Let $F$ be a field and $A$ be an $F$-central simple algebra of degree $n$. Let $0< k< n$ and let $SB_k(A)$ denote the generalized Severi-Brauer variety: if $E/F$ is a field extension, $SB_k(A)(E)$ consists of the right ideals of dimension $kn$ of $A_E=A\otimes_F E$.

If $A$ is split, i.e. $A\simeq M_n(F)$, then $SB_k(A)=Gr(k,n)$, the Grassmannian.

Is the converse true? If not, can you provide a counterexample?

The result is true if $k=1$, since $SB_k(A)$ has a rational point over $F$ iff the index of $A$ divides $k$, and Grassmannians have rational points over $F$.

This is cross-posted from Math.SE, where I posted it some days ago, with a few upvotes but no answers or comments. I hope it is ok for MO. https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/618616/when-are-generalized-severi-brauer-varieties-trivial


2 Answers 2


Let's first phrase this in terms of non-abelian cohomology. You have a map $$H^1(F, PGL_n)\to H^1(F, \operatorname{Aut}(Gr(k, n)))$$ given by sending a central simple algebra to the associated generalized Severi-Brauer. You'd like to know if this map has trivial kernel (it's just a map of pointed sets, so by this I just mean that the preimage of the distinguished element is a singleton). If $n\not=2k$, a theorem of Chow tells us that the obvious map $PGL_n\to \operatorname{Aut}(Gr(k, n))$ is an isomorphism; it's not hard to see that the map on $H^1$ is induced by this map, hence it is also an isomorphism.

If $n=2k$, the map $PGL_n\to \operatorname{Aut}(Gr(k, n))$ is a closed embedding with image a normal subgroup of index $2$ (by the same theorem of Chow). So there is an exact sequence (of pointed sets) $$H^0(F, \operatorname{Aut}(Gr(k, n)))\to H^0(F, \operatorname{Aut}(Gr(k, n))/PGL_n)\to H^1(F, PGL_n)\to H^1(F,\operatorname{Aut}(Gr(k, n))).$$

But the first map is surjective (it's just the component map, since both components of $\operatorname{Aut}(Gr(k, n))$ have rational points) so again the map in question has trivial kernel.

So it looks like the converse is indeed true, if I've remembered Chow's description of $\operatorname{Aut}(Gr(k, n))$ correctly.

  • $\begingroup$ Actually, now that I think about it, we don't need to know what $\operatorname{Aut}(Gr(k, n))$ is--we just need to know that each connected component has an $F$-rational point, which I don't think is too hard to see. $\endgroup$ Dec 30, 2013 at 20:00

Daniel Litt's answer is completely correct, of course. You can also see the result using projective geometry (perhaps this is how Chow proves the result). For every $1$-dimensional subspace $L$ of $F^{\oplus n}$, there is an induced embedding, $$\phi_L:\text{Grass}(k-1,F^{\oplus n}/L) \hookrightarrow \text{Grass}(k,F^{\oplus n}),$$ obtained by associating to every subspace $\overline{V}$ of $F^{\oplus n}/L$ the inverse image $V$ in $F^{\oplus n}$. Denote by $P(t)$ the Hilbert polynomial of $\text{Image}(\phi_L)$ with respect to the ample invertible sheaf $\omega^\vee$, where $\omega$ is the dualizing sheaf of $\text{Grass}(k,F^{\oplus n})$. Then there is a well-defined morphism, $$\Phi:\text{Grass}(1,F^{\oplus n}) \to \text{Hilb}^{P(t)}_{\text{Grass}(k,F^{\oplus n})}, \ \ [L]\mapsto [\text{Image}(\phi_L)].$$ I claim that $\Phi$ gives an isomorphism of the domain with one of the connected components of the target (when $n\neq 2k$, there is only one connected component, so that $\Phi$ is an $F$-isomorphism). Moreover, it is equivariant for the natural actions of $\textbf{PGL}_n$. Therefore, for every central simple algebra $A$ of "degree" $n$, there is an induced isomorphism of $F$-schemes, $$ SB_1(A) \to \text{Hilb}^{P(t)}_{SB_k(A)},$$ where again the Hilbert polynomial is with respect to the very ample invertible sheaf $\omega^\vee$ on $SB_k(A)$.

In particular, if $SB_k(A)$ is isomorphic to $\text{Grass}(k,F^{\oplus n})$, then every connected component of $\text{Hilb}^{P(t)}_{SB_k(A)}$ has an $F$-rational point. Thus, also $SB_1(A)$ has an $F$-rational point. That implies that $A$ is split by the result quoted by the OP.

Of course one still needs to verify that $\Phi$ is an isomorphism. However, since this is a purely geometric result, I imagine that most of us are happier with this claim than the original problem. Also it is fairly easy to prove using some "homogeneity" and cohomology vanishing.


Your Answer

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

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.