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 apologize in advance if this question is terribly naive. I've just recently learned a bit of rigid analytic geometry with the hopes of understanding some basic facts about eigenvarieties.

In the literature (e.g. in Coleman-Mazur) I've seen people talk about the $\mathbf{C}_p$-points of a rigid analytic space over $\mathbf{Q}_p$ (here $\mathbf{C}_p$ is the completion of an algebraic closure of $\mathbf{Q}_p$). Based on the case of schemes, if $X$ and $T$ are rigid spaces over $\mathbf{Q}_p$, I assume the set of $T$-valued points of $X$ is the set $\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathbf{Q}_p}(T,X)$, where the morphisms are in the category of $G$-topologized spaces over $\mathrm{Sp}(\mathbf{Q}_p)$. But $\mathbf{C}_p$ is not a $\mathbf{Q}_p$-affinoid algebra, so, strictly speaking, it's associated $G$-topologized space $\mathrm{Sp}(\mathbf{C}_p)$ is not a rigid space over $\mathbf{Q}_p$, right? I guess there is a morphism of $G$-topologized spaces $\mathrm{Sp}(\mathbf{C}_p)\rightarrow\mathrm{Sp}(\mathbf{Q}_p)$, and so one could define the $\mathbf{C}_p$-points of $X$ in the same way as I did above, just morphisms of $G$-topologized spaces $\mathrm{Sp}(\mathbf{C}_p)\rightarrow X$ compatible with the morphisms to $\mathrm{Sp}(\mathbf{Q}_p)$.

Question: Is this what is meant by the $\mathbf{C}_p$-points of a rigid analytic space over $\mathbf{Q}_p$?

The only alternative I can think of is to define the $\mathbf{C}_p$-points of a rigid space $X$ over $\mathbf{Q}_p$ as the $\mathbf{C}_p$-valued points of the base change $X_{\mathbf{C}_p}$. Although, if my intuition drawn from schemes is to be trusted, this is probably equivalent to the definition I suggested above.

share|cite|improve this question
Yes, and a "morphism" $X' \rightarrow X$ from a rigid-analytic space over $k'$ to one over $k$ for an extension of non-archimedean fields $k'/k$ means a morphism $X' \rightarrow X_{k'}$. This viewpoint is very convenient with Berkovich spaces (where there is change of ground field much more often than in rigid-analytic geometry). Sometimes you'll see $\mathbf{P}^1(\mathbf{C}_p)-\mathbf{P}^1(\mathbf{Q}_p)$ as a synonym for $\mathbf{P}^{1,{\rm{an}}}_{\mathbf{Q}_p} - \mathbf{P}^1(\mathbf{Q}_p)$ in settings where the $\mathbf{Q}_p$-structure matters, and that is simply wrong. – user29283 Nov 25 '12 at 19:50
@Xuhan: Not at all: 1) On $\mathbf P^{1,\mathrm{an}}_{\mathbf Q_p}$, points of $\mathbf P^1(\mathbf C_p)$ which are conjugate over $\mathbf Q_p$ are identified; 2) And the Berkovich space has many more points than these ones. – ACL Nov 25 '12 at 20:29
Dear ACL: I agree with your (1) but disagree with your "Not at all" because transcendental points of $\mathbf{P}^1(\mathbf{C}_p)$ relative to $\mathbf{Q}_p$ do not "correspond" to any points in $\mathbf{P}^{1,{\rm{an}}}_{\mathbf{Q}_p}$; it makes the abuse of notation seem akin to considering a finite type $\mathbf{Q}$-scheme $X$ and writing $X(\mathbf{C})$ when we mean $X$. Also, my intent when I mentioned Berkovich spaces is that the idea of a map from a $k'$-analytic object to a $k$-analytic one tends to arise more often there than in rigid-analytic geometry precisely because of your (2). – user29283 Nov 25 '12 at 21:09
Dear ACL: To clarify further, by "$\mathbf{Q}_p$-structure" I had in mind coherent sheaves and morphisms, not just points. I'm not aware of a useful descent theory for rigid-analytic geometry relative to ground field extensions like $\mathbf{Q}_p \rightarrow \mathbf{C}_p$, so to make constructions respecting $\mathbf{Q}_p$-structure I believe one has to work with geometric objects over $\mathbf{Q}_p$ (or at least finite extensions of it, and then use Galois descent). It is this sense in which writing $X(\mathbf{C}_p)$ as proxy for $X$ seems to be a problematic abuse of notation. – user29283 Nov 26 '12 at 1:45
up vote 4 down vote accepted

I think in Coleman-Mazur, it is just to be taken in the sense of $\mathbb C_p$-points of $X_{\mathbb C_p}$. This is compatible with the more abstract definition you propose. Indeed, as $\mathrm{Sp}(\mathbb C_p)$ is just one point, it is enough to work with an affinoide space $X$ associated to an affinoide algebra $A$ over $\mathbb Q_p$. Then it is clear that the continuous homomorphisms from $A$ to $\mathbb C_p$ coincide with continuous homomorphisms from $A\widehat{\otimes}_{\mathbb Q_p} \mathbb C_p$ to $\mathbb C_p$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Dear @Qing, Thank you! This clears things up for me. – Keenan Kidwell Feb 21 '13 at 14:21

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.