A theorem of Grothendieck states that any smooth reductive algebraic group over a field $k$ admits a maximal torus over $k$. My question concerns what happens for schemes.

Let $S$ be a scheme and let $G$ be a smooth reductive group scheme over $S$. Does $G$ admit a maximal torus over $S$?

Given that this is Grothendieck we are talking about, I imagine if he knew how to prove the result over schemes he would have done so, in particular I'm willing to believe that the answer is "no". However I don't know any explicit counter-examples.

I have a specific application in mind where my scheme $S$ is not too badly behaved, for example I can assume that $S$ is Noetherian, affine, regular with $\mathrm{Pic}(S)=0.$ If anyone knows any positive results in such special cases, I would also be very interested.

  • $\begingroup$ What sources have you consulted? The most standard treatment of reductive schemes seems to be Demazure's Expose XIX in SGA3 (see section 2): math.jussieu.fr/~polo/SGA3. Here the usual assumption is that $S$ is an arbitrary scheme. $\endgroup$ – Jim Humphreys May 2 '14 at 15:50
  • $\begingroup$ I have been mostly reading Brian Conrad's notes on reductive group schemes. Here he has a result which says that a maximal torus exists étale locally (this is also in SGA3 I believe). However I don't know of an example which illustrates that one really does need to work étale locally. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Loughran May 2 '14 at 16:10
  • $\begingroup$ I hope this is ok, but since there is some contention about the answer provided, I decided to unaccept it and offer a bounty. If anybody is able to conclusively answer my question, I would be most obligued. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Loughran May 6 '14 at 7:24
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Working etale locally for a maximal torus is indeed not necessary: Zariski locally suffices, see [SGA3, XIV, 3.20] (and the (*) footnote there in case it is of interest). $\endgroup$ – Kestutis Cesnavicius May 6 '14 at 13:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't know this stuff and was just trying to reconcile contradictory claims. The abelianization of a Borel doesn't depend on the choice of Borel and thus descends everywhere. In the quasi-split case, the torus of the Borel is better than other tori, though not necessarily a subgroup over general bases. In the general case, I think this construction yields the torus of the quasi-split inner form, not remotely like a subgroup of the original group, even in the field case (contrary to my previous claim). I don't know the purpose. $\endgroup$ – Ben Wieland May 10 '14 at 15:40

Such groups exist even over $S = \mathrm{Spec} \mathbb{Z}$. See, for instance, Eg. 6.2 of http://math.stanford.edu/~conrad/papers/redgpZ.pdf or other places of that paper. If $\mathscr{G}$ there had a maximal torus over $\mathbb{Z}$, then that maximal torus would be split, contradicting anisotropy of $G_{\mathbb{R}}$.


I might well be missing something here, but:

Consider $S = \mathbb{P}^2$ and $E$ the tangent bundle to $\mathbb{P}^2$. Set $G = GL(E)$. If $T$ is a maximal torus of $G$ then,for every point $x \in \mathbb{P}^2$, we have a maximal torus $T_x$. The eigenspaces of $T_x$ form two points in $\mathbb{P}(E)$; let $\Lambda \subset \mathbb{P}(E)$ be the set of eigenspaces of the maximal torii. Then $\Lambda \to \mathbb{P}^2$ is a double cover. Since $\mathbb{P}^2$ is simply connected, $\Lambda$ has two connected components. Let $L_1$ and $L_2$ be the sub-line bundles of $E$ spanned by these components. Then $E = L_1 \oplus L_2$. But a standard computation with Chern classes shows that $E$ is not the direct sum of two line bundles.

Of course, this example is neither affine nor has vanishing Pic, as you last paragraph requests.

I now have an regular affine example with vanishing Pic. Take $X = \{ (a,b,c,x,y,z) : ax+by+cz=1 \} \subset \mathbb{C}^6$. I first note that $X$ is simply connected: Projection onto the $(x,y,z)$ plane reveals $X$ to be a rank $2$ affine bundle over $\mathbb{C}^3 \setminus \{ 0 \}$, so $X$ is homotopy equivalent to $\mathbb{C}^3 \setminus 0$, or to $S^5$.

In this answer, Steve Lansberg shows that $\mathcal{O}(X)$ is a UFD, so all line bundles on $X$ are trivial, but that $X$ possesses a nontrivial vector bundle $E$ of rank $2$. As in the previous answer, if $GL(E)$ had a maximal torus, the eigenspaces of that torus would give a double cover of $X$. Since $X$ is simply connected, that double cover is trivial and the torus is split. Then $E = L_1 \oplus L_2$. Since $L_1$ and $L_2$ are line bundles on $X$, they are trivial, but then $E$ is trivial, a contradiction.

  • $\begingroup$ What do you mean when you say that the eigenspaces of $T_x$ form two points in $\mathbb{P}(E)$? I am having trouble seeing a canonical decomposition of $E_x$ into eigenspaces. $\endgroup$ – S. Carnahan May 6 '14 at 16:22
  • $\begingroup$ Given a scheme $X$, a rank $r$ vector bundle $E$ on $X$, and a torus $T \subset GL(E)$, we can consider the closed subscheme of $\mathbb{P}(E)$ given by $\{ (x,v) \in \mathbb{P}(E) : t \cdot v = v \ \forall_{t \in T_x} \}$. (Equality as points in projective space, so proportionality as elements of the vector bundle.) If I am not confused, in each fiber $\mathbb{P}(E_x)$ this should be a reduced zero dimensional scheme of length $r$. (So, if we work over the complex numbers, $r$ points over each closed point.) $\endgroup$ – David E Speyer May 6 '14 at 16:29
  • $\begingroup$ Or, less formally, by assumption we have a torus $T_x$ in each fiber $GL(E_x)$. The elements in those torii all share a common eigenspace decomposition of $E_x$. $\endgroup$ – David E Speyer May 6 '14 at 16:34
  • $\begingroup$ Ok, sorry. I was confusing monomial transformations (from the char. lattice) with linear transformations. $\endgroup$ – S. Carnahan May 6 '14 at 16:43

I doubt that this is true even in the simplest case $G=GL(E)$, where $E$ over $S$ is a nondecomposable vector bundle.

  • $\begingroup$ Are you able to prove that this is the case? $\endgroup$ – Daniel Loughran May 2 '14 at 16:11
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ A maximal torus T in GL(E) over S (with E a vector bundle) gives a decomposition of the vector bundle into line bundles. You can see this, even working with S a smooth variety over the complex numbers, since the eigenspaces for T give a local decomposition of E into 1-dim spaces. $\endgroup$ – Marty May 2 '14 at 23:44
  • $\begingroup$ Cheers for the help! $\endgroup$ – Daniel Loughran May 5 '14 at 8:20
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Marty: I don't get it . This only works if $T$ is split. $\endgroup$ – Laurent Moret-Bailly May 5 '14 at 9:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ One can deduce that $T$ is split in this setting for, e.g., $S = \mathbb{A}^3_{\mathbb{C}} - \{(0, 0, 0)\}$ and $E$ a nontrivial vector bundle on $S$ (for the existence of which, see Sasha's answer in mathoverflow.net/questions/35788/…). I am not sure though how Zariski local decomposition into line bundles is of help for the desired counterexample. $\endgroup$ – Kestutis Cesnavicius May 6 '14 at 13:28

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.