Skip to main content
MathOverflow

Return to Question

TeX fixes
Source Link
LSpice
LSpice
  • 12.9k
  • 4
  • 45
  • 69

When is the etale cohomology of Sym$^n$\mathrm{Sym}^n(X)$ isomorphic to the $\Sigma_n$-invariants in the etaleétale cohomology of $X^n$?

Suppose $X$ is a smooth projective variety defined over an arbitrary algebraically closed field $k$, and consider the action of $\Sigma_n$ on the $n$-fold product $X^n$. Is it true that $H_{\acute{e}t}^i(\mathrm{Sym}^n(X),\mathbb{Q}_\ell)\cong H_{\acute{e}t}^i(X^n,\mathbb{Q}_\ell)^{\Sigma_n}$? In particular, what happens in the case where char$\,k=p>0$$\operatorname{char} k=p>0$?

In Grothendieck's TohokuToh^oku paper Sec. 5.2, he determines sufficient conditions to ensure that, for a topological space $X$ with a finite group $G$ acting on it (not necessarily faithfully), $H^i(X/G,\mathcal{A})\cong H^i(X,\mathcal{A})^G$ for a sheaf $\mathcal{A}$ (Cor. to Prop. 5.2.3). In characteristic zero, comparison theorems allow me to appeal to this result. In positive characteristic, if the variety lifts to characteristic zero, then I can make the same argument, but it seems like there ought to be a direct proof of this fact.

I am particularly interested in when $X$ is a surface, but would be happy to know of any general results (with references) similar to Grothendieck's result above.

When is the etale cohomology of Sym$^n(X)$ isomorphic to the $\Sigma_n$-invariants in the etale cohomology of $X^n$?

Suppose $X$ is a smooth projective variety defined over an arbitrary algebraically closed field $k$, and consider the action of $\Sigma_n$ on the $n$-fold product $X^n$. Is it true that $H_{\acute{e}t}^i(\mathrm{Sym}^n(X),\mathbb{Q}_\ell)\cong H_{\acute{e}t}^i(X^n,\mathbb{Q}_\ell)^{\Sigma_n}$? In particular, what happens in the case where char$\,k=p>0$?

In Grothendieck's Tohoku paper Sec. 5.2, he determines sufficient conditions to ensure that, for a topological space $X$ with a finite group $G$ acting on it (not necessarily faithfully), $H^i(X/G,\mathcal{A})\cong H^i(X,\mathcal{A})^G$ for a sheaf $\mathcal{A}$ (Cor. to Prop. 5.2.3). In characteristic zero, comparison theorems allow me to appeal to this result. In positive characteristic, if the variety lifts to characteristic zero, then I can make the same argument, but it seems like there ought to be a direct proof of this fact.

I am particularly interested in when $X$ is a surface, but would be happy to know of any general results (with references) similar to Grothendieck's result above.

When is the etale cohomology of $\mathrm{Sym}^n(X)$ isomorphic to the $\Sigma_n$-invariants in the étale cohomology of $X^n$?

Suppose $X$ is a smooth projective variety defined over an arbitrary algebraically closed field $k$, and consider the action of $\Sigma_n$ on the $n$-fold product $X^n$. Is it true that $H_{\acute{e}t}^i(\mathrm{Sym}^n(X),\mathbb{Q}_\ell)\cong H_{\acute{e}t}^i(X^n,\mathbb{Q}_\ell)^{\Sigma_n}$? In particular, what happens in the case where $\operatorname{char} k=p>0$?

In Grothendieck's Toh^oku paper Sec. 5.2, he determines sufficient conditions to ensure that, for a topological space $X$ with a finite group $G$ acting on it (not necessarily faithfully), $H^i(X/G,\mathcal{A})\cong H^i(X,\mathcal{A})^G$ for a sheaf $\mathcal{A}$ (Cor. to Prop. 5.2.3). In characteristic zero, comparison theorems allow me to appeal to this result. In positive characteristic, if the variety lifts to characteristic zero, then I can make the same argument, but it seems like there ought to be a direct proof of this fact.

I am particularly interested in when $X$ is a surface, but would be happy to know of any general results (with references) similar to Grothendieck's result above.

Source Link
Sarah Frei
Sarah Frei
  • 233
  • 1
  • 3

When is the etale cohomology of Sym$^n(X)$ isomorphic to the $\Sigma_n$-invariants in the etale cohomology of $X^n$?

Suppose $X$ is a smooth projective variety defined over an arbitrary algebraically closed field $k$, and consider the action of $\Sigma_n$ on the $n$-fold product $X^n$. Is it true that $H_{\acute{e}t}^i(\mathrm{Sym}^n(X),\mathbb{Q}_\ell)\cong H_{\acute{e}t}^i(X^n,\mathbb{Q}_\ell)^{\Sigma_n}$? In particular, what happens in the case where char$\,k=p>0$?

In Grothendieck's Tohoku paper Sec. 5.2, he determines sufficient conditions to ensure that, for a topological space $X$ with a finite group $G$ acting on it (not necessarily faithfully), $H^i(X/G,\mathcal{A})\cong H^i(X,\mathcal{A})^G$ for a sheaf $\mathcal{A}$ (Cor. to Prop. 5.2.3). In characteristic zero, comparison theorems allow me to appeal to this result. In positive characteristic, if the variety lifts to characteristic zero, then I can make the same argument, but it seems like there ought to be a direct proof of this fact.

I am particularly interested in when $X$ is a surface, but would be happy to know of any general results (with references) similar to Grothendieck's result above.