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

The automorphism group of the algebra of $n$-dimensional matrices over a field $K$ is $PGL_n(K)$. The automorphism group of $n-1$-dimensional projective space over $K$ is also $PGL_n(K)$. Therefore, twists of them over $\bar{K}$ are both classified by the same Galois cohomology group, $H^1(PGL_n(K))$.

Twists of $M_n(K)$ are central simple algebras of rank $n^2$. Twists of $K\mathbb P^{n-1}$ are projective varieties geometrically isomorphic to $\mathbb P^{n-1}$.

There should be a bijection between these two sets.

How explicit and geometrically/algebraically nice can we make it?

What properties of one object correspond to properties of the other?

share|improve this question
    
I don't think it quite answers your question, but you may want to look at math.uga.edu/~pete/trivial2003.pdf –  Theo Johnson-Freyd Apr 12 '12 at 2:28

1 Answer 1

up vote 13 down vote accepted

References:

Artin, M. Brauer-Severi varieties. Brauer groups in ring theory and algebraic geometry (Wilrijk, 1981), pp. 194–210, Lecture Notes in Math., 917, Springer, Berlin-New York, 1982.

Knus, Max-Albert; Merkurjev, Alexander; Rost, Markus; Tignol, Jean-Pierre The Book of Involutions. (English summary) With a preface in French by J. Tits. American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications, 44. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1998

Let $A$ be a central simple $K$-algebra of degree $n$ (i.e., of rank $n^2$). Let $Gr(n, A)$ be the subspace of the grassmannian of rank $n$ dimensional subspaces. Let $X \subset Gr(n, A)$ be the subvariety of subspaces which are also right ideals of $A$. Then $X$ is the corresponding space, called the Severi-Brauer, Brauer-Severi, or Chatelet variety of $A$, and is denoted here by $SB(A)$.

When $A = End_K(V)$ is trivial, every right ideal of $A$ of dimension n (as a $K$-vector space) is of the form $\operatorname{Hom}_K(V, U)$, where $U$ is a 1-dimensional vector space. So the space is $\mathbb{P}_K(V)$.

I am not sure of an explanation in the other direction as nice. It is the case that for a Severi-Brauer variety $SB(A)$, you can consider the following subbundle $\mathcal{I}$ of the constant bundle $SB(A) \times A$. The bundle $\mathcal{I}$ consists of pairs $(I, a)$, where $a \in I$. Then $\mathcal{I}$ is a locally free of rank $n$ and the global endomorphism ring $\operatorname{End}_{SB(A)}(\mathcal{I})$ is isomorphic to $A$ (or the opposite algebra of $A$, I can't remember which).

However, this doesn't answer your question of how to start with a twist of $\mathbb{P}^{n-1}$ and nicely produce a central simple algebra of rank $n^2$. I think for that you may have to argue by galois descent.

share|improve this answer
6  
One possible construction of the algebra: given a twisted form P of P^{n-1}, let J be the unique (up to non-unique isomorphism) non-split extension of O_P by Omega^1_P (it's O(-1)^n geometrically). The global sections of End(J) is a central simple algebra A. Moreover, using J, one can build an isomorphism between P and the space P_A defined by P_A(S) = all triples (V,phi,f) where V is a rank n vector bundle on S, phi is an isomorphism End(V) =~ A_S, and f is a quotient V --->> O_S. One can also check that P_A is a Brauer-Severi variety, giving an alternative to the SB(A) construction above. –  Bhargav Apr 12 '12 at 3:47
2  
@Bhargav -- The first part of your comment is correct: the standard way to reconstruct the central simple algebra from the Severi-Brauer variety is to consider the central extension of the algebra of vector fields on the Severi-Brauer variety. The second part of your comment is not quite correct, depending on how you are defining the moduli space of triples: your construction will typically give a $\mu_n$-gerbe over the Severi-Brauer variety (consider the case where $A$ is already $\text{End}(W)$). The coarse moduli space is the Sever-Brauer variety, of course. –  Jason Starr Apr 12 '12 at 12:09
    
@Jason: Oops, thanks for catching that! –  Bhargav Apr 12 '12 at 16:29
2  
@Bhargav: Now that I understand better what you were proposing, I realize that my objection is wrong. I believe your original proposal is correct as stated. –  Jason Starr Apr 14 '12 at 0:49
    
@Bhargav: thanks for your addition. It's what I didn't want to write, because I wasn't as familiar with the descent argument. My bundle I and your bundle J are the same, right? –  mark Apr 15 '12 at 14:00

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.