6
$\begingroup$

This problem is a continuation of Hensel lemma and rational points in complete noetherian local ring.

Let $A$ be a complete noetherian local ring and $\mathfrak{m}$ be its maximal ideal.

Assume $S_1$ and $S_2$ are two finitely generated $A$-algebras (no flatness assumption), and $S_1/\mathfrak{m}^n \cong S_2/\mathfrak{m}^n$ as $A$-algebras for every $n$. If we assume $S_i$ is the inverse limit of $S_i/\mathfrak{m}^n$ respectively, then do we have $S_1 \cong S_2$ as $A$-algebras?

Again the problem is about compatibility. If one try to use the Hom functor, there is a subtlety of representability. The problem can also be stated for finite type schemes.

Moreover, I have one similar question: if $R_1$, $R_2$ are two complete noetherian local rings and $R_1/\mathfrak{m_1}^n \cong R_1/\mathfrak{m_2}^n$, then do we have $R_1 \cong R_2$ as rings?

The similar question for finitely generated modules is true as $Isom$ satisfies Mittag-Leffler condition (an endomorphism of finitely generated module is an isomorphism iff it's surjective, so this can be checked mod $\mathfrak{m}$, and Hom mod ${\mathfrak{m}}^n$ are modules of finite lengths )

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I thought that I had answered your second question (about $R_1,R_2$) in the affirmative. $\endgroup$ – Mohan Dec 21 '18 at 21:12
  • $\begingroup$ @Mohan Thank you, could you give some ideas for the proof? I have thought about those questions since long ago.. $\endgroup$ – sawdada Dec 21 '18 at 21:19
7
$\begingroup$

Here is a lovely argument shown to me by Madhav Nori.

Let $A,B$ be complete local rings, quotients of a power series ring in finitely many variables over a field $k$. If $A/\mathfrak{M}_A^n\cong B/\mathfrak{M}_B^n$ for all $n$ then $A\cong B$ where as usual $\mathfrak{M}$ denotes the maximal ideal.

Proof: Let us denote by $A_n=A/\mathfrak{M}_A^n$ and similarly $B_n$. Let $G_n=\mathrm{Aut}\, A_n$. Then $G_n$ is an algebraic group over $k$. Let $I_n=\mathrm{Isom}(A_n,B_n)$, the set of $k$-algebra isomorphisms, which is naturally a variety over $k$. In our situation, $G_n\cong I_n$ as algebraic varieties by using any of the isomorphisms in $I_n$, which is non-empty by assumption. In other words, if $\phi\in I_n$, then we have a morphism $G_n\to I_n$ given by $g\mapsto \phi\circ g^{-1}$ which one easily checks is an isomorphism. (In standard language, $I_n$ is a principal homogeneous space over $G_n$.)

Basic fact from Algebraic groups: If $f:G\to H$ is a group morphism of algebraic groups, $f(G)$ is closed.

We have natural restriction maps $r_{m,n}:I_m\to I_n$ for $m>n$. This induces by using any element of $I_m$ a group morphism from $G_m\to G_n$ and hence, we see that $r_{m,n}(I_m)$ is closed in $I_n$. Let $$K_n=\cap_{m>n} r_{m,n}(I_m).$$

Then $K_n$ is a closed subvariety of $I_n$ and it is non-empty. One can easily check that $r_{m,n}(K_m)= K_n$. Thus we have a surjective projective system $\{K_n\}$. Since these are all non-empty, it has an element in the projective limit. That is, there exists $\phi_n\in K_n$ so that $r_{m,n}(\phi_m)=\phi_n$ for all $m>n$. These $\phi$'s give a compatible collection of isomorphisms from $A_n\to B_n$ and thus we get an isomorphism in the projective limit $A\to B$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you, the idea of using Isom functor is very good! Though it has some subtleties due to non-representability in general. In the last paragraph, as we need to find a $k$-point, maybe we need to assume $k$ is algebraically closed. $\endgroup$ – sawdada Dec 21 '18 at 22:49
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It is not true that morphisms of algebraic groups are closed (think of a projection $\mathbb{G}_a\times\mathbb{G}_a\to\mathbb{G}_a$). What is true, and suffices for the argument, is that it has closed image. More precisely, $f:G\to H$ factors uniquely as $G\to G/\mathrm{ker}\,f\to H$ where the first (resp. second) map is faithfully flat (resp. a closed immersion). $\endgroup$ – Laurent Moret-Bailly Dec 22 '18 at 7:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @LaurentMoret-Bailly You are right. I meant (and only needed) that the image is closed. Thank you. $\endgroup$ – Mohan Dec 22 '18 at 16:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It seems to me that this argument only addresses the equicharacteristic case. $\endgroup$ – R. van Dobben de Bruyn Dec 22 '18 at 16:55
  • $\begingroup$ @R.vanDobbendeBruyn. Presumably you can reduce the mixed characteristic case to the equicharacteristic case by applying the Greenberg functors to the group schemes $G_n$. $\endgroup$ – Jason Starr Dec 23 '18 at 10:41

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.