11
$\begingroup$

Let $k$ be a field with algebraic closure $\bar{k}$.

Recall that a gerbe over $k$ is an algebraic stack $\mathcal{G}$ over $k$ such that the groupoid $\mathcal{G}(\bar{k})$ is connected. We say that $\mathcal{G}$ is neutral if $\mathcal{G}(k)$ is non-empty.

Now assume that $k = \mathbb{F}_q$ is a finite field.

Is any gerbe over $\mathbb{F}_q$ neutral?

Gerbes are classified by 2nd Galois cohomology, and $\mathbb{F}_q$ has cohomological dimension $1$ which is why I suspect this is the case. But there are a lot of subtleties to the theory, e.g. abelian vs non-abelian gerbes or banded vs non-banded gerbes. So there could be some technicalities I'm over looking (perhaps even my take on the definition of a gerbe is too naive?)

$\endgroup$
12
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Neat question! I would just fix the typo, but I kind of enjoy the idea of a theory with subtitles. $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Commented Jul 28, 2023 at 12:26
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Gerbes: The Final Frontier $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 28, 2023 at 14:10
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It might help to have the correct definition of a gerbe: A stack is a gerbe if (a) each $G_{S}$ is a groupoid (all morphisms are isomorphisms); (b) there exists an $S\neq\emptyset$ such that $G_{S}\neq\emptyset$; and (c) any two objects of $G_{S}$ are locally isomorphic. $\endgroup$
    – anon
    Commented Jul 28, 2023 at 18:00
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @DanielLoughran When I read the question, I assumed that a connected groupoid was required to be non-empty, like a connected topological space or a connected graph, for the same reason that 1 is not a prime number. So non-emptiness of $\mathcal{G}(\overline{k})$ is not missing (but maybe Niels uses a different definition of connectedness of groupoids). $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 29, 2023 at 16:51
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Yes I had also thought that but didnt want to come across as a smart arse :) In any case the important condition is anon's condition (c) and how it relates to my definition. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 29, 2023 at 17:51

1 Answer 1

14
$\begingroup$

Suppose that $x$ is an object of $\mathcal{G}$ over a finite extension $k'/k$. Denote $\sigma : k' \to k'$ the $q$-power frobenius. Let $x^\sigma$ be the pullback of of $x$ by $\sigma$. As $\mathcal{G}$ is a gerbe over $k$, after replacing $k'$ by a further finite extension, we may assume there is an isomorphism $\alpha : x^\sigma \to x$ over $k'$. If $n = [k' : k]$, then consider the automorphism $\beta = \alpha \circ \alpha^\sigma \circ \dotsb \circ \alpha^{\sigma^{n - 1}}$ of $x$ over $k'$. If $\beta = \operatorname{id}$, then $\alpha$ determines a descent datum and since $\mathcal{G}$ is a stack, we would be able to descend $x$ to an object over $k$ and the gerbe would be neutral.

OK, but perhaps $\beta$ is not trivial. However, then $\beta$ is an element of the automorphism group of $x$ over $k'$ which is (if we have a suitable finiteness assumption on $\mathcal{G}$, for example if $\mathcal{G}$ is quasi-separated — an assumption that always holds in practice) the $k'$-points of an algebraic group over $k'$. Thus $\beta$ has finite order as $k'$ is a finite field. Say $\beta$ has order $m \geq 1$. Then after replacing $k'$ by an extension of degree $m$, and going trough the whole process again, we end up with $\beta = \operatorname{id}$ and $\mathcal{G}$ is neutral.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ There are people (strange people) who assume almost no separatedness hypotheses of their stacks. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 28, 2023 at 20:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is a nice argument! $\endgroup$
    – Angelo
    Commented Jul 30, 2023 at 6:26
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I quite like how explicit this argument is and avoids a discussion of non-abelian cohomology. Thanks! I would still be very happy to see other answers which present an alternative viewpoint on using cohomology to address this problem. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 31, 2023 at 15:25
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ If the gerbe is étale, then the fact that the cohomological dimension of the Galois group is 1 does imply that it is neutralizable (see for example the proof of Lemma 4.4) in my paper with Giulio Bresciani "Fields of moduli and the arithmetic of tame quotient singularities". In the general case I am not sure how to proceed. $\endgroup$
    – Angelo
    Commented Aug 1, 2023 at 7:51

You must log in to answer this question.

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