis for me... $\endgroup$
    – Libli
    Jul 8, 2014 at 14:49

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.