MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let $G$ be a connected algebraic group. Is it true that every $G$-bundle on ${\mathbb A}^n$ is trivial? What is the reference? I am actually only interested in the case $n=2$.

share|cite|improve this question
From the context, I assume $G$ is to be an affine algebraic group. The reductive case has been most studied, so it's also important to indicate if more generality is wanted. – Jim Humphreys Nov 15 '10 at 18:39
Yes, I meant that $G$ is affine and $G$ reductive is sufficient for me (in fact, at least in characteristic $0$ it is clear that everything reduces to the reductive case). – Alexander Braverman Nov 16 '10 at 14:32

This is true for $G=GL(r)$, as shown by Quillen and Suslin.

For arbitrary $G$ there are counterexamples. Quite surprisingly, even $G$-bundles over $\textrm{Spec }k$ may not be trivial. See the paper

M. S. Raghunathan

"Principal bundles on affine space and bundles on the projective line",

Mathematische Annalen Volume 285, Number 2, 309-332

share|cite|improve this answer
This 1989 paper can be accessed freely at the German archive It would help to unpack Raghunathan's theorems (and his previous results) a little more, since he is mainly concerned with reductive groups over arbitrary fields. If I understand correctly, groups over algebraically closed fields are better behaved in the current context. – Jim Humphreys Nov 15 '10 at 18:44
Thank you. I'll look at the paper. I am actually interested in the (split) reductive case but possibly over finite field. I wonder if there is a counterexample in that case. – Alexander Braverman Nov 16 '10 at 14:40

Over an algebraically closed field, for $G$ connected and reductive, every principal $G$-bundle on ${\Bbb A}^n$ is trivial, also by a theorem of Raghunathan:

"Principal bundles on affine space", in C. P. Ramanujam—a tribute, pp. 187–206, Tata Inst. Fund. Res. Studies in Math. 8 (1978).

(Unfortunately I can't find this reference free online.)

share|cite|improve this answer
This is reference [15] in Raghunathan's later paper mentioned by Francesco Polizzi. Is there a more accessible later reference for the algebraically closed case? – Jim Humphreys Nov 15 '10 at 21:54
Thank you. Do you know if the same is true over finite field? – Alexander Braverman Nov 16 '10 at 14:31
@Jim: Good question, I haven't been able to find a simpler reference. @Alexander: I'm no expert in this, but the strongest general results so far seem to be in an IHES paper from 1992 by Colliot-Thelene and Ojanguren. However, "infinite" is one of their hypotheses on the ground field -- but I don't think they give counter examples. – Dave Anderson Nov 17 '10 at 4:38
@Alexander: I'm unaware of any explicit formulation for a reductive group defined over a finite field; but I'm not familiar enough with this literature. – Jim Humphreys Nov 18 '10 at 14:52

In characteristic $p$ you can make an easy counterexample with $n=1$, right? An exact sequence of commutative algebraic groups $0\to E\to X\to \mathbb A\to 0$ with $E$ an elliptic curve.

share|cite|improve this answer
Interesting -- but how does ${\Bbb A} = {\Bbb G}_a$ act on $E$? – Dave Anderson Nov 15 '10 at 22:33
This is a naive question, but does this give us something for n=2, namely $E\times A \to X\times A \to A^2$? – David Roberts Nov 15 '10 at 23:46
I meant: Choose an elliptic curve $E$ (over a given field $k$ of characteristic $p$) that has a subgroup of order $p$ (i.e. has a $k$-rational point of order $p$). In $\mathhbb G_a$ there is also a subgroup of order $p$, with quotient isomorphic to $\mathbb G_a$. In $E\times \mathbb G_a$ there is a 'diagonal' subgroup of order $p$. Divide out by it to get $X$. – Tom Goodwillie Nov 16 '10 at 0:36
You can also take a supersingular elliptic curve as both it and $\mathbb G_a$ contains an $\alpha_p$. – Torsten Ekedahl Nov 16 '10 at 5:13
I don't know. I'm just a topologist playing along. – Tom Goodwillie Nov 17 '10 at 4:20

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.