MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Suppose that $G$ is a finite group scheme over a field $k$ (we may want to assume that $k$ is perfect). How does one tell whether there exists a free action of $G$ on the function field $k(t)$ in one variable? By this I mean that there exists an action $G \times_{\mathop{\rm Spec}k}\mathop{\rm Spec}k(t) \to \mathop{\rm Spec}k(t)$, making $\mathop{\rm Spec}k(t)$ into a $G$-torsor over a scheme (necessarily of the form $\mathop{\rm Spec} k(s)$, where $s \in k(t)$, by Lüroth's theorem).

The question is a very natural one when one studies essential dimension of group schemes: see for a nice survey of the topic of essential dimension, and for the essential dimension of group schemes. When $G$ is smooth over $k$, then it is easy to see that the action extends to an action on $\mathbb{P}^1$, so $G$ must be a subgroup of ${\rm PGL}_{2,k}$; but when $G$ is not smooth it is not all clear to us that this must happen. The sheaf of automorphisms of $k(t)$ over $k$ is enormous in positive characteristic, and we find it very hard to see what group schemes it contains.

For example, how about twisted forms of the group scheme $\mu_p$, where $p$ is the characteristic of the field? I would conjecture that most of them can't act freely on $k(t)$, but we can't prove it.

share|cite|improve this question
Do you mean free action or faithful action? And $\mu_p$ can act faithfully since ${\rm{PGL}}_ 2$ contains a nontrivial split torus (e.g., $\zeta.[x,y] = [\zeta x, y]$). Anyway, by viewing the projective line over the finite base $G$, by looking at geometric fibers over $G$ your setup amounts to an action of $G$ on a dense open of the projective line (as for ordinary finite groups). But then it perhaps get complicated, since automorphism functor of such opens is generally not representable. – BCnrd Apr 5 '10 at 16:32
Any elt. of Lie alg. with ss adjoint action is tangent to a torus, and for infinitesimal gps of height $\le 1$ a homomorphism to another $k$-gp of finite type is same as map on $p$-Lie algebras. So for any form $\mu$ of $\mu_p$, nontrivial action on proj. line factors through embedding of $\mu$ into $k$-torus, which in turn is 1-dim'l. Hence, the possible $\mu$ are the $p$-torsion in $k$-tori of ${\rm{PGL}}_ 2$, which correspond to maximal $k$-tori in ${\rm{GL}}_ 2$, which correspond to deg-2 etale comm. algebras (i.e., split or separable quad. field). So no examples beyond what you know. – BCnrd Apr 5 '10 at 17:37
I am not convinced that $t^{1/p}$ must go to $ut^{1/p}$; you can also add nilpotents. This is what makes it complicated. For example, $\alpha_p$ can add freely by translations. In fact, I think that the automorphism group scheme of $k(t^{1/p})$ over $k(t)$ isn't even finite. – Angelo Apr 5 '10 at 20:19
You're right, and this error of mine is especially ironic since not more than a day ago I explained to a colleague why the automorphism scheme of $F(a^{1/p})$ over $F$ has positive dimension. Passing to a geometric point over $F$, this becomes the automorphism scheme of $F[y]/(y^p)$ as an $F$-algebra, which is parameterized by the possible images of $y$, namely $c_ 0 + c_ 1 y + ...$ with $c_ 1$ a unit and $c^p _0 = 0$. So it has dimension $p-1$. So one should first work out the structure of this group, especially if the evident 1-dimensional torus is maximal in its "smooth" part. – BCnrd Apr 6 '10 at 5:19
Indeed, this would be logical. The structure of the group is complicated, but it has a large unipotent part, which should not interfere with a form of $\mu_p$. I am fairly sure that the 1-dimensional torus is maximal. Thanks, Brian. – Angelo Apr 6 '10 at 8:58

I guess by looking at it algebraically one can at least rule out the forms of $\mu_p$. Let $H$ be the function algebra of the group scheme, $H^\ast$ its dual. $H^\ast$ is a cocommutative Hopf algebra. Algebraically, you ask whether $H^\ast$ can act on $k(t)$ so that $k(t)>k(s)$ is Hopf-Galois. If I remember correctly, there is a theorem (see chapter 8 of Montogmery' Hopf Algebra actions) that this is equivalent to the semidirect product $k(t)*H^\ast$ being simple. This will necessarily require $H^\ast$ to be semisimple. Now I read your $\mu_p$ as a form of the cyclic group. Thus, your $H^\ast$ fails to be semisimple by Maschke's theorem.

Sorry, if I misunderstood or misquoted something.

share|cite|improve this answer
Are you the real Bugs Bunny? I think I underestimated you. – Kevin Buzzard Apr 6 '10 at 11:26
Dear Bugs Bunny, thank you very much for the suggestion. However, in order to consider $\mu_p$ as a form of the cyclic group, the characteristic should be different from $p$, in which case we know a proof; we are interested exactly in the characteric $p$ case. Any form of $\mu_p$ is semisimple (in any characteristic). This said, I will take a look at Montgomery's book, there might be something in it. – Angelo Apr 6 '10 at 12:52
After some further thought, I realize I probably misunderstood what you were saying. On the other hand, your argument should apply to all forms of $\mu_p$; while some of them, like $\mu_p$ itself, do appear. Also, it would exclude $\alpha_p$, which also appears. – Angelo Apr 6 '10 at 14:30
No, Kevin, I am not real, I am p-adic :-)) Angelo, I think now that your $\mu_p$ is $p$-th roots of unity. Then, indeed, $H^*$ is semisimple and nothing I said is of any use. Is your $\alpha_p$ the Frobenius kernel of the additive group. Then it does, indeed, act via $d/dt$. I guess there is no theorem concluding that $H^*$ is semisimple or it may require a separable extension... Anyway, I will look into Childs', Taming wild extensions and see whether I can say anything intelligent. – Bugs Bunny Apr 7 '10 at 9:20

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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