Return to Question

added 67 characters in body

Source Link

edited Apr 13 at 18:37

Here's my dilemma: I'm trying to do some work with the pro-étale topology and would like to compute very basic instances of pro-étale cohomology to see what I can extract from a pro-étale Kummer exact sequence (I'd also like to get my hands dirty to get started with the pro-étale topology). The classical Kummer exact sequence is given at finite level by $$1\longrightarrow \mathcal{O^*}(X)/\mathcal{O^*}(X)^n\longrightarrow H^1(X,\mu_n)\longrightarrow Pic_n(X)\longrightarrow 1$$ for $X$ defined over an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero. This follows from the long exact sequence in cohomology. For the pro-étale setting, $H^1$ is still classifying $\mathbb{G}_m-$torsors over $X$, which should still be equivalent to line bundles/$\mathbb{G}_m-$torsors (I don't see how Tag 03P7 wouldn't also hold for the pro-étale site): so $H^1_{proét}(X)=Pic(X)$. But alas, I'm not sure if $H^2_{\text{proét}}(X,\mathbb{G}_m)=0$. I'm also wondering, what do we know about $H^1_{proet}(X,\mathbb{Z})$? I know this vanishes in etale cohomology whenever the etale fundamental group is profinite (always) (this follows from the equivalence of $H^1$ and continuous homs). So when $X$ is geometrically unibranch, $H^1_{proet}(X,\mathbb{Z})=0$ because in that case etale and pro-etale $\pi_1$ coincide. But I have no idea what holds in general. Maybe more generally, is there some relationship between $H_{et}$ and $H_{proet}$ that we can exploit to compute one or the other?

Here's my dilemma: I'm trying to do some work with the pro-étale topology and would like to compute very basic instances of pro-étale cohomology to see what I can extract from a pro-étale Kummer exact sequence (I'd also like to get my hands dirty to get started with the pro-étale topology). The classical Kummer exact sequence is given at finite level by $$1\longrightarrow \mathcal{O^*}(X)/\mathcal{O^*}(X)^n\longrightarrow H^1(X,\mu_n)\longrightarrow Pic_n(X)\longrightarrow 1$$ for $X$ defined over an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero. This follows from the long exact sequence in cohomology. For the pro-étale setting, $H^1$ is still classifying $\mathbb{G}_m-$torsors over $X$, which should still be equivalent to line bundles (I don't see how Tag 03P7 wouldn't also hold for the pro-étale site): so $H^1_{proét}(X)=Pic(X)$. But alas, I'm not sure if $H^2_{\text{proét}}(X,\mathbb{G}_m)=0$. I'm also wondering, what do we know about $H^1_{proet}(X,\mathbb{Z})$? I know this vanishes in etale cohomology whenever the etale fundamental group is profinite (this follows from the equivalence of $H^1$ and continuous homs). So when $X$ is geometrically unibranch, $H^1_{proet}(X,\mathbb{Z})=0$. But I have no idea what holds in general. Maybe more generally, is there some relationship between $H_{et}$ and $H_{proet}$ that we can exploit to compute one or the other?

Here's my dilemma: I'm trying to do some work with the pro-étale topology and would like to compute very basic instances of pro-étale cohomology to see what I can extract from a pro-étale Kummer exact sequence (I'd also like to get my hands dirty to get started with the pro-étale topology). The classical Kummer exact sequence is given at finite level by $$1\longrightarrow \mathcal{O^*}(X)/\mathcal{O^*}(X)^n\longrightarrow H^1(X,\mu_n)\longrightarrow Pic_n(X)\longrightarrow 1$$ for $X$ defined over an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero. This follows from the long exact sequence in cohomology. For the pro-étale setting, $H^1$ should still be equivalent to line bundles/$\mathbb{G}_m-$torsors (I don't see how Tag 03P7 wouldn't also hold for the pro-étale site): so $H^1_{proét}(X)=Pic(X)$. But alas, I'm not sure if $H^2_{\text{proét}}(X,\mathbb{G}_m)=0$. I'm also wondering, what do we know about $H^1_{proet}(X,\mathbb{Z})$? I know this vanishes in etale cohomology whenever the etale fundamental group is profinite (always) (this follows from the equivalence of $H^1$ and continuous homs). So when $X$ is geometrically unibranch, $H^1_{proet}(X,\mathbb{Z})=0$ because in that case etale and pro-etale $\pi_1$ coincide. But I have no idea what holds in general. Maybe more generally, is there some relationship between $H_{et}$ and $H_{proet}$ that we can exploit to compute one or the other?

Source Link

asked Apr 13 at 4:57

Krill

Some naive questions about pro-etale cohomology

Here's my dilemma: I'm trying to do some work with the pro-étale topology and would like to compute very basic instances of pro-étale cohomology to see what I can extract from a pro-étale Kummer exact sequence (I'd also like to get my hands dirty to get started with the pro-étale topology). The classical Kummer exact sequence is given at finite level by $$1\longrightarrow \mathcal{O^*}(X)/\mathcal{O^*}(X)^n\longrightarrow H^1(X,\mu_n)\longrightarrow Pic_n(X)\longrightarrow 1$$ for $X$ defined over an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero. This follows from the long exact sequence in cohomology. For the pro-étale setting, $H^1$ is still classifying $\mathbb{G}_m-$torsors over $X$, which should still be equivalent to line bundles (I don't see how Tag 03P7 wouldn't also hold for the pro-étale site): so $H^1_{proét}(X)=Pic(X)$. But alas, I'm not sure if $H^2_{\text{proét}}(X,\mathbb{G}_m)=0$. I'm also wondering, what do we know about $H^1_{proet}(X,\mathbb{Z})$? I know this vanishes in etale cohomology whenever the etale fundamental group is profinite (this follows from the equivalence of $H^1$ and continuous homs). So when $X$ is geometrically unibranch, $H^1_{proet}(X,\mathbb{Z})=0$. But I have no idea what holds in general. Maybe more generally, is there some relationship between $H_{et}$ and $H_{proet}$ that we can exploit to compute one or the other?

ag.algebraic-geometry