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

Let $X/K$ be a variety over a global field $K$. When (and why) is the Galois representation $H^i_{et}(X \times_K \bar{K}, \mathbf{Q}_\ell)$ unramified at a place $v$ of $K$?

I guess this is true if $X$ has a model smooth (or regular?) over $v$ by using base change theorems.

Same question for Hodge-Tate/de Rham/crystalline/semistable.

share|improve this question
    
You want $v$ to be a place over $\ell$, right? Otherwise the last part doesn't make sense. –  JBorger Mar 12 '10 at 21:38
    
Yes, except for unramified, thanks. –  Timo Keller Mar 13 '10 at 6:44

3 Answers 3

[Added: Just to set the scene, this answer is discussing the $p$-adic etale cohomology of a variety $X$ over a finite extension of $\mathbb Q_p$ (or, a little more generally, a finite extension of the fraction field of the Witt vectors of a perfect field of char. $p$).]

Crystalline implies semi-stable implies de Rham implies Hodge-Tate. The cohomology is crystalline if $X$ is proper with a smooth model, is semi-stable if $X$ is proper with a semi-stable model, and is de Rham always. (In the proper case, the last statement is a theorem of Tsuji; in the general case, of Kisin. The crystalline and semi-stable cases are due, in various degrees of generality, to Fontaine--Messing, Hyodo--Kato, Faltings, and Tsuji.)

Added: It might help to note that de Rham and potentially semi-stable coincide (as discussed in the comments below, Berger reduced this to a result in the theory of $p$-adic differential equations, which was then proved independently by Andre, Kedlaya, and Mebkhout). Also, unramified is a very strong condition in this setting ($p$-adic etale cohomology of varieties over $p$-adic fields), which essentially never holds unless we are looking just at $H^0$, and if the geometrically connected components of $X$ are defined over an unramified extension.

share|improve this answer
    
I think it is more usual to attribute the equivalence of de Rham and potentially semi-stable to Berger (although there are now several proofs). –  TSG Mar 13 '10 at 20:59
    
Thanks; I edited the above. (Colmez and Fontaine proved a different conjecture of Fontaine!) –  Emerton Mar 14 '10 at 12:22
1  
The equivalence `` de Rham iff potentially semistable '' is due independently to André, Kedlaya and Mebkhout; all three use Berger's results. Here is what Fontaine (arxiv.org/abs/math/0304232) writes : Berger en a ramené la preuve à un résultat sur les équations différentielles p-adiques, résultat qui a ensuite été prouvé indépendamment par André, Kedlaya et Mebkhout. –  Chandan Singh Dalawat Mar 15 '10 at 3:56
    
Dear Chandan, Thanks for your comment. I had forgotten the order of events (whether Berger's result came before or after the work on $p$-adic differential equations of Andre, Kedlaya, and Mebkhout), but no doubt Fontaine has gotten it right. It is probably best to mention all four authors, and I will edit my post to reflect this. –  Emerton Mar 15 '10 at 22:48
    
the most mysterious thing for me is how they actually proved these things. –  natura Mar 24 '10 at 13:23

As far as I remember, the representation is always potentially semistable (this means that it is Hodge-Tate and de Rham?). It is crystalline when $X$ has a smooth model; it is semistable if it has a log-smooth model (I am not sure that this is the right name).

share|improve this answer

The question about unramified is still open. (Sorry for using the answer for bumping up.)

share|improve this answer
1  
Again, are you talking about when $v$ divides $\ell$ or when it doesn't? They're completely different. In the first case, Emerton gave an answer above. In the second case, it happens if the variety has a smooth proper model over $v$, by the proper base change theorem. –  JBorger Mar 18 '10 at 21:48
    
I want the case $\nu \nmid \ell$. I don't see how unramifiedness follows from the proper base change theorem. –  Timo Keller Mar 19 '10 at 8:00
2  
Well, that's a long story and one which I haven't studied well. The result is stated in SGA 4 1/2 [Arcata] V (3.1) (on page 62). So you can start reading there! –  JBorger Mar 21 '10 at 9:41
    
If you want to bump up, you can always edit the original post. –  David Corwin Nov 1 '12 at 23:12

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.