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

Let $K$ be an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero. Let $X/K$ be a smooth variety. Is it true that the \'etale fundamental group $\pi_1(X)$ is topologically finitely generated.

I know that the answer is ``yes'' in the following two cases:

1) $X/K$ is proper.

2) $\dim(X)=1$. (In this case we can write down a presentation of $\pi_1(X)$ very explicitly.)

Can there anything go wrong in the general case? (It would be wonderful to have a reference which one can simply quote.)

share|improve this question
    
Yes. Use the finite generation for the topological fund. grp (by using finite triangulability of complex varieties) + the comparison theorem SGA1 exp XII cor 5.2. –  Donu Arapura Jan 31 '11 at 16:21
    
@Donu: can it be proved 'purely algebraicly'? –  Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Jan 31 '11 at 16:35
    
Mariano, I don't know of a purely algebraic argument, but it would certainly be interesting. As an aside, I might point out that the "wild" part of $\pi_1(\matbb{A}^1)$ in positive characteristic need not be finitely generated. –  Donu Arapura Jan 31 '11 at 18:09
    
@Donu: This only covers the case $K = \mathbb{C}$, right? Or can we generalize this using model theory? –  Martin Brandenburg Jan 31 '11 at 20:25
3  
Donu's argument works by the invariance of the etale $pi_1$ under base-change of algebraically closed fields in characteristic zero. I believe the required specialization argument can be found in Serre's lectures on Galois theory. The key point is that $\pi_1(X\times Y)=\pi_1(X)\times \pi_1(Y)$, which fails in positive characteristic. An amusing (or vexing) fact is that an 'algebraic proof', in any reasonable sense, of finite-generation is unknown even for curves. –  Minhyong Kim Jan 31 '11 at 23:41
show 1 more comment

1 Answer 1

Thanks, Dono Arapura, for explaining how one proves this statement, using the Riemann existance theorem in SGA1.

I mention for the sake of completeness: Today in the morning, I found that there is a SGA-reference for my question as it stands above: SGA 7.1, II.2.3.1. (I was surprised, that it is SGA 7.1, not SGA 1.)

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.