3
$\begingroup$

Tits' Corvallis article introduces a map on special fibers of group schemes associated to the elements fixing sets pointwise in a building from $\bar{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}$ to $\bar{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega'}}$ where $\Omega' \subset \Omega$, but that is all he does with this map. In particular there is nothing about injectivity. Is it injective when we look at the maximal reductive quotients of the $\mathcal{P}$? By the discussion in $3.5$ it is enough to answer for facets.

I've looked in Bruhat-Tits' 5 articles and have not found anything about this, but it is very possible I am not looking in the right places for it.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
5
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It is 'Tits', not 'Tit'. The map is injective on reductive quotients. If I've got my language right, this is Proposition 4.6.24(i) of BT2. $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Oct 4, 2017 at 1:54
  • $\begingroup$ Hmm, sorry, I went back and forth a couple of times. I thought it was Proposition 4.6.25(ii), then Proposition 4.6.24(i), but now I think that neither quite says it. I'm sure it's in that area, though. $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Oct 4, 2017 at 2:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Anyway (and now I'll shut up until I have a reference), I suspect that the thing to do is to show that it's injective on the big cell, which is essentially a product of the torus and the root groups, on each of which the map is the identity (this, more or less I think, by Proposition 4.6.25(ii) after all). $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Oct 4, 2017 at 2:04
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! I fixed my error and will take a look there. Hopefully the quasisplit assumption gets relaxed later on $\endgroup$
    – Watson Ladd
    Oct 4, 2017 at 14:22
  • $\begingroup$ Indeed, that's what Chapter 5 is about. Any $k$-group becomes quasisplit over the strict Henselisation of $k$, and then the group schemes underlying the parahorics in the group of $k$-rational points are just defined by Galois descent. I seem to remember that there's some theorem in Chapter 5 that says almost literally "every statement in (a specific list of statements from) Chapter 4 is still true without the quasisplitness assumption", but I can't find it now. $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Oct 4, 2017 at 18:43

0

Reset to default

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.