6
$\begingroup$

Let $K$ be a number field, let $A$ be an abelian variety over $K$, and let $H$ be a torus over $K$. For a prime $l$, we have the natural map $$\mathrm{Ext}^1(A, H) \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} \mathbb{Z}_l \rightarrow \mathrm{Ext}^1_{\mathrm{Gal}(\overline{K}/K)}(T_l A, T_l H),$$ where the first $\mathrm{Ext}$ is in the category of commutative algebraic groups over $K$ and the second one is in the category of continuous representations of $\mathrm{Gal}(\overline{K}/K)$ on finite free $\mathbb{Z}_l$-modules. Is the displayed map injective and, if so, why?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Did you try studying this using the exact sequence $0\to A_n\to A\to A\to 0$ arising from multiplication by $l^n$ on $A$, and then the similar sequence for $H$? $\endgroup$ – anon Jan 10 '15 at 4:54
6
$\begingroup$

It is affirmative (up to a compatibility check at the end of the argument given here). If $K'/K$ is a finite Galois splitting field of $H$ and $T' = H_{K'}$ is the associated split $K'$-torus then we have an exact sequence of $K$-tori $$0 \rightarrow H \rightarrow {\rm{R}}_{K'/K}(T') \rightarrow T \rightarrow 0.$$ But ${\rm{Hom}}(A,T)=0$ since $T$ is affine and ${\rm{Hom}}_K(T_{\ell}(A),T_{\ell}(T))=0$ by consideration of Frobenius eigenvalues. Thus, the natural maps $${\rm{Ext}}^1_K(A,H) \rightarrow {\rm{Ext}}^1_K(A,{\rm{R}}_{K'/K}(T')),\,\,\, {\rm{Ext}}^1_K(T_{\ell}(A),T_{\ell}(H)) \rightarrow {\rm{Ext}}^1_K(T_{\ell}(A),T_{\ell}({\rm{R}}_{K'/K}(T'))$$ are injective. It therefore suffices to treat ${\rm{R}}_{K'/K}(T')$ in place of $H$.

Using pushout along ${\rm{R}}_{K'/K}(T')_{K'} \rightarrow T'$ and pullback along $A \rightarrow {\rm{R}}_{K'/K}(A_{K'})$, the Ext's are compatibly identified with ${\rm{Ext}}^1_{K'}(A_{K'},T')$ and ${\rm{Ext}}^1_{K'}(T_{\ell}(A_{K'}),T_{\ell}(T'))$, so this reduces us (upon renaming $K'$ as $K$) to treating the case when $H$ is a split torus, and then even $H = {\rm{GL}}_1$ by direct sum compatibility in $H$. So far, so good.

But in the special case when $H={\rm{GL}}_1$ we naturally have $${\rm{Ext}}^1_K(A,{\rm{GL}}_1) \simeq A^{\vee}(K)$$ for the dual abelian variety $A^{\vee}$ (Barsotti's formula, valid over any field), and likewise the Galois Ext is ${\rm{H}}^1(K,T_{\ell}(A^{\vee}))$. The $\ell^n$-power Kummer sequence of $A^{\vee}$ defines an injective map $$\delta:A^{\vee}(K)/(\ell^n) \rightarrow {\rm{H}}^1(K,A^{\vee}[\ell^n]).$$ Letting $S$ be a non-empty finite set of places containing the archimedean places and the bad places of $A$ over $K$ and the $\ell$-adic places, $\delta$ is seen to factor through ${\rm{H}}^1(K_S/K,A^{\vee}[\ell^n])$ where $K_S/K$ is the maximal extension unramified outside $S$.

Since ${\rm{Gal}}(K_S/K)$ has good cohomological finiteness properties, it is legitimate to identified the injective map between inverse limits over $n$ with a map $$A^{\vee}(K) \otimes_{\mathbf{Z}} \mathbf{Z}_{\ell} \rightarrow {\rm{H}}^1(K_S/K,T_{\ell}(A^{\vee})).$$ The correctness of the left side uses that $A^{\vee}(K)$ is finitely generated (so its $\ell$-adic completion is given by tensoring against $\mathbf{Z}_{\ell}$). Composing with the injective inflation map then defines an injection $${\rm{Ext}}^1_K(A,{\rm{GL}}_1) \otimes_{\mathbf{Z}} \mathbf{Z}_{\ell} \rightarrow {\rm{Ext}}^1_K(T_{\ell}(A), T_{\ell}({\rm{GL}}_1)).$$ The final step is to check that this injection is actually the original map of interest (in the special case $H = {\rm{GL}}_1$); this is left to the reader to sort out (maybe it is correct up to a harmless sign or something like that).

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thank you for your answer. I don't understand the compatible Ext identification part, but I think one may reduce to the $H = \mathbb{G}_m$ case simply due to the injectivity of $\mathrm{Ext}^1(A, H) \rightarrow \mathrm{Ext}^1(A_{K'}, H_{K'})$ (and likewise for the $l$-adic Tate modules), which results from the uniqueness of splittings over $K'$. Also, it seems that there is no need to work with $K_S$ instead of $K$, since continuous cohomology vs. $\varprojlim H^1$ identification results from mere finiteness of the $H^0(K, A[l^n])$. As for the final compatibility check... $\endgroup$ – Lisa S. Jan 10 '15 at 19:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ ...I think one may check it after passage to mod $l^n$ (for varying $n$), and then it results from the "standard" compatibility of $A^\vee(K) \rightarrow H^1(K, A^\vee[l^n]) \rightarrow \mathrm{Ext}^1(A[l^n], \mathbb{G}_m)$ and $\mathrm{Ext}^1(A, \mathbb{G}_m) \rightarrow \mathrm{Ext}^1(A[l^n], \mathbb{G}_m)$, which, with a little bit of good luck, may even be in Oort's book. $\endgroup$ – Lisa S. Jan 10 '15 at 19:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @LisaS.: I agree, it was overkill to bring in Weil restriction, and with $K_S/K$ I was just being overly cautious with the Rlim stuff. As for the final compatibility, I don't remember it being in Oort's book, but let me know if you find a proof in the literature. (It surely cannot be deduced from the sheafified version, since the sheafified analogue of the target in this torsion-level compatibility vanishes.) $\endgroup$ – user74230 Jan 10 '15 at 21:43

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.