3
$\begingroup$

The definition of a reductive group scheme is as in SGA III. Frankly, I only know that they exist for the adjoint group (the adjoint representation). In SGA III, I could only find a result for general groups over a regular ring of dimension $\leq 2.$ But since reductive groups are especially nice, maybe they do have such a representation? If not all reductive groups do, which of them do?

$\endgroup$

2 Answers 2

6
$\begingroup$

In Corollary 3.2 of the paper

R. W. Thomason, Equivariant resolution, linearization, and Hilbert’s fourteenth problem over arbitrary base schemes, Adv. Math. 65 (1987), 16–34,

this was proved for semisimple group schemes or, more generally, for reductive group schemes which are either split reductive, or semisimple, or with isotrivial radical and coradical, or over a normal base S.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you. That is pretty general. I will have to check that the generality is sufficient for the application of what I am trying to prove though. $\endgroup$ May 22, 2016 at 17:42
  • $\begingroup$ The statement of the result there requires that if $S$ isn't regular then it is either affine or has "an ample family of line bundles". $\endgroup$
    – nfdc23
    May 22, 2016 at 18:32
3
$\begingroup$

The usual argument shows that a flat affine group scheme $G$ of finite type over a noetherian ring $k$ has a faithful representation on a finitely generated submodule $M$ of the regular representation. If $M$ is flat over $k$, then it is projective, and hence a direct summand of a free finitely generated $k$-module $L$, and so $G\hookrightarrow\mathrm{GL}_{\mathrm{rank}(L)}$. When $k$ is a Dedekind domain and $G$ is flat, the module $M$ is torsion-free, and hence automatically flat. Thus, every flat affine group scheme of finite type over a Dedekind domain admits an embedding into $\mathrm{GL}_{n}$ for some $n$. As every split reductive group scheme over a ring $k$ arises by base change from a similar group over $\mathbb{Z}$ (Chevalley), such group schemes admit embeddings into $\mathrm{GL}_{n}$. Every reductive group splits over an etale extension of the base ring (SGA 3); when the extension can be taken to be finite, an argument using restriction of scalars proves the statement for the reductive group (cf. question 22078).

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ What is your definition of "faithful representation on a finitely generated module" (as in the first sentence)? Concerning the final sentence, it is incorrect (there are reductive groups schemes over $\mathbf{Z}$ that are not split; they do not admit a fiberwise-maximal $\mathbf{Z}$-torus), and also is not clear in the special case of a local base that is not henselian (e.g., in such cases, why does a split maximal torus in the special fiber -- if one exists -- necessarily lift)? If you have a reference more specific than referring to the entirety of SGA3, please mention it. $\endgroup$
    – nfdc23
    May 23, 2016 at 0:51
  • $\begingroup$ Corrected last sentence. $\endgroup$
    – zeno
    May 23, 2016 at 11:39

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.