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

These are parametrized by $H^1(Gal(\mathbb{Q}), Aut X)$, where X is some $\mathbb{Q}$-model of the curve.

It was established in Confusion about how the first cohomology classifies torsors that fiber bundles over $B$ with fiber $F$, structure group $G$ and transition maps with property $P$ are classified by $T$-torsors, where $T$ is the sheaf on $B$ of functions to $G$ with property $P$. $T$-torsors, in turn, are classified by $H^1(B, T)$.

Is there a way to interpret the aforementioned classification of $\mathbb{Q}$-models of a curve in these terms?

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 4 down vote accepted


Roughly, the idea is that once your base object $X/B$ is fixed then for any object $Y$ you can consider the sheaf $Iso(X,Y)$ of isomorphisms from $X$ to $Y$. This has an action of the sheaf $Aut(X)$ and on any open cover $U$ where $Y|_U \cong X|_U$, making a choice of such an isomorphism gives an isomorphism of $Aut(X)(U)$-sets $Iso(X,Y)(U) \cong Aut(X)(U)$.

The difference from the standard argument in this case is that you need to use the etale topology instead of the Zariski topology. The etale covers of $\mathbb{Q}$ are finite field extensions $F$ and so the statement that $Y$ is "locally" equivalent to $X$ means that $Y_F \cong X_F$ for a large enough field extension $F$.

share|improve this answer
So, to be precise... We are looking in the etale topology; B is spec(Q); G is the sheaf into Grps: Aut(X); and P is... what? –  Makhalan Duff Apr 29 '10 at 18:02
I'd actually say that in the terminology you were originally using, G should be the group scheme of automorphisms of X and P should be simply algebraic maps. Then T(Spec(F)) is the set of algebraic maps Spec(F) -> Aut(X), or the Spec(F)-points of Aut(X), or the automorphism group of $X_F$ over Spec(F). –  Tyler Lawson Apr 29 '10 at 18:26
Huh.. I see. You say "group scheme of automorphisms". Is there any reason to believe it's representable? –  Makhalan Duff Apr 29 '10 at 18:40
You can show representability of Aut(X) (or more generally the existence of Isom-schemes) by identifying an automorphism with its graph $\Gamma \subset X \times X$, and construct a representing object inside a certain Hilbert scheme. However, if you want to know more details about that you should ask another question so that a genuine algebraic geometer has the opportunity to answer. –  Tyler Lawson Apr 29 '10 at 18:51
add comment

Your Answer


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.