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

There exists information on the Picard (and Brauer) group of a reductive algebraic group over a number field k. For example, Sansuc shows (in his big Crelle paper of 1980) that if G is connected and semisimple over a number field k, then Pic G is the group of k-rational points of the character group of the fundamental group of G. In particular, if G is semisimple and simply connected, then Pic G=0. My question is: do there exist results of this type over more general bases? For example, a natural generalization of the equality "Pic G=0 if G semisimple and simply connected over a number field" would be "Pic G=Pic U if G is a semisimple and simply connected group scheme over a Dedekind scheme U". Is the latter true?

share|improve this question
1  
Cristian, have you looked in Raynaud's thesis? One natural idea would be to see to what extent Pic(G) is entirely accounted for by central extensions by $\mathbf{G}_m$, which is what underlies the direct proof over a field (using derived group to split the extension in the simply connected case). I assume when you say $G$ is semisimple over a Dedekind base, you mean it is smooth and affine with all fibers connected semisimple (not just generic fiber). –  BCnrd Apr 26 '10 at 20:45
    
Hi, Cristian! Welcome to Math Overflow! –  Pete L. Clark Apr 26 '10 at 21:12

1 Answer 1

Assuming you know that Pic of the generic fibre is trivial, this seems to follow immediately from the localisation sequence: since G is a group there is a section, so the map Pic U to Pic G is an injection. On the other hand (since G is smooth so Pic = Cl) there is an exact sequence:

$\ \ \ \oplus_x \mathbb{Z}_x \to Pic \ G \to Pic \ G_K \to 0 $

where X runs over the closed points of U and $G_K$ denotes the generic fibre. Since $Pic\ G_K$ is trivial it follows from this that the map Pic U to Pic G is surjective.

(Note that the only property of the closed fibres that is used is that they are reduced and irreducible.)

share|improve this answer
    
OK, the proof seems correct. Thanks! -I should also add that Brian's suggestion that I look into Raynaud's thesis was right on the mark, as it also leads to an answer to my question (and to another one that I had been struggling with). Many thanks to the anonymous poster and to Brian Conrad for their help! –  Cristian D. Gonzalez-Aviles Apr 27 '10 at 14:34

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.