1
$\begingroup$

Let $G$ be an algebraic group. Let $X$ and $Y$ be $S$-schemes such that $X$, $Y$ and $S$ are $G$-schemes and the structural morphisms are equivariant. My question is: Can the fiber product $P:=X\times_SY$ be given the structure of a $G$-scheme in a natural way, i.e. such that the projections $P\to X$ and $P\to Y$ are equivariant? I have searched through Mumford/Fogarty/Kirwan for a while now and could not find any such statement.

Is it false in general? Are there certain conditions under which it becomes true? I am usually only dealing with varieties over an algebraically closed field and my group is just the multiplicative group of the ground field, but I need the fiber product over a third variety in this case.

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

This is true for abstract nonsense reasons. If $G$ is a group object in a category $\mathcal{C}$, then $G \times S$ is a group object in the slice category $\mathcal{C}_{/ S}$, and there is a natural bijection between $G$-actions on an object in $\mathcal{C}_{/ S}$ (considered as an object in $\mathcal{C}$) and $(G \times S)$-actions on the same object (considered as an object in $\mathcal{C}_{/ S}$), simply because there is a natural isomorphism $(G \times S) \times_S X \cong G \times X$. Thus, we may assume without loss of generality that $S$ is the terminal object in $\mathcal{C}$. But then $X \times Y$ has an obvious $G$-action if $X$ and $Y$ do: namely, the diagonal action.

More explicitly, suppose we have actions $G \times X \to X$, $G \times Y \to Y$, and $G \times S \to S$ and $G$-equivariant morphisms $X \to S$, $Y \to S$. Then, we can define a $G$-action $G \times (X \times_S Y) \to X \times_S Y$ as the unique morphism such that these equations hold: \begin{align} (G \times (X \times_S Y) \to X \times_S Y \to X) & = (G \times (X \times_S Y) \to G \times X \to X) \\ (G \times (X \times_S Y) \to X \times_S Y \to Y) & = (G \times (X \times_S Y) \to G \times Y \to Y) \end{align}

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ That's great, I particularly like your first paragraph. Made me perfectly understood what I did wrong: I had tried to get an induced morphism and was unable to show commutativity of the outer square ... because I didn't use the fact that $X\to S$ and $Y\to S$ are actually equivariant. $\endgroup$ Oct 8, 2013 at 15:51

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.