Let $X$ be a scheme over $K = k((t))$, where $k$ is a field. We define the loop scheme $LX$ to be the functor from the category of $k$-algebras to sets by $R \mapsto LX(R) := X(Spec (R((t))))$.

Do we need sheafification in order to make $LX$ a sheaf? A particular interest is when $X$ is a connected linear reductive group over $K$ and fpqc site is chosen.

  • $\begingroup$ I think not. It’s easy to check for affine schemes, including reductive groups, by just using coordinates. $\endgroup$ – Will Sawin Oct 19 '19 at 16:53

Despite Will Sawin's answer in comment, it was not so obvious for me at first glance, so I give a detailed (at least for $X$ affine) proof here.

Lemma. Let $A$ be a $K$-algebra and let $A\to B$ be fpqc. Then the following sequence is exact $$ A((t))\to B((t))\rightrightarrows (B\otimes_{A}B)((t)). $$

Proof. Since $A\to B$ is fpqc, Grothendieck's fpqc-descent shows that the sequence $$ A\to B\rightrightarrows B\otimes_A B $$ is exact. Consider the sequence $$ A[[t]]\to B[[t]]\rightrightarrows (B\otimes_{A}B)[[t]]. $$ We claim that this sequence is also exact.

The first arrow $A[[t]]\to B[[t]]$ is injective since $A\to B$ is injective and since $A[[t]] = \prod_{n\in \mathbf{N}}A$ and $B[[t]] = \prod_{n\in \mathbf{N}}B$ as $A$-modules. It remains to show that for $f(t)\in B[[t]]$, $$f(t)\otimes 1 = 1\otimes f(t)\in (B\otimes_{A}B)[[t]] \quad\Longrightarrow \quad f(t)\in A[[t]]. $$ Suppose that $f(t) = \sum_{n\in \mathbf{N}} b_n t^n\in B[[t]]$ satisfies the condition $f(t)\otimes 1 = 1\otimes f(t)$. It is enough to show that $f(t) \mod{t^N} \in A[t]/t^N$ for each $N\ge 1$. Indeed, if we tensorise the first exact sequence by $\otimes_{A}A[t]/t^N$, we get $$ A[t]/t^N\to B[t]/t^N\rightrightarrows (B\otimes_{A} B)[t]/t^N, $$ which implies that $b_n\in A$ for $n < N$. Hence $f(t)\in A[[t]]$.

Inverting $t$, we deduce the exactness of $$ A((t))\to B((t))\rightrightarrows (B\otimes_{A}B)((t)). $$ End of Proof

Now if $X = \mathrm{Spec}\, C$ is an affine $K$-scheme and A,B are as above, then the exactness of the following sequence follows from the lemma $$ \mathrm{Hom}(C, A((t)))\to \mathrm{Hom}(C, B((t)))\rightrightarrows \mathrm{Hom}(C, (B\otimes_{A} B)((t))). $$ Hence, if $X$ is affine, $LX$ is automatically an fpqc sheaf. The general case follows from the standard procedure of glueing.


Let me give an answer beynd the case when $X$ is affine.

Upshot: Minimally restricting the setup, the answer is "LX is a sheaf, so you don't need to sheafify" for all quasi-projective schemes $X/K((t))$, and with respect to a very strong topology.

Suppose $K$ is has positive characteristic, and restrict your functor LX to the category ${\rm Perf}_K$ of perfect $K$-algebras. Recall the arc-topology on schemes, introduced by Bhatt--Morrow arXiv:1807.04725. Essentially, a map $X \rightarrow Y$ of qcqs schemes is an arc-cover if it's surjective and any specialization relation between points in $Y$ lifts to $X$. E.g., you could take the spectrum of the product over all possible valuation rings at all points of $Y$, thus obtaining a (huge) affine scheme, which maps to $Y$, and this would give you an arc-cover. Note that the arc-topology is even stronger than the $v$-topology of Bhatt--Scholze arXiv:1507.06490, and "much" stronger than the fpqc-topology. E.g. if $V$ is a valuation ring of rank $2$ and $\mathfrak{p}$ is its unique prime ideal of height $1$, then ${\rm Spec} V_{\mathfrak{p}} \,\dot\cup\, {\rm Spec} V/\mathfrak{p} \rightarrow {\rm Spec} V$ is an arc-cover, but not a $v$-cover (and so in particular, not an fpqc-cover), see Corollary 2.9 of arXiv:1807.04725. This said, we have the following result, see Theorem 5.1 of arXiv:2003.04399:

Theorem. Suppose $X$ is a quasi-projective $K((t))$-scheme. Then LX is a sheaf for the arc-topology on ${\rm Perf}_K$.

Remark 1. I would guess that this should also extend to the case that $K$ has characteristic zero, but the proof in loc.cit. uses perfectoid spaces, and so cannot literally be carried over to the case when $K$ has characterstic zero.

Remark 2. This result continues to hold in a mixed characteristic setup, i.e., when $K((t))$ is replaced by an appropriate $p$-adic field with residue field $K$ (e.g. if $K = \mathbb{F}_p$, instead of $K((t))$ you could take $\mathbb{Q}_p$, or some finite totally ramified extension of it).


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.