Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Hello,

Let $X$ be a smooth variety in char. 0. Let us call a $D$-module on $X$ constant, if it is isomorphic to a finite direct sum of the $D$-modules $O$ (the sheaf of regular functions with the usual $D$-module structure). Then a subquotient of a constant $D$-module should be constant. But how to show it? The reason why it should be true is that Riemann-Hilbert correspondence (when over the complex numbers) translates as to representations of a the fundamental group, and there such a statement is trivial.

Thanks, Sasha

share|improve this question
add comment

2 Answers 2

up vote 8 down vote accepted

If your base field $k$ is algebraically closed (or if $X$ has a rational point), then this follows directly from the fact that the category of $\mathcal{O}_X$-coherent flat connections is neutral Tannakian, i.e. equivalent to the category of finite dimensional $k$-representations of some affine $k$-group scheme $G$. For this fact the Riemann-Hilbert correspondence is not needed, it just gives you additional information about $G$.

Here is a more direct argument: If $E$ is a $D$-module which is coherent as an $\mathcal{O}_X$-module, then $E$ is automatically locally free. In particular, if $E$ is a sub $D$-module of the "constant" $D$-module $\mathcal{O}_X^n$, then the short exact sequence of $D$-modules

$$0\rightarrow E \rightarrow \mathcal{O}^n_X \rightarrow \mathcal{O}^n_X/E\rightarrow 0$$ is locally split as a sequence of $\mathcal{O}_X$-modules.

We see that if $n=1$, then $E=0$ or $E=\mathcal{O}_X$. We proceed by induction.

Since a $D$-module is trivial if and only if there exists a dense open subset of $X$ on which it is trivial, we may work in the local ring of a closed point $x\in X$ (lets assume $X$ to be connected…).

If $e_1,\ldots, e_n$ is a horizontal basis, then the horizontal sections of $\mathcal{O}_X^n$ are precisely those sections which are in the $k$-span of $e_1,\ldots, e_n$. The group of $D$-automorphisms of $\mathcal{O}_X^n$ then identifies with $GL_n(k)$. Thus if $E$ contains a horizontal section, we are done by induction. The case $n=1$ implies that if $E\cap e_i\mathcal{O}_X\neq 0$ for some $i$, then $e_i\in E$. If $f_1e_1+\ldots+f_n e_n$ is a section of $E$, which is not horizontal, then some $f_i\in \mathcal{O}_{X,x}$ is nonconstant, say $f_1$. One finds a differential operator $\partial$, such that $\partial(f_1)\in \mathcal{O}_{X,x}^\times$, and concludes that $E$ intersects the $\mathcal{O}_X$-span of $e_2,\ldots, e_n$ nontrivially. Hence, either $e_1\in E$, or $E\subset \bigoplus_{i\geq 2} e_i\mathcal{O}_X$, and in both cases we are done.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Suppose that $E\subset\mathcal O_X^n=V\otimes\mathcal O_X$, where $V$ is a finite-dimensional vector space, is a D-module. It is well known that both $E$ and $V\otimes\mathcal O_X/E$, being both D-modules and coherent $\mathcal O_X$-modules, must be locally free. Hence, if $\mathrm{rank}E=k$, there exists a morphism $f\colon X\to G(k,V)$ (the Grassmann variety) s.t. $f^*S\cong E$, where $S$ is the tautological subbundle. Since the subsheaf $E\subset V\otimes\mathcal O_X$ is mapped into itself by vector fields on $X$ (i.e., local derivations of $\mathcal O_X$), the derivative of the morphism $f$ is identically zero. Sionce characteristic is $0$, it follows that the mapping $f$ is constant, whence $E=f^*S$ is constant

share|improve this answer
    
Thank you for the answer; I did not understand your final conclusion, that $E$ is constant. You got that $E$ is constant as an $O$-module, but what about the $D$-module structure? –  Sasha Mar 5 '13 at 9:25
    
The D-module structure is inherited from the constant D-module $V\otimes\mathcal O_X$. Actually, it means that there exists a $k$-dimensional linear subspace $F\subet V$ s.t. $E$ is the sheaf of $F$-valued functions, and derivations action on these functions by differentiating, as they act on local sections of $V\otimes \mathcal O_X$. –  Serge Lvovski Mar 5 '13 at 13:25
    
Thank you, now I understand. –  Sasha Mar 5 '13 at 14:30
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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.