5
$\begingroup$

Let $p$ be a prime number $\geq 3$. Let $V$ be a representation of $Gal(\bar{\mathbb{Q}}_p/ \mathbb{Q}_p)$ with coefficients in $\mathbb{F}_p$. Assume $V$ is a non-split extension of two characters $\delta_1$ and $\delta_2$.

Let $D$ be the $(\varphi, \Gamma)$-module associated to $V$. It is a non-split extension of two $(\varphi, \Gamma)$ of rank $1$. Denote by $\Phi$ the matrix of $\varphi$ and by $G$ the matrix of a generator $\gamma$ of $\mathbb{Z}_p^*$. In a suitable basis, we have $\Phi = \begin{pmatrix} f_1 & f \\ 0 & f_2 \end{pmatrix}$ and $G = \begin{pmatrix} g_1 & g \\ 0 & g_2 \end{pmatrix}$ where $f_1, f_2, g_1$ and $g_2$ are elements of $\mathbb{F}_p^{\times}$ (see One dimensional (phi,Gamma)-modules in char p) and where $f,g \in \mathbb{F}_p ((X))$.

Can we find a basis where $f$ and $g$ are in $\mathbb{F}_p[[X]]$ ? If not, what is the "nicest" form possible for $f$ and $g$ ? (i.e. can we kill some of the denominators and which one ?)

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

The answer is "no" in general. If $\delta_2=1$ and $\delta_1$ is the mod $p$ cyclotomic character, then there are both peu and très ramifiées extensions. Let $res(g)$ denote the coefficient of $1/X$ in $g$. Theorem: in your notation, the extension is peu ramifiée iff $res(g)=0$. See for instance proposition 3.7.5 of Mathieu Vienney's PhD http://perso.ens-lyon.fr/laurent.berger/thesevienney.pdf

As to the "nicest" possible form: you can construct elements of $H^1(G_{Q_p},V)$ from elements of $D(V)^{\psi=1}$, see lemma I.5.5 of Cherbonnier and Colmez' JAMS paper. If you make this explicit, you'll have strong restrictions on $f$ and $g$.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the reference. I am a little bit confused though. If $V$ is an extension of $1$ by $\chi_p$, then it is always the reduction of a crystalline representation (if the extension is très ramifié one can choose the weights to be 0 and p). But a crystalline representation is of finite height so the matrices of the action of $\varphi$ and $\gamma$ should not have denominators. What am I missing here ? $\endgroup$
    – user33624
    Aug 26, 2013 at 10:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "Finite height" does mean that in some basis, there are no denominators. This does not imply the same property holds in your favorite basis :) $\endgroup$ Aug 27, 2013 at 6:31

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.