MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I suspect this is really obvious, but I'm not seeing it.

For an algebraic group $G$ acting on a variety $V$, and for a point $x \in \text{hom}(\text{Spec}(K),V)$, we define the orbit $G(x)$ to be $G(x)(R)=\{gx|g \in G(R)\}$ where $x$ is viewed as $x \in \text{hom}(\text{Spec}(R),V)$ via $\text{Spec}(R) \to \text{Spec}(K)$.

Is this representable?

share|cite|improve this question
Could you please clarify your question? Is $x$ held fixed in the definition of this functor? Or are you defining a functor of orbits and then specifying that "$x$" gives an element of your functor on $V$. It is certainly not true that the functor of "orbits" is representable by a scheme, e.g., the standard action of $\mathbf{G}_m$ on $\mathbb{A}^n$. In fact, if I am understanding correctly your definition, this functor is not even a sheaf. – Jason Starr Aug 16 '12 at 13:43
@Jason: It seems likely that $x$ is held fixed (with $K$ the ground field). @Qiuzhen Li: The reason your functor is "wrong" is that (for $G$ smooth) the locally closed orbit subscheme of $V$ through $x$ turns out (by proof, not by definition) to represent the quotient sheaf $G/G_x$ where $G_x$ is the scheme-theoretic stabilizer ($R$-points consist of those $g \in G(R)$ such that $gx = x$ in $V(R)$), using the fppf topology (or etale topology if $G_x$ is smooth). The difference between quotient sheaves and quotient presheaves is your error. – user22479 Aug 16 '12 at 13:57
Maybe you are simply trying to ask the following: supposing that $G$ and $V$ are defined over an alg. closed field $K$, is the set $\{g(x)|g\in G(K)\}$ the set of closed points of a scheme over $V$ ? – Damian Rössler Aug 16 '12 at 14:06
FYI, if you want to make braces show up you need to type two backslashes first. – MTS Aug 16 '12 at 14:08

Thanks to those who clarified the question. The answer by quasi-coherent is correct. Here is one explicit example: let $G$ be $\mathbf{G}_m$, and let $V$ be a second copy of $\mathbf{G}_m$. For an integer $n>1$ (prime to the characteristic), define the action $\sigma:G\times V \to V$ by $\sigma(s,t) = s^nt$. Define $x$ to be the element $1$ in $\mathbf{G}_m$. The stabilizer (of every orbit) is $\mathbf{\mu}_n$. The quotient by the stabilizer is $q:G\to V$, $q(s) = s^n$. This is a finite, étale morphism. The fiber product $G\times_V G$ as a closed subscheme of $G\times G$ is the image of the closed immersion $$i:\mathbf{\mu}_m\times \mathbf{G}_m\to \mathbf{G}_m \times \mathbf{G}_m, \ (r,s) \mapsto (rs,s).$$ The identity $\text{Id}_G:G\to G$ gives an element $[\text{Id}_G]\in G(x)(G)$. Also the two pullbacks to $G\times_V G$ are equal. So, were your functor representable and thus a sheaf for the étale topology, then $[\text{Id}_G]$ would be the pullback of some $[g]\in G(x)(V)$. In turn, this would be an equivalence class of morphisms $g:\mathbf{G}_m\to \mathbf{G}_m$ such that $q\circ g$ equals the identity. However, there is no such morphism $g$. Therefore your functor is not an étale sheaf. Therefore it is not representable.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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