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

I have a general und a more special question. I begin with the general one: If $X/k$ is an algebraic scheme over a field $k$ and $D$ is a divisor with normal crossings on it, then there is the so-called sheaf of log-differentials $\Omega_{X/k}(\log(D))$ on it. Is there a good reference for the very basic properties of this kind of differetials? In particuar I am interested in behavior under pullback and analogues to the two exact sequences one has for usual differentials.

Now I come to the special question. Let $k=\mathbb F_q$ and $B/k$ a smooth projective curve. Let $F: B\to B$ be the Frobenius morphism. ($F$ is the idendity on the underlying topological space of $B$ and the map ${\cal O}_B(U)\to {\cal O}_B(U)$ induced by $F$ is $x\mapsto x^q$ for every open $U\subset B$.) Let $S=\sum a_P P$ be an effective divisor on $B$. Is it true that $F^* \Omega_{X/k}(\log(S))=\Omega_{X/k}(\log(F^* S))$ (rather then $F^* \Omega_{X/k}(\log(S))=\Omega_{X/k}(\log(S))$)? (Here $F^* S=\sum a_P^q P$.)

My interest in these matters arise from an attempt to understand the paper "Purely inseparable points on curves of higher genus" http://www.mathjournals.org/mrl/1997-004-005/1997-004-005-004.pdf I find the results in this paper very interesting. For example they have been applied towards full Mordell-Lang in positive characteristic, and I have other applications in mind.

But I am very puzzled. In the proof of the Theorem in this paper, I do not understand why $\Omega_B((F^n)^{-1} S)=\Omega_B(S)$ and why $\deg(P^*\omega)$ should be bounded. Also I do not see a reason why the separable map $g$ occuring later in the proof should be non-constant.

Remark: In this paper the ground field $k$ seems to be an issue that should be discussed a bit. The paper starts with "Let $k$ be a field of characteristic $p>0$". I think the Corollary is false as it stands, at least in the case where $k$ is algebraically closed with $trdeg(k/{\mathbb F}_p)\ge 1$. (In that case, if $K=k(X)$ and $C/K$ is a smooth projective curve of genus $\ge 2$ which is defined over $k$ will have $|C(k)|=\infty$, $|C(K)|=\infty$ and $|C(K^{\frac{1}{p^\infty}})|=\infty$, but of course $C$ needs not be birational to a curve defined over a finite field.) Also there seem to be counterexamples to the Theorem itself, if $k$ is a general field of positive characteristic. These counterexamples disappear, if we assume $k$ finitely generated over its finite prime field, and I think the whole paper was meant to adress that case. So at the moment I try to understand everything in the case where $k$ is finitely generated of positive characteristic. But until now I failed even in the easiest case where $k$ is finite ...

EDIT: Maybe I should state here the Claim, whose proof I finally want to understand.

Claim: Let $k$ be a finitely generated field of positive characteristic. Let $K/k$ be a finitely generated field extension with $trdeg(K/k)=1$. Let $C/K$ be a smooth projective curve over $k$ of genus $\ge 2$. Assume that $C$ is not birational over $\overline{K}$ to a curve which is defined over a finite field. Then $C(K^{\frac{1}{p^\infty}})$ is finite.

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer 1

For a reference on logaritmic sheaves, see Esnault-Viehweg "Lectures on vanishing theorems", in particular the first six Chapters.

The Frobenius morphism is also considered in the same book, in Chapters 8 and 9.

But in order to answer your question, no deep results are needed. In fact, over a curve $B$ the sheaf $\Omega_B(\log S)$ is invertible and isomorphic to $\Omega_B(S)$. This because, in general, there is a short exact sequence

$0 \to T_B(-S) \to T_B(- \log S) \to T_S \to 0$,

and $T_S$ is zero for a zero-dimensional scheme.

On the other hand, by [Hartshorne, II prop. 6.9] for any divisor $D$ on $B$ we have

$\deg(F^*D) = q \cdot \deg(D)$.

Then

$\deg (F^*\Omega_B(\log S))=q \cdot \deg(K_B)+q \cdot \deg(S)$,

$\deg (\Omega_B(F^*\log S))=\deg(K_B)+q \cdot \deg(S)$,

$\deg (\Omega_B(\log S))=\deg(K_B)+\deg(S)$,

hence the invertible sheaf $F^*\Omega_B(\log S)$ is in general different from both $\Omega_B(F^*\log S)$ and $\Omega_B(\log S)$.

The fact that $\Omega_B((F^n)^{-1}S))=\Omega_B(S)$ comes simply from the fact that $F$ is ramified everywhere with ramification index $q$, so the set-theoretic preimage of $S$ is nothing but $S$.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks for the answer to my main question! I will try to understand this. Can you give me a hint what $T_S$ (resp. $T_B(-S)$, $T_B(-\log(S))$) is? Do you maybe also see why the map g in the proof of Kim should be non-constant? –  Sebastian Petersen Oct 27 '10 at 11:52
    
$T_B$ is the tangent sheaf, that is the dual of $\Omega_B$. This is standard notation, see for instance Hartshorne p. 180. It seems to me that the map $g$ must be non-constant since otherwise the map $P^* \Omega_X \to \Omega_B$ would be zero, but I had no time to read the paper carefully... –  Francesco Polizzi Oct 27 '10 at 13:29
    
Oh, :-), I should have guessed by myself that these are tangent sheafs. Probably I did not see it, because I never saw expressions of the form $T_B(-log(S))$ before. I shall now try again to understand with the help of your hints. –  Sebastian Petersen Oct 29 '10 at 8:26
add comment

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.