5
$\begingroup$

Let G be a connected group acting on a space X. All spaces should be reasonable, so e.g. G is a complex affine algebraic group acting on an algebraic variety X, with everything done using the usual complex topology.

Then for any coefficient field k, there is an equivariant derived category $D^b_G(X;k)$, together with a forgetful functor to $D^b(X;k)$.

Can you give an example of an indecomposable object in $D^b_G(X;k)$ which becomes decomposable in $D^b(X;k)$?

$\endgroup$
8
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ What is a decomposable object? One that can be written as a non-trivial direct sum? In that case, any non zero irreducible representation of $G$ over $k$ (pulled-back to $X$ would do the trick (?). $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 21, 2021 at 12:36
  • $\begingroup$ I agree - G is connected, so there aren’t any representations of G in the classical sense - the setting is constructible derived categories so only see reps of the homotopy type of G, but there are lots of these. Eg take any class in H^*(BG,k), it represents a nontrivial extension of k by a shift of k as G representation. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 21, 2021 at 14:12
  • $\begingroup$ G is connected. The forgetful functor on the heart of the perverse or ordinary t-structure is faithful (note: this is a statement about $Ext^0$ not higher Ext). $\endgroup$
    – rvk
    Commented Nov 21, 2021 at 19:18
  • $\begingroup$ @DamianRössler The OP has connected group in the question. Local systems are reps of $\pi_1(BG) = \pi_0(G) = 1$. $\endgroup$
    – rvk
    Commented Nov 21, 2021 at 19:22
  • $\begingroup$ @rvk I agree nothing is happening on the level of hearts (ie faithful as you say) but the question asks about general indecomposable objects, where there's plenty being forgotten even for $X=pt$ and $G=G_m$. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 21, 2021 at 19:38

3 Answers 3

6
$\begingroup$

Take $X=pt$ and $G=G_m$ and $k$ to have characteristic zero. The equivariant derived category in this case is equivalent to modules for the homology of the circle, ie exterior algebra on a generator in degree -1. The augmentation module (trivial representation of $G$) has self-Exts given by $H^*(BG_m)=k[u]$, polynomials on a variable of degree 2. So one can make interesting indecomposable objects as self-extensions of the trivial rep and they all become decomposable when we forget the $G$ action (ie pull back to a point) -- for example there's a canonical extension of $k$ by $k[1]$ corresponding to $u$ itself. This is just the pushforward of the constant sheaf from $X$ to $BG_m$, aka the "regular representation", action of $G_m$ on its own cohomology.

Edit: Some elaboration in response to comments. Let $G$ be any group (topological or algebraic, depending on what setting you're in), and let's stick to char. 0 to be safe. The (dg-enhanced) equivariant derived category of a point is equivalent to modules for the dg algebra $C_*(G)$ of chains on $G$ under convolution (the ``topological group algebra"). Let's call this category topological representations of $G$ (in the de Rham setting of D-modules we can equivalently speak of algebraic reps of $G$ with a trivialization of the Lie algebra action). Pullback to a point is the forgetful functor from topological reps of $G$ to chain complexes.

This category contains the trivial representation = augmentation module = constant sheaf on $BG$. Its Ext algebra is $C^*(BG)$, cochains on $BG$ (or $H^*_G(pt)$ on level of cohomology).

For $G$ connected as in the question, the trivial module is a ``generator" in a weak sense (it's not compact). This is expressed eg by Koszul duality, given by Ext from the trivial module, relating $C_*(G)-mod$ and $C^*(BG)-mod$ -- an equivalence with suitable boundedness or after suitable completions. In any case we can produce representations by iterated extensions (cones of self maps) of the augmentation (again being careful about noncompactness/boundedness issues).

So to find examples as in the question we just need to find indecomposable $C_*(G)$-modules of dim > 1, since all such are certainly decomposable in $Vect_k$. Taking a nonzero self-Ext of the trivial module -- aka nonzero cohomology class of $BG$ -- and taking its cone we get examples.

