Suppose G is an algebraic group with an action G×X→X on a scheme. Does the fixed locus (the set of points x∈X fixed by all of G) have a scheme structure? You can obviously define the functor Fix(T)={t∈X(T)|t is fixed by every element of G(T)}. Is this functor always representable?

(This question was "broken off" of a compound question of mine after Scott Carnahan answered the other part so wonderfully that I had to accept his answer.)

  • $\begingroup$ As Scott points out below, Anton's definition does not give a functor. Perhaps the following is a better definition. Let Stab be the stabilizer group scheme over X (the fiber product of the action map GxX --> XxX with the diagonal). Let Fix be the subsheaf of points of X where Stab --> G is an isomorphism. (In Scott's example of Gm acting on A<sup>n</sup> this gives the origin, as it should.) $\endgroup$ – Jonathan Wise Nov 1 '09 at 2:50

The question gives the "wrong" definition of Fix(T), hence the resulting confusion.

A more natural definition of the subfunctor X^G of "G-fixed points in X" is
(X^G)(T) = {x in X(T) | G_T-action on X_T fixes x}
               = {x in X(T) | G(T')-action on X(T') fixes x for all T-schemes T'}.
(Of course, can just as well restriction to affine T and T' for "practical" purposes.)

By way of analogy with more classical situations, if the base is a field k then a moment's reflection with the case of finite k shows that
{x in X(k) | G(k) fixes x}
is the "wrong" notion of (X^G)(k), whereas
{x in X(k) | G-action on X fixes x}
is a "better" notion, and is what the above definition of (X^G)(k) says.

From this point of view, if (for simplicity of notation) the base scheme is an affine Spec(k) for a commutative ring k then the "scheme of G-fixed points" exists whenever G is affine and X is separated provided that k[G] is k-free (or becomes so after faithfully flat extension on k). So this works when k is a field, or any k if G is a k-torus (or "of multiplicative type"). See Proposition A.8.10(1) in the book Pseudo-reductive groups.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks a lot! I hope you don't mind I've edited your question to include a link to a pdf of the book. $\endgroup$ – Anton Geraschenko Feb 10 '10 at 17:42
  • $\begingroup$ By the way, you can type math between dollar signs to get nice LaTeX-like output. For example, typing \$x\in X^G(T)\$ will produce $x\in X^G(T)$. $\endgroup$ – Anton Geraschenko Feb 10 '10 at 17:44

Let F be the field with two elements, and let G = Gm,F. Let X = An, affine space of dimension n (at least 1), with G acting by dilations. Then G(F) is trivial, so Fix(F) = X(F), which has elements other than the origin. Fix(F4) is the origin, but it should contain all the F4-points that factor through the canonical map to Spec F. Fix is therefore not representable.

  • $\begingroup$ Yikes! I thought for sure the answer would be yes. It looks like the problem is basically that Fix is not a sheaf. Do you know if it becomes representable if you take the (fppf) sheafification? $\endgroup$ – Anton Geraschenko Oct 29 '09 at 3:05
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I think the problem is that Fix isn't even a functor. It doesn't seem to respect morphisms. $\endgroup$ – S. Carnahan Oct 29 '09 at 3:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Double Yikes ! $\endgroup$ – Anton Geraschenko Oct 29 '09 at 18:48

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

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