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

Given a representable, surjective morphism of Artin stacks $\phi:\mathcal{F}\to\mathcal{G}$, is it true (like it happens for schemes) that $\dim\mathcal{G}\leq\dim\mathcal{F}$?

share|cite|improve this question
By surjective, do you mean that the functors making up the pseudonatural transformation $\phi_X:\mathcal{F}(X)\to \mathcal{G}(X)$ for each affine scheme $X$ are full and essentially surjective? – Harry Gindi Apr 19 '11 at 19:04
I mean what is explained in the answer – ginevra86 Apr 20 '11 at 8:41
up vote 4 down vote accepted

No. $B\mathbb{G}_m\to\mathrm{pt}$ is surjective with source of dimension -1.

As commented below this is nonsense, since this is not representable.

Let me try to make amends for my flip response to the question. Of course what I am about to write could be equally stupid. However, $\phi$ surjective means that the induced map $\mathcal{F}\times_{\mathcal{G}}G\to G$ is surjective, where $G\to \mathcal{G}$ is smooth surjective with $G$ a scheme. Suppose that the dimension of $G$ is $n$ and that of the scheme $\mathcal{F}\times_{\mathcal{G}}G$ is $n+p$ where $p\geq 0$. Then the dimension of $\mathcal{G}$ is $n-q$ where $q$ is the relative dimension of the smooth surjective morphism $G\times_{\mathcal{G}}G\to G$. Now $\mathcal{F}\times_{\mathcal{G}}G\to\mathcal{F}$ is smooth and surjective. Furthermore: $$(\mathcal{F}\times_{\mathcal{G}}G)\times_\mathcal{F}(\mathcal{F}\times_{\mathcal{G}}G)\simeq (\mathcal{F}\times_{\mathcal{G}}G)\times_G(G\times_\mathcal{G}G)$$ and hence is of relative dimension $q$ over $(\mathcal{F}\times_{\mathcal{G}}G)$. Therefore $$\mathrm{dim}(\mathcal{F})= n+p-q\geq n-q=\mathrm{dim}(\mathcal{G}).$$

share|cite|improve this answer
Your map is not representable. – Mike Skirvin Apr 19 '11 at 18:58
Good point, I wasn't paying attention. – user10849 Apr 19 '11 at 19:36
I think your argument completes the one I was trying to give, although I think I still need to read your answer more carefully. The key point I seemed to be missing is in your first formula, which indicates that the automorphisms over $\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{G}$ have the same dimension. – Mike Skirvin Apr 19 '11 at 21:09
The argument does not assert that the \emph{automorphisms} over $\mathcal F$ and $\mathcal G$ have the same dimension. You should think of the fiber of $G\times_{\mathcal{G}}G\to G$ over a point $g$ of $G$ as the morphisms with source (or target) $g$. That of course combines that dimension of the automorphisms with the dimension of the objects -- and is better behaved, since the dimension of the space of automorphisms can (and does) jump. – user10849 Apr 19 '11 at 22:24
Thank you! Your answer and your comment are very clear! – ginevra86 Apr 20 '11 at 8:46

This is not a complete answer, but should hopefully be a start. Given a point $x \in \mathcal{F}$, the dimension of $\mathcal{F}$ at $x$ is given by picking an atlas $X$ of $\mathcal{F}$, and then computing \begin{equation} dim_x(\mathcal{F}) = dim_x(X) - dim(Aut_{\mathcal{F}}(x)). \end{equation}

The dimension of $\mathcal{F}$ is then the supremum of its dimension at all its points. Given surjective, representable $\phi:\mathcal{F} \to \mathcal{G}$, we obtain a surjective map of atlases $X \to Y$. Therefore $dim_x(X) \geq dim_{\phi(x)}(Y)$ for all points $x$.

So, we're reduced to comparing $Aut_{\mathcal{F}}(x)$ to $Aut_{\mathcal{G}}(\phi(x))$. There is necessarily a surjection $Aut_{\mathcal{F}}(x) \to Aut_{\mathcal{G}}(\phi(x))$, so there is a question of how much larger the automorphisms of $x$ in $\mathcal{F}$ are compared to those of $\phi(x)$ in $\mathcal{G}$. That is, we would need to verify that \begin{equation} dim_x(X) - dim_{\phi(x)}(Y) \geq dim(Aut_{\mathcal{F}}(x)) - dim(Aut_{\mathcal{G}}(\phi(x))) \end{equation}

holds for all points $x$. I feel like this should be true just because my possibly faulty intuition says that the relative dimension of the automorphisms of a surjective, representable map won't exceed the relative dimension of the atlases. However, I don't see how to prove it right now.

Does anyone know how to prove this, or provide a counterexample?

share|cite|improve this answer

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.