13
$\begingroup$

Suppose $G$ is an algebraic group with an action $G\times X\to X$ on a scheme. Does the fixed locus (the set of points x∈X fixed by all of $G$) have a scheme structure? You can obviously define the functor $\operatorname{Fix}(T)=\{t\in X(T)\mid \text{$t$ is fixed by every element of $G(T)$}\}$. Is this functor always representable?

(This question was "broken off" of a compound question of mine after Scott Carnahan answered the other part so wonderfully that I had to accept his answer.)

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ As Scott points out below, Anton's definition does not give a functor. Perhaps the following is a better definition. Let Stab be the stabilizer group scheme over X (the fiber product of the action map GxX --> XxX with the diagonal). Let Fix be the subsheaf of points of X where Stab --> G is an isomorphism. (In Scott's example of Gm acting on A<sup>n</sup> this gives the origin, as it should.) $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 1, 2009 at 2:50

2 Answers 2

31
$\begingroup$

The question gives the "wrong" definition of $\operatorname{Fix}(T)$, hence the resulting confusion.

A more natural definition of the subfunctor $X^G$ of "$G$-fixed points in $X$" is
$$ X^G(T) = \{x \in X(T) \mid\text{$G_T$-action on $X_T$ fixes $x$}\} = \{x \in X(T) \mid\text{$G(T')$-action on $X(T') $ fixes $x$ for all $T$-schemes $T'$}\}. $$ (Of course, can just as well restriction to affine $T$ and $T'$ for "practical" purposes.)

By way of analogy with more classical situations, if the base is a field k then a moment's reflection with the case of finite k shows that
$\{x \in X(k) \mid\text{$ G(k)$ fixes $x$}\} $ is the "wrong" notion of $X^G(k)$, whereas $ \{x \in X(k) \mid\text{$G$-action on $X$ fixes $x$}\}$ is a "better" notion, and is what the above definition of $X^G(k)$ says.

From this point of view, if (for simplicity of notation) the base scheme is an affine $\operatorname{Spec}(k)$ for a commutative ring $k$ then the "scheme of $G$-fixed points" exists whenever $G$ is affine and $X$ is separated provided that $k[G]$ is $k$-free (or becomes so after faithfully flat extension on $k$). So this works when $k$ is a field, or any $k$ if $G$ is a $k$-torus (or "of multiplicative type"). See Proposition A.8.10(1) in the book Pseudo-reductive groups.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks a lot! I hope you don't mind I've edited your question to include a link to a pdf of the book. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 10, 2010 at 17:42
  • $\begingroup$ By the way, you can type math between dollar signs to get nice LaTeX-like output. For example, typing \$x\in X^G(T)\$ will produce $x\in X^G(T)$. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 10, 2010 at 17:44
  • $\begingroup$ The link in the post no longer works. Some version from CiteSeerX might still be accessible. And perhaps one might see some part of the text in Google Books. $\endgroup$ Commented May 9 at 13:00
7
$\begingroup$

Let F be the field with two elements, and let G = Gm,F. Let X = An, affine space of dimension n (at least 1), with G acting by dilations. Then G(F) is trivial, so Fix(F) = X(F), which has elements other than the origin. Fix(F4) is the origin, but it should contain all the F4-points that factor through the canonical map to Spec F. Fix is therefore not representable.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Yikes! I thought for sure the answer would be yes. It looks like the problem is basically that Fix is not a sheaf. Do you know if it becomes representable if you take the (fppf) sheafification? $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 29, 2009 at 3:05
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I think the problem is that Fix isn't even a functor. It doesn't seem to respect morphisms. $\endgroup$
    – S. Carnahan
    Commented Oct 29, 2009 at 3:25
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Double Yikes ! $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 29, 2009 at 18:48

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .