2
$\begingroup$

I have asked this question on stackexchange and have not received any answers or comments after 2 days of it being there.

I read somewhere that the following statement is correct. A proof or any hint as to how to prove it would be helpful.

Let $G$ be a connected reductive group defined over $k$(maynot be of characteristic 0). Let $H$ be a connected normal subgroup of $G\times \text{spec}\overline{k}$(apriori $H$ is only defined over $\overline{k}$). Then $H$ is defined over a finite 'separable' extension of $k$.

Also there must be counterexamples where this is not true.

Thanks.

$\endgroup$
9
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Many results of this type are in SGA 3. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 18, 2017 at 12:58
  • $\begingroup$ @JasonStarr Thanks. Could you point me to the right section of the book? I am not familiar with the material there. $\endgroup$
    – random123
    Commented Sep 18, 2017 at 13:00
  • $\begingroup$ The Expos'e that I recommend is Expos'e XXIV, p. 323, in SGA 3_3. This includes many results about existence of splittings, existence of isomorphisms, etc., after etale base change. Your connected normal group is necessarily a subgroup of the solvable radical, which is a group of multiplicative type. So if you form the split form $G'$ of your group, the necessary etale base change should follow from Corollaire 1.3, p. 331. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 18, 2017 at 13:16
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @JasonStarr: it is not true that $H$ (if proper and not equal to the derived group) must be a subgroup of the solvable radical; note also that there is no irreducibility condition on the root system of $G_{\overline{k}}$. Using that $G$ becomes split over a finite separable extension, a reference for the question posed via arguments over fields is Lemma 20.3 in Borel's textbook on linear algebraic groups; I'll come back later to give another reference for a proof (akin to 14.10 in Borel's book: relating such $H$ to irreducible components of the root system when $G$ is split semisimple). $\endgroup$
    – nfdc23
    Commented Sep 18, 2017 at 14:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @random123. I wrote the correct page, but the corollary is actually Corollaire 1.9. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 18, 2017 at 17:33

2 Answers 2

5
$\begingroup$

First, some easy reduction steps to pass to the case where $G$ is semisimple. Let $T$ be a maximal $k$-torus in $G$, and pass to a finite separable extension of $k$ so that $T$ is split. We know that $H$ is the almost-direct product $\mathscr{D}(H) \cdot Z$ for a subtorus $Z \subset T_{\overline{k}}$ that is the maximal central $\overline{k}$-torus in $H$. But $T$ is $k$-split (by our initial finite separable extension on $k$), so $Z = S_{\overline{k}}$ for a unique $k$-subtorus $S \subset T$. Hence, our original task for $H$ is reduced to the same for $\mathscr{D}(H)$ that is normal in $\mathscr{D}(G_{\overline{k}}) = \mathscr{D}(G)_{\overline{k}}$. Hence, we can replace $G$ with $\mathscr{D}(G)$ and $H$ with $\mathscr{D}(H)$ to reduce to the case that $G$ is semisimple, and even $k$-split.

In the split case, one can prove something much more precise: for each irreducible component $\Phi_i$ of the root system $\Phi = \Phi(G,T)$ (assume $G \ne 1$, so $\Phi$ is non-empty and hence admits irreducible components), the $k$-group $G_i \subset G$ generated by the root groups $U_a$ for $a \in \Phi_i$ is connected semisimple with root system (relative to its split maximal $k$-torus $T_i := T \cap G_i$) naturally identified with $\Phi_i$, and the $G_i$'s satisfy the following properties: (i) they are precisely the minimal non-trivial smooth connected normal $k$-subgroups of $G$, (ii) the $G_i$'s pairwise commute and for each subset $J$ of the set $I$ of $i$'s the map $\prod_{i\in J} G_i \rightarrow G$ is a central isogeny onto a smooth connected normal $k$-subgroup $G_J \subset G$, (iii) each smooth connected normal $k$-subgroup of $G$ coincides with $G_J$ for a unique $J$, (iv) each $G_i$ has no nontrivial smooth connected normal $k$-subgroup.

Note that in view of the formulation, to prove (i)-(iv) it suffices to work over $\overline{k}$! And once that is done, we see via (iii) that the original question is answered in a more precise form. (One could prove a less precise version in which we only show the descent of $H$ to a $k$-subgroup by generating $H$ by some $T_{\overline{k}}$-root groups without establishing the link to subsets of the set of irreducible components of the root system. But this would not be as satisfying.) The most substantial ingredient in the proof is (iv). For a complete proof of (i)-(iv), see 10.2 in https://www.ams.org/open-math-notes/omn-view-listing?listingId=110663 Of course, aside from issues of algebro-geometric technique, everything done there is quite classical (and 14.10 in Borel's textbook is a "classic" reference for it). It is mentioned by @anon that this is all done in Milne's new book, but I don't have a copy of that book (yet) and so don't know a precise reference within it.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. What would be a possible counter-example to the statement? $\endgroup$
    – random123
    Commented Sep 19, 2017 at 6:32
  • $\begingroup$ What do you mean by asking for a counterexample? Both answers are explaining that your question admits no counterexample. $\endgroup$
    – nfdc23
    Commented Sep 19, 2017 at 13:13
  • $\begingroup$ I mean example of a non reductive group with a normal subgroup not defined over a finite separable extension. $\endgroup$
    – random123
    Commented Sep 19, 2017 at 13:38
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ A big class of examples is the unipotent radical $H$ when $G$ is non-reductive but pseudo-reductive. For example, if $k'/k$ is a nontrivial non-separable finite extension of fields (take $k=k_s$ if you wish; not necessary) and $G'$ is a connected reductive $k'$-group $\ne 1$ then the Weil restriction $G={\rm{R}}_{k'/k}(G')$ is smooth connected affine and not reductive (nonzero nilpotents in $k'\otimes_k \overline{k}$ force $\mathscr{R}_u(G_{\overline{k}})\ne 1$) but the so-called $k$-unipotent radical of $G$ is trivial. See Prop. 1.1.10 and Example 1.6.1 in the book Pseudo-reductive Groups. $\endgroup$
    – nfdc23
    Commented Sep 19, 2017 at 14:07
3
$\begingroup$

After passing to a finite separable extension of the base field, we may suppose that the reductive group is split. After passing to a finite covering, we may suppose that it is the product of a simply connected semisimple group $G$ and a torus. The torus presents no problem. After passing to a finite separable extension, we may suppose that G is a product of absolutely almost-simple normal subgroups, so it all comes down to looking at the subgroups of the centre of $G$, but this presents no problem.

Added: All the statements used can be found, for example, in this book

$\endgroup$
1
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ The final sentence above is omitting a significant aspect of the proof: in the split semisimple case irreducibility of the root system implies "absolutely almost-simple", and a smooth connected normal $k$-subgroup of a direct product of absolutely almost-simple connected semisimple $k$-groups must be a "sub-product" of those $k$-groups (but as you likely know well, this can all be deduced from 14.10 in Borel's textbook on linear algebraic groups, and one can avoid bringing in the simply connected central cover of the derived group to reach a direct product). $\endgroup$
    – nfdc23
    Commented Sep 18, 2017 at 14:09

You must log in to answer this question.

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