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

EDIT: Question solved.


Let me explain what I mean.

The classical formulation of Galois descent, e. g. in Crawley-Boevey's "Cohomology and central simple algebras", uses the following notion:

Definition: A $K$-vector space with additional structure is one of the following:

  • a $K$-vector space;

  • a $K$-algebra;

  • an $A$-module, for some fixed $K$-algebra $A$;

  • an $A$-$B$-bimodule, for some fixed $K$-algebras $A$ and $B$;

etc.

My question is what exactly the "etc." means, or how to precise this definition. I tried to do this the following way: A $K$-vector space with additional structure is given by a $K$-vector space $X$ and a family of linear maps of the forms $U_1\otimes U_2\otimes ...\otimes U_m\otimes X^{\otimes a}\to X^{\otimes b}$ (with $U_1$, $U_2$, ..., $U_m$ being fixed $K$-vector spaces) that satisfy certain polynomial equations (for example, in the case of a $K$-algebra, our maps are the multiplication map $X^{\otimes 2}\to X^{\otimes 1}$ and the unity map $X^{\otimes 0}\to X^{\otimes 1}$, and the equations they must satisfy are associativity and unitality).

This is similar to the definition in Gille and Szamuely's "Central Simple Algebras and Galois Cohomology", except I have the $U_i$ and they don't (but this doesn't make a difference, because they are fixed and thus a map $U_1\otimes U_2\otimes ...\otimes U_m\otimes X^{\otimes a}\to X^{\otimes b}$ is just a family of maps $X^{\otimes a}\to X^{\otimes b}$).

Now I've got a problem. It's the proof of Theorem 5.9 in 1 rsp. that of Theorem 2.3.3 in 2. The part where you are given a cocycle in $H^1\left(G,\mathrm{Aut}\left(X^L\right)\right)$ (in the notation of 1) rsp. $H^1\left(G,\mathrm{Aut}\left(\Phi\right)\right)$ (in the notation of 2) and you want to show that the invariant subspace $X_{\rho}$ (in the notation of 1) rsp. $\left(\ _a V_K\right)^G$ (in the notation of 2) is a $K$-vector space (in the notation of 1) rsp. $k$-vector space (in the notation of 2) with the same additional structure. It works well for the standard cases ($K$-vector space, $K$-algebra, $A$-module, $A$-$B$-bimodule), but all of these cases have a peculiar property: that each of the maps $U_1\otimes U_2\otimes ...\otimes U_m\otimes X^{\otimes a}\to X^{\otimes b}$ has $b\leq 1$. There are structures for which this doesn't hold ($K$-coalgebras, $K$-Hopf algebras, separable $K$-algebras with separability idempotent, and many more), and I would like to know how to do Galois descent (viz., prove that elements of $H^1\left(G,\mathrm{Aut}\left(X^L\right)\right)$ yield isomorphism classes of twisted forms of $X$ split by $L$, to use the notations of 1). The proof from 1 and 2 doesn't seem to work in this case; at least I don't see why every $G$-invariant map $\left(X\otimes L\right)^{\otimes 2}\to \left(X\otimes L\right)^{\otimes 2}$ must come from a map $X^{\otimes 2}\to X^{\otimes 2}$.

share|improve this question
    
If you allow tensor powers of duals of $X$, then all the things you are talking about are just elements of certain vector spaces ($X\to X$ is just an element of $X^*\otimes X$, for example). And any Galois invariant element of $V\otimes L$ is an element of $V$. –  Keerthi Madapusi Pera Jan 13 '11 at 20:34
    
Are you sure that if you do this to a $K$-algebra structure (in the form of two maps $X\otimes X\to X$ and $K\to X$), then the resulting descended structure is still associative and unital? –  darij grinberg Jan 13 '11 at 21:55
    
Oh, I see you are right. I was confused by the tensor powers: I thought $\left(X\otimes L\right)^{\otimes b}$ would mean a $b$-fold tensor power of $X\otimes L$ over $K$, which would lead to too many $L$-factors, which would mean that $G$-invariance does not imply definedness over $K$. But the tensoring is over $L$, not over $K$, so we get just one $L$-factor, and all is right. Thanks for the help. If you post this as an answer, I can accept. –  darij grinberg Jan 13 '11 at 22:02
    
Sure thing. About time I got an accepted answer :) –  Keerthi Madapusi Pera Jan 14 '11 at 3:39
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 3 down vote accepted

If you allow tensor powers of duals of $X$, then all the things you are talking about are just elements of certain vector spaces ($X\to X$ is just an element of $X^∗\otimes X$, for example). And any Galois invariant element of $V\otimes L$ is an element of $V$ (where $V$ is a vector space over $K$).

share|improve this answer
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.