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

Let $X = (X_1 \rightrightarrows X_0)$ be a category in schemes, such that the source and target maps are both smooth. By an argument using finite limits we can construct a subscheme $X_1^{iso} \subset X_1$ such that $X^{iso} = (X_1^{iso} \rightrightarrows X_0)$ is a groupoid in schemes, and this is universal in the sense that any internal functor $Y\to X$ from a groupoid $Y$ factors (strictly!) through $X^{iso}$.

My question is, can we show that the source and target maps of $X^{iso}$, which are composites $X_1^{iso} \hookrightarrow X_1 \to X_0$, are also smooth? If the inclusion of the scheme of invertible arrows was an open immersion I think we would be done.

I would also be happy if the proof only went through for algebraic spaces instead of schemes (this might be easier, who knows!).

This is a vast generalisation of the question I asked at M.SE a while back, which dealt with the case that the category $X$ was a monoid. User 'Matt E' showed it was true for the case that the monoid was smooth and of finite type over a field.

share|improve this question
    
When you say "internal functor", do you mean the functor is made out of maps of schemes? –  S. Carnahan Jun 8 '12 at 9:38
    
That's exactly right: an arrow component and an object component. –  David Roberts Jun 8 '12 at 12:00
add comment

2 Answers

up vote 4 down vote accepted

The answer to your question is "yes". We need the following properties of $X_1^{iso}$:

  1. The map $X_1^{iso} \to X_1$ given by $(f,g) \mapsto f$ on scheme-valued points is a monomorphism. This is straightforward from uniqueness of inverses.

  2. $s,t: X_1 \to X_0$ are formally smooth. We use this for existence of a lift of an infinitesimal deformation.

  3. $s,t: X_1 \to X_0$ are locally of finite presentation. Using basic permanence properties (see e.g., Stacks 02KL with $X=S=X_1$ and $Y = X_0$), we find that $i: X_0 \to X_1$ is also locally of finite presentation. Combining with the fiber product construction, the two maps from $X_1^{iso}$ to $X_0$ are also lfp.

  4. Infinitesimal formal categories are formal groupoids. This is basically the statement that tangent spaces have abelian group structure.

We will show that the monomorphism $X_1^{iso} \to X_1$ is formally étale by rephrasing Matt E's argument in a bit more generality.

Let $j: U \to T$ be a closed immersion of affine schemes over $X_0$ defined by a square zero ideal $I$. Let $\bar{f}$ be a $U$-point of $X_1^{iso}$, and let $f$ be a $T$-point of $X_1$, such that $f \circ j$ is equal to $\bar{f}$ followed by the monomorphism. By assumption, $\bar{f}$ has an inverse $\bar{g}$, and by formal smoothness of both $s,t: X_1 \to X_0$, there exists some $T$-point $\tilde{g}$ of $X_1$ that restricts to the $U$-point $\bar{g}$.

We now translate by $\tilde{g}$ to bring us to an infinitesimal neighborhood of the origin. $\bar{g}$ and $\bar{f}$ are inverses as $U$-points, so $\tilde{g} f$ and $f \tilde{g}$ are $T$-points whose restriction to $U$ factors through identity. The square zero condition on $I$ gives an additive bijection between lifts of the identity and elements of $\operatorname{Hom}_{\mathcal{O}_U}(e_U^*\Omega_{X_1/X_0},I)$, where $e_U: U \to X_1$ is the identity section (SGAI Exp. 3 Proposition 5.1). Because the Hom space is an abelian group, we can easily form inverses by negating. Translating back yields $(\tilde{g} f)^{-1} \tilde{g} = \tilde{g} (f \tilde{g})^{-1}$ as the unique inverse of $f$.

To summarize, if $f$ is a $T$-point in $X_1$ whose restriction to $U$ factors through $X_1^{iso}$, then there is a unique $T$-point $(f,f^{-1})$ in $X_1^{iso}$ that maps to $f$. Thus, $X_1^{iso} \to X_1$ is formally étale, and the composition with either source or target $X_1 \to X_0$ is formally smooth and locally of finite presentation, hence smooth.