$\endgroup$
12
  • $\begingroup$ While this example might work, you seem to be conflating the dg-derived category of the (formal) dg algebra $H^*_{G_m}$ with the derived category of its modules. I don’t see how you translate, derived Ext in the dg-derived category into Yoneda style extensions of complexes under the equivalence. $\endgroup$
    – rvk
    Commented Nov 21, 2021 at 21:18
  • $\begingroup$ In fact, can you explain, "The augmentation module (trivial representation of $G$) has self Exts given by $H^*(BG_m)$". The trivial module for $G_m$ has no self-ext (say over the complex numbers) in any degree. Sure $H^*(BG_m)= H^*(P^{\infty})$ has plenty of non-zero terms, but I again maintain that conflating modules for $H^*(BG)$ with the dg-derived category of this dg-algebra will get you in trouble. For instance, the "constant sheaf" (i.e., monoidal unit) in $D_G(pt)$ corresponds to the dg-algebra $H^*(BG)$ itself. This stays indecomposable under the forgetful functor. $\endgroup$
    – rvk
    Commented Nov 21, 2021 at 22:42
  • $\begingroup$ In general, under the equivalence with dg-modules the forget functor applied to a dg-$H^*(BG)$-module $M$ is given by $k\otimes M$ (tensor along augmentation). It is quite easy for $M$ to have plenty of stuff in non-zero degree as shown by the case of $H^*(BG)$ itself (all of which gets killed under the forgetful functor) be indecomposable and stay indecomposable under the forgetful functor. Note: I am ignoring boundedness issues. $\endgroup$
    – rvk
    Commented Nov 21, 2021 at 22:43
  • $\begingroup$ In slightly more mundane terms: take a generator of $H^2(P^{\infty})$ and produce a complex $M$ in $D_{G_m}(pt)$ that corresponds to this map $k \to k[2]$ such that $M$ is indecomposable but $For(M)$ splits up. I don't know how to do this, and would be grateful if you explained how this is done. $\endgroup$
    – rvk
    Commented Nov 21, 2021 at 22:50
  • $\begingroup$ @rvk I'm not sure I follow exactly what you're worried about but hopefully the updated answer addresses this. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 22, 2021 at 0:05
4
$\begingroup$

Take $G_m$ acting on itself via $z\mapsto z^2$, and take $k$ to be of characteristic $2$. The equivariant derived category here is the derived category of $\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$-modules. Now take the regular representation. It’s indecomposable. If you forget the equivariant structure it decomposes.

Note: this gives you something in the heart of your favorite t-structures that satisfies the requirements, or if you like you can use Yoneda Ext to produce a genuine complex in $D^b_{G_m}(G_m) = D^b_{\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}}(pt)$ satisfying your requirements. Doesn’t contradict my remark about the forgetful functor being faithful on t-structures (since splitting has to do with existence of idempotents, rather than morphisms becoming $0$).

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

This is essentially a "down to earth" version of what David Ben-Zvi is saying. The object/example produced below essentially matches with what David is suggesting. I am just producing it "geometrically" to convince anyone interested that it is not a particularly strange beast and one doesn't need to know about dg-models or Koszul duality.

Let $\mathbb{G}_m$ act on itself by left multiplication. Let $a\colon \mathbb{G}_m\to pt$ be the canonical map. Consider the "silly" diagram (the functor $a_*$ is derived):

$\require{AMScd}$ \begin{CD} D^b_{\mathbb{G}_m}(\mathbb{G}_m) @>{For}>> D^b(\mathbb{G}_m)\\ @VV{a_*}V @VV{a_*}V\\ D^b_{\mathbb{G}_m}(pt) @>{For}>> D^b(pt) \end{CD}

This diagram commutes up to canonical isomorphism (essentially by construction/definition of the equivariant derived category). Write $\underline{k}$ for the (equivariant) constant sheaf on $\mathbb{G}_m$ (i.e., monoidal unit). Clearly,

$$ For(a_*\underline{k})= a_*For(\underline{k}) = H^*(\mathbb{G}_m)= k\oplus k[-1] $$

However, $a_*\underline{k}$ is indecomposable, because

$$Hom(k, a_*\underline{k}) = H^*_{\mathbb{G}_m}(\mathbb{G}_m) = k$$

Here, the first "$k$" on the left hand side is the constant sheaf in $D^b_{\mathbb{G}_m}(pt)$ (this object generates the whole triangulated category, so it will detect decompositions), and as before the "$k$" on the far right hand side is just the field of coefficients.

The point, from the Koszul dual/algebraic perspective, is that any situation with torsion (i.e., where you can't obtain ordinary cohomology from equivariant cohomology) will lead to this. The characteristic 2 example I gave earlier is also "torsion phenomenon" but in a different sense.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

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