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 have two questions concerning the LFPF (for etale cohomology).

  1. Is there an easy 'explanation' of this statements (that could be understood by students)? In particular, I would like to get away with a short and 'simple' list of properties of the cycle class map, and I want to make the linear algebra part of the proof as 'conceptual' as possible.

  2. Is there an 'easy' proof of the non-proper version of the formula (that involves cohomology with compact support)?

I do not plan to give a complete proof; I would rather like to tell how to deduce the statement from certain 'basic' (and 'motivic') properties of etale cohomology (possibly, omitting some details).

share|cite|improve this question
What do you mean by the non-proper version ? The LFPF for the Frobenius endomorphism ? As to an 'easy explanation', the paper by Atiyah and Bott on the LFPF outlines an axiomatic approach. – Damian Rössler Sep 9 '12 at 9:28
I am sorry; which paper of Atiyah and Bott are you speaking about? I definitely do not want to apply any analytic methods. By non-proper version I mean the version for non-proper (and non-projective) varieties; it involves cohomology with compact support. – Mikhail Bondarko Sep 9 '12 at 9:41
I mean the paper "A Lefschetz Fixed Point Formula for Elliptic Complexes: II. Applications", Annals of Math. (1968). About the non-proper version: I don't think that there is a version of the LFPF in the non-proper situation. Nevertheless, in that situation, in positive characteristic, there is a conjecture of Deligne saying that if a correspondence is sufficiently twisted by the Frobenius, then there is no "contribution from $\infty$" (ie from the boundary of a compactification). This was proved by Pink and Fujiwara. See Fujiwara "Rigid geometry..." Invent. Math. 127 (1997). – Damian Rössler Sep 9 '12 at 12:50
Do you think that the results of Atiyah and Bott can be applied to the Frobenius operator? Which section could help here? – Mikhail Bondarko Sep 9 '12 at 14:16

Kleiman's paper in the "Dix Exposes sur la cohomologie des schemas" volume might be what you're looking for.

share|cite|improve this answer
is there an electronic version of it anywhere? I've been told my current library does not hold a copy of it. – Jacob Bell Sep 9 '12 at 21:42

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.