5
$\begingroup$

I am very confused by the following and would appreciate any help.

Let $\mu_p \subset \mathbb{G}_m$ be the $p$-torsion subgroup scheme of the multiplicative group over $\mathbb{Z}_p$. I would like to compute the Lie algebra of $\mu_p$ (at the identity section) to make sure that I understand Lie algebras well. I have heard that "the formation of the Lie algebra at the identity section of a group scheme commutes with base change" and I know that the Lie algebra of $\mu_p$ has to be killed by $p$, so by looking at the residue field I get that this Lie algebra is $\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}$.

On the other hand, from the $\epsilon$-points definition, I get that the Lie algebra of $\mu_p$ should be a subfunctor of the Lie algebra of $\mathbb{G}_m$. The Lie algebra of $\mathbb{G}_m$ is just $\mathbb{Z}_p$ because $\mathbb{G}_m$ is smooth of relative dimension $1$. But $\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}$ cannot sit inside $\mathbb{Z}_p$, so where have I made a mistake? Does the $\epsilon$-points definition maybe not apply for some reason?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Well, what happens depends on the kind of object you want the Lie algebra to be. Most of your question is written for `naive' object, where you expect the Lie algebra to be a $\mathbb{Z}_p$-module. In this setup, the formation of Lie algebra does not commute with base change (unless the group is smooth). $\endgroup$ – t3suji Oct 12 '15 at 1:02
  • $\begingroup$ On the other hand, if you want your Lie algebra to be a scheme over $\mathbb Z_p$, it is supposed to commute with the base change, but there is no contradiction: the Lie algebra of $\mathbb{G}m$ is the constant scheme with one-dimensional fiber, and it contains a non-flat subscheme sitting over the closed point. $\endgroup$ – t3suji Oct 12 '15 at 1:04
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you, t3suji, this is very helpful. Could you comment on what is the relationship between the two: is the $\mathbb{Z}_p$-module just the global sections of the scheme version? I am seeing in SGA 3, Expose II, 3.3 that the scheme version should maybe be $\mathbb{V}(e^*(\Omega^1_{\mu_p/\mathbb{Z}_p}))$, but I guess the $\mathbb{V}$ functor is parametrizing global sections of the dual of the coherent sheaf $e^*(\Omega^1_{\mu_p/\mathbb{Z}_p})$, so this must be the source of the bad behavior of global sections with respect to base change beyond the smooth case? $\endgroup$ – Lisa S. Oct 12 '15 at 1:53
10
$\begingroup$

The quotation you have heard is false because over an affine base $S = {\rm{Spec}}(k)$ for a commutative ring $k$ and a $k$-group scheme $G$, the Lie algebra is the linear dual ${\rm{Hom}}_k(e^{\ast}(\Omega^1_{G/k}),k)$ and that generally does not commute with non-flat base change when $G$ is not $k$-smooth. You have already noticed yourself that this is false for $\mu_p$ over $\mathbf{Z}_p$.

There is always a "base change morphism" ${\rm{Lie}}(G) \otimes_{k} k' \rightarrow {\rm{Lie}}(G_{k'})$ for a $k$-algebra $k'$, but one cannot say more when $k'$ is not $k$-flat or $G$ is not $k$-smooth. Read section A.7 (through A.7.6) for a discussion of Lie algebras of group schemes locally of finite type over rings in the book "Pseudo-reductive groups" (2nd edition) for a discussion of several of the key points from SGA3 (including that ${\rm{Lie}}(G)$ admits a natural Lie bracket compatibly with the base change morphism, even when $G$ isn't $k$-smooth).

The functor $k' \rightsquigarrow {\rm{Lie}}(G_{k'})$ on $k$-algebras is generally not representable if $e^{\ast}(\Omega^1_{G/k})$ is not a vector bundle over $k$, as usually fails if $G$ is not $k$-smooth and $k$ is not a field.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you. I am confused by your last sentence: isn't $\mathbb{V}(e^*(\Omega^1_{G/k}))$ the scheme that is representing the functor $k' \mapsto \mathrm{Lie}_{G_{k'}} = \mathrm{Hom}_{k'}((e')^*(\Omega^1_{G/k'}), k')$ (by SGA 3, Expose I, 4.6.3.1)? $\endgroup$ – Lisa S. Oct 12 '15 at 2:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Oops, you are correct: it is indeed represented by Spec of the symmetric algebra of $e^{\ast}\Omega^1_{G/k}$. What fails when the latter isn't a vector bundle is that this representing module scheme is determined by its $k$-module of $k$-points (usually it is not). $\endgroup$ – nfdc23 Oct 12 '15 at 3:05

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.