This argument works for algebraic spaces without change (although you may need to find new references).

share|improve this answer
    
Hi Scott - your construction of $X_1^{iso}$ is not quite right. In particular, there is no swap map which is an endomorphism of $X_1 \times_{X_0} X_1$. Martin has it correct (although slightly overcomplicated - see my comments to his answer) when he uses $X_1 \times_{X_0\times X_0} X_1$ which is the pullback of $(s,t)$ and $(t,s)$, the source and target maps. One also needs to use the product $X_0 \times X_0 \to X_1 \times X_1$ of the unit map with itself. Does your argument still work? –  David Roberts Jun 9 '12 at 0:08
    
Thanks for pointing that out. As it happens, my argument only needs the properties I have now enumerated. –  S. Carnahan Jun 9 '12 at 2:57
    
Hi Scott - I'm curious to know what happens if we additionally assume the source and target maps of the original category are etale... –  David Roberts Jun 9 '12 at 9:05
    
Actually would I be correct in assuming that the groupoid $X^{iso}$ has etale source and target maps? This should follow from $X_1^{iso} \to X_1$ being formally etale, both maps $X_1 \to X_0$ being formally etale, and both maps $X_1^{iso}$ being lfp. –  David Roberts Jun 9 '12 at 10:24
    
For the previous comment, I mean in the case that the category $X$ has etale source and target maps. –  David Roberts Jun 9 '12 at 10:27
show 1 more comment

I claim that the answer to your question is "yes" if $X_1$ is separated and umramified over our base scheme $S$. I'm not saying that that this (strong?) assumption is essential. It is just precisely what one needs in my easy proof:

First we have to define $X_1^{iso}$. Consider the fiber product $X_1 \times_{X_0 \times_S X_0} X_1$ with respect to $(t,s) : X_1 \to X_0 \times_S X_0$ and $X_0 \times_S X_0 \leftarrow X_1 : (s,t)$. Intuitively (and this holds verbatim in the functorial picture), it consists of morphisms $(f,g)$ such that we can compose $f \circ g$ and $g \circ f$. Define a morphism $\alpha : X_1 \times_{X_0 \times X_0} X_1 \to X_1 \times X_1 \times X_1 \times X_1$ by $\alpha(f,g)=(i(s(f)),i(s(g)),m(f,g),m(g,f))$, where $i : X_0 \to X_1$ is the unit and $m : X_1 \times_{t,X_0,s} X_1 \to X_1$ is the composition. Besides, we have the diagonal $\Delta_{X_1 \times X_1}$ mapping $(a,b) \mapsto (a,b,a,b)$. Then we define $X_1^{iso}$ by the cartesian square

$$\begin{matrix} X_1^{iso} & \rightarrow & X_1 \times X_1 \\\\ \downarrow j & & ~~ \downarrow\Delta_{X_1 \times X_1} \\\\ X_1 \times_{X_0 \times X_0} X_1 & \xrightarrow{\alpha} & X_1 \times X_1 \times X_1 \times X_1 \end{matrix}$$

Then $X_1^{iso}$ consists of pairs of morphisms $(f,g)$ such that $f \circ g$ and $g \circ f$ are well-defined and equal the identity. The map $X_1^{iso} \to X_1$ is defined as the composition $$X_1^{iso} \xrightarrow{j} X_1 \times_{X_0 \times X_0} X_1 \xrightarrow{\mathrm{pr_1}} X_1.$$ In general, this is a locally closed immersion. Now $X_1$ is separated, hence the same is true for $X_1 \times X_1$ and its diagonal is a closed immersion. Hence, $j$ is a closed immersion. Now, if I am not mistaken, in general $\Delta_X$ is formally smooth iff $X$ is formally unramified, and $\Delta_X$ is of finite presentation when $X$ is of finite presentation. Hence, by our assumption, $j$ is even smooth. And $\mathrm{pr}_1$ is some base change of the morphism $(s,t) : X_1 \to X_0 \times X_0$, which is smooth since it is the smooth diagonal $\Delta_{X_1}$ followed by the smooth morphism $s \times t : X_1 \times X_1 \to X_0 \times X_0$.

This shows that $X_1^{iso} \to X_1$ is smooth. In particular, the compositions $s,t : X_1^{iso} \to X_1 \rightrightarrows X_0$ are smooth.

share|improve this answer
    
Hi Martin, you can simplify your cartesian square so that the right hand vertical map is just $X_0\times X_0 \to X_1 \times X_1$ if you replace $\alpha$ by $\alpha'(f,g) = (m(f,g),m(g,f))$. But perhaps this doesn't help for your proof strategy. –  David Roberts Jun 9 '12 at 0:10
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.