3
$\begingroup$

Let $k$ be a perfect field of characteristic $p>0$. Let $K$ be a finite, totally ramified extension of $K_0:=\mathrm{Frac}\ W(k)$ and let $\mathcal{O}_K$ be the ring of integers of $K$. All group schemes in this question will be assumed to be commutative. If $\mathscr{V}$ is a finite flat group scheme over $\mathcal{O}_K$, we say that $\mathscr{V}$ is $\mathit{maximal}$ if for any other finite flat (commutative) group scheme $\mathscr{W}$ over $\mathcal{O}_K$ which has the same generic fibre as $\mathscr{V}$, there is a morphism $\mathscr{V}\to\mathscr{W}$ which restricts to the identity on the generic fibre. By a theorem of Raynaud, we can replace any finite flat group scheme over $\mathcal{O}_K$ by a maximal one without changing the generic fibre.

Now the question: Let $\mathscr{V}$ be a finite flat group scheme as before and suppose that $\mathscr{V}$ is maximal. Is it true that the connected component $\mathscr{V}^0$ of $\mathscr{V}$ is maximal as well?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ In general, $\mathscr{V}^0$ doesn't make sense. $\endgroup$ – Laurent Moret-Bailly Nov 17 '15 at 20:09
  • $\begingroup$ @LaurentMoret-Bailly: By $\mathscr{V}^0$ I believe XYZ means the connected component of the identity section; this is a good notion over a henselian local base, as you know. In what way does it "not make sense" for the setting of the question posed? $\endgroup$ – nfdc23 Nov 17 '15 at 22:11
  • $\begingroup$ @nfdc23: OK, so doesn't have connected fibers in general. In SGA, the notation $G^0$ for a group scheme $G$ is used for the "scheme of identity components of fibers" whenever that exists. $\endgroup$ – Laurent Moret-Bailly Nov 18 '15 at 7:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @LaurentMoret-Bailly: Yes, I agree with you. In the setting over a finite flat group scheme over a henselian local ring I believe the (abuse of) notation $G^0$ to mean the literal connected component of the identity section rather than the SGA3 notion is often used as a convention, such as going back to Tate's paper on p-divisible groups. $\endgroup$ – nfdc23 Nov 20 '15 at 0:31
3
$\begingroup$

Yes, and the same holds with $\mathscr{V}^0$ replaced by any finite flat $O_K$-subgroup $\mathscr{V}'$ of $\mathscr{V}$ (and with $O_K$ replaced by any discrete valuation ring of generic characteristic 0). Consider a map $f:\mathscr{V}' \rightarrow \mathscr{H}$ between finite flat $O_K$-group schemes that is an isomorphism on generic fibers. We want to show that $f$ is an isomorphism.

Form the pushout of the exact sequence $$1 \rightarrow \mathscr{V}' \rightarrow \mathscr{V} \rightarrow \mathscr{V}'' \rightarrow 1$$ against $f$ to get a short exact sequence of finite flat $O_K$-group schemes $$1 \rightarrow \mathscr{H} \rightarrow \mathscr{G} \rightarrow \mathscr{V}'' \rightarrow 1.$$ There is an evident commutative diagram from the first of these to the second inducing $f$ along the left and the identity map for $\mathscr{V}''$ on the right, so the map in the middle $\mathscr{V} \rightarrow \mathscr{G}$ is an isomorphism on generic fibers (as the outer maps have that property). By maximality of $\mathscr{V}$ it follows that this middle map is an isomorphism, so the same then holds for $f$ by the snake lemma or whatever for fppf abelian sheaves.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Doesn't this show that finite flat $\mathcal{O}_K$-subgroups of minimal finite flat group schemes are minimal (with the notion of minimality defined exactly as in the question, only with the arrows reversed)? I think in order to deduce maximality of $\mathscr{V}'$ one would have to consider a morphism $\mathscr{H}\to\mathscr{V}'$ rather than the other way round, in which case one cannot take pullbacks or pushouts anymore. $\endgroup$ – XYZ Nov 18 '15 at 10:51
  • $\begingroup$ I was interpreting "maximal" in the sense of containments at the generic-fiber level among finite flat group schemes over the dvr, rather than among coordinate rings; i.e., I thought by "maximal" you meant what you seem to have regarded as "minimal". So indeed I have done the opposite of what you wanted. I haven't looked at Raynaud's paper in a long time, so I didn't remember offhand which way he chose for his conventions. Sorry for misunderstanding. $\endgroup$ – nfdc23 Nov 20 '15 at 0:34

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.