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

I'm trying to find a reference for the following fact:

If Tate's conjecture is true for all smooth projective varieties over $\mathbb{F}_p$, then the Frobenius endomorphism on the crystalline cohomology of any such variety is semisimple.

This is stated in the Coleman-Edixhoven paper on the semisimplicity of the $U_p$-operator on modular forms. They reference Milne's paper "Motives over finite fields" (in the 1991 Motives conference proceedings, ed. Janssen/Kleiman/Serre).

I found Milne's paper on the web, and it gives two references for the corresponding statement for $\ell$-adic cohomology ($\ell \ne p$) and then says "There is an analogous statement ... for the crystalline cohomology" without giving a reference (or a precise statement) for this. Moreover, one of the references for the $\ell \ne p$ case is to Milne's book "Arithmetic Duality Theorems" but points to an apparently non-existent section 8.6; while the other reference Milne gives is to Tate's article in the same proceedings, which does not seem to prove anything about semisimplicity as far as I can see.

Can anyone tell me where I can find a proof of the above implication written down?

share|improve this question
2  
Tate's conjecture certainly implies that the eigenvalues $q^{i/2}$ occur semisimply (cf. Tate's article), and this implies that all eigenvalues occur semisimply by the Kunneth formula. –  mephisto Feb 20 '11 at 20:13
2  
The reference "Milne 1986" in Milne's conference article should be to his 1986 Am J Math paper,where you will find the above proof, not to his book. –  mephisto Feb 20 '11 at 20:26
    
@David: They reference Milne's paper... Has reference become a verb in England too? –  Chandan Singh Dalawat Feb 21 '11 at 5:56
5  
According to the Oxford English Dictionary that usage is well-established in British English (they cite examples going back to 1957). –  David Loeffler Feb 21 '11 at 15:46
2  
Do they cite examples, or do they reference them? (Sorry, I could not stop myself.) –  jmc Nov 6 '12 at 0:26

2 Answers 2

up vote 16 down vote accepted

Milne's Remark 8.6 in Amer. J. Math. 1986 implicitely includes two algebraic statements:

  1. Tensor product respects generalised eigenspaces.
  2. Let $V, W$ be representations of a group over a field of characteristic $0$. If $V\otimes W$ is semi-simple, then $V$ is semi-simple.

Both statements are true but not so immediate. A proof of 2 is in Serre, J. Alg. 194 (1997), Prop. 2.3, while his prop. 7.2.1 shows that characteristic $0$ is necessary (in char. $p$, $\dim W\not\equiv 0\pmod{p}$ is sufficient but the other congruence can yield counterexamples).

For 1, here is a short argument. Let $v$ an endomorphism of $V$ and $w$ be an endomorphism of $W$. Assume that $(v-a)^m=0$ and that $(w-b)^n=0$ for some scalars $a,b$. Then $$(v\otimes w - ab)^{mn}=0$$ because $v\otimes w - ab=(v-a)\otimes w + a1\otimes(w-b)$, a sum of two nilpotent operators which commute.

share|improve this answer
2  
Welcome on mathoverflow, Bruno. –  Joël Nov 6 '12 at 0:22
    
Bienvenu, Bruno ! –  Chandan Singh Dalawat Nov 6 '12 at 4:59

Actually, the proof of Remark 8.6 is elementary. Let $\alpha$ be an endomorphism of vector space $W$, and suppose that it doesn't act semisimply. Then there exists a vector $e$ and a scalar $a$ such that $(\alpha-a)^2e=0$ but $(\alpha-a)e\neq 0$, say $\alpha e=ae+t$ with $t\neq 0$ (after possibly extending scalars). In the situation of 8.6, we have another vector space $W$, endomorphism $\beta$, and a vector $f$ such that $\beta f=a^{-1}f$. Now one checks that $(\alpha\otimes\beta-1)^2(e\otimes f)=0$ but $(\alpha\otimes\beta-1)(e\otimes f)\neq 0$, contradicting the semisimplicity of $\alpha\otimes\beta$ at $1$.

share|improve this answer

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.