2
$\begingroup$

Let $R$ be a regular (commutative associative unitial) algebra over a prime field $F$ (i.e. $F=F_p$ or $F=\mathbb{Q}$); assume that it is noetherian excellent (and even of Krull dimension $1$). What extra restrictions on $R$ will ensure that it is the colimit of a filtered system of finitely generated regular $F$-algebras such that the connecting morphims are smooth (i.e. flat and unramified)? What conditions can ensure the existence of an etale cover of the spectrum of $R$ by the spectra of rings satisfying this property (I would prefer a cover by a finite family, yet an infinite one could also be sufficient for my purposes)?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The $S$ should be $R$, I think. $\endgroup$ – Mahdi Majidi-Zolbanin Jan 17 '14 at 1:24
2
$\begingroup$

Imposing the condition that the transition maps are smooth seem like a very strong condition to me. Here are some examples.

If $R$ is a field, then it need not be true, for example it isn't true if $R$ is a perfect field of transcendence degree > 0 over $\mathbf{F}_p$ (look at module of differentials). If a transcendence basis of $R/\mathbf{F}_p$ also gives a basis for $\Omega_{R/\mathbf{F}_p}$, then it is true (because the field is a colimit of finite separable extensions of a purely transcendental field). I think it doesn't hold for the field $\mathbf{F}_p((t))$ (look at what happens with power series of the form $\sum t^{p^{e_i}}$ in the colimit).

If $R$ is general, then it seems to me a necessary condition is that all the residue fields have the property (for example the fraction field if $R$ is a domain). Another necessary condition is that $\Omega_{R/\mathbf{F}_p}$ is a projective $R$-module. But my guess would be these conditions together aren't sufficient.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for this answer! Yet could you give some more detail? Is there any substantial difference between $t$ and $\sum t^{p^{e_i}}$ in the field $\mathbb{F}_p((t))$? $\endgroup$ – Mikhail Bondarko Jan 18 '14 at 9:52
  • $\begingroup$ It seems that one should rather consider two distinct elements of this field simultaneously. $\endgroup$ – Mikhail Bondarko Jan 18 '14 at 10:03

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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