3
$\begingroup$

Notation and Setting: let $\operatorname{Aff}$ denote the category of affine schemes whose objects are covariant representable functors $\operatorname{X}:\operatorname{Ring}\rightarrow\operatorname{Set}$ and $\operatorname{Spec}:\operatorname{Ring^{op}}\rightarrow\operatorname{Func(Ring, Set)} $ be the contravariant Yoneda embedding of $\operatorname{Ring^{op}}$ in its category of presheaves so that $\operatorname{Aff}\simeq\operatorname{Ring^{op}}$.

In addition, let $\mathcal{O}:\operatorname{Func(Ring, Set)}\rightarrow\operatorname{Ring^{op}}$ be the functor that sends a functor $\operatorname{X}:\operatorname{Ring}\rightarrow\operatorname{Set}$ to the ring of maps $\operatorname{X}\rightarrow \mathbb{A}^1$ (where $\mathbb{A}^1$ is the forgetful functor) so that $\operatorname{Spec}$ and $\mathcal{O}$ are inverse of one another.

Let $\widehat{\operatorname{Aff}}$ be the indization of $\operatorname{Aff}$, i.e. the category whose objects are functors $\operatorname{X}:\operatorname{Ring}\rightarrow\operatorname{Set}$ that are small filtered colimits of affine schemes

Let $\operatorname{G}\in\operatorname{Aff}$ be a group object (affine group), i.e $\operatorname{(G(R),m_G)}$ is a group for every ring R, whereas $m_G$ is the multiplication map $m_G:\operatorname{G(R)}\times\operatorname{G(R)}\rightarrow\operatorname{G(R)}$ and $\mathcal{O}_G$ the ring of maps $\operatorname{G}\rightarrow\mathbb{A}^1$.

Let $I_0\supseteq I_1 \supseteq I_2 \supseteq \cdots$ be an infinite sequence of ideals in $\mathcal{O}_G$, i.e $I_n\in\mathcal{O}_G$ for every $n$. From Martin's argument we know that the formal colimit $\operatorname{Y}:=\mathrm{colimit}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq0}}\operatorname{Spec(\mathcal{O}_{X}/I_n)}$ exists and is not an affine scheme (not representable).

My general question: When is $\operatorname{Y}$ a formal group, i.e. a group object in $\widehat{\operatorname{Aff}}$?

My considerations were as follows: since $\operatorname{Spec(\mathcal{O}_{G}/I_n)}\subseteq\operatorname{G}$ is a subfunctor for every $n$, the universal property of $\operatorname{Y}$ as a colimit gives us a unique map $\phi:\operatorname{Y}\rightarrow\operatorname{G}$ which implies that $\operatorname{Y}$ is a subfunctor of $\operatorname{G}$ (since every two parallel maps to Y which have the same image on G are equal to one another). In particular, $y\in\operatorname{Y(R)}$ corresponds to a map $f:\mathcal{O}_G\rightarrow R$ such that $I_n\subseteq\operatorname{Ker(f)}$ for some $n$. For every ring R, we thus have $\phi:\operatorname{Y(R)}\rightarrow\operatorname{G(R)}, y\mapsto y$.

This fact, and the example of $\operatorname{Nil}\simeq\mathrm{colimit}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq0}}\operatorname{Spec(\mathbb{Z}[x]/(x)^{n})}$ which delivers $\operatorname{(Nil(R),+)}\subseteq\operatorname{(\mathbb{A}^1(R),+)}$ as a subgroup, lead me to the claim:

$\operatorname{Y}$ is a formal group if and only if $\operatorname{Y}$ is a sub group of $\operatorname{G}$

Now $\leftarrow$ is trivial. To show $\rightarrow$, we let $\operatorname{Y}$ be a formal group with multiplication map $m_Y$. Now if it is true (this is the point I am not sure about)
that $\phi$ is a map of formal groups and not just a normal natural transforamtion then we have $\phi(m_{Y}(y,y'))=m_{G}(\phi(y),\phi(y'))$ which, since $\phi(y)=y$, is equivalent to $m_{Y}=m_{G}$ and we are done.

my specific questions:

  1. Is the universal map $\phi$ necceserally a map of formal groups and if so why?

  2. Assuming the answer to 1. is negative then:

    2.1 In which cases is $\phi$ indeed a map of formal groups?

    2.2 are there any examples of such situations where $\operatorname{Y}$ is not a subgroup of $\operatorname{G}$?

Edit: taking S. Carnahan's answer into consideration

Not assuming that $\phi:\operatorname{Y(R)}\rightarrow\operatorname{G(R)}, y\mapsto y$ is automatically a map of formal groups, it follows that that $\phi$ is a map of formal groups iff there is some $k$ such that the kernel of the map given by $m_G(y,y')$ lies in $I_k$.

Hopf ideals are kernals of maps of Hopf algebras. Thus saying that $\operatorname{I}$ is a Hopf ideal is equivalent to saying that the map $\mathcal{O}_{G}\rightarrow\mathcal{O}_{G}/I$ is a map of Hopf algebras which is equivalent to the map $\operatorname{Spec(\mathcal{O}_{G}/I)}\rightarrow\operatorname{Spec(\mathcal{O}_{G})}$ being a map of affine groups.

My question: How do we show that the property $m_G(y,y')$ lies in a certain $I_k$ is equivalent to the fact that $I$ is a Hopf ideal?

Things to take into consideration:

  • We have that $I_k\subseteq I$.
  • We know (Milne Algebraic Groups Pro. 3.12., p.67) that, given a Hopf ideal $I$, any Hopf algebra homomorphism $A\rightarrow B$ whose kernal contains $I$ factors uniquely through $A\rightarrow A/I$
  • In the example of $\operatorname{Nil}$ we have for $a\in\operatorname{Nil_n(R)}, b\in\operatorname{Nil_m(R)}, (a+b)\in\operatorname{Nil_{n+m}(R)}$ and thus $k=n+m$. In addition, the map $\mathbb{Z}[x]\rightarrow\mathbb{Z}[x]/(x)\simeq\mathbb{Z}$ is a map of Hopf algebras whose kernal $(x)$ is hence a Hopf ideal. How to show the equivalence in this example?

Thanks

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

The universal map is not a map of formal groups without some extra condition. An easy class of counterexamples comes from completions of an affine group along a closed subscheme that does not contain the identity element. In general, when you want to complete an affine group to get a formal group, you set $I_n = I^n$ for an ideal $I$ that defines a closed subgroup. That is, $I$ is a Hopf ideal for the coordinate ring. In particular, $\Delta(I) \subseteq \mathcal{O}_G \otimes I + I \otimes \mathcal{O}_G$, so $\Delta(I_n) \subseteq \sum_{i+j=n} I_i \otimes I_j$.

To be more specific in the language you use, you need your system of ideals to be compatible with multiplication in the following way: If $y$ and $y'$ are $R$-points, such that the maps $\mathcal{O}_G \to R$ have kernel containing $I_n$ and $I_{n'}$, respectively, then there is some $k$ such that the kernel of the map given by $m_G(y,y')$ lies in $I_k$. You have not specified any structure that forces this condition to hold. For Hopf ideals, our calculation of $\Delta(I_n)$ shows that setting $k \geq n+n'$ is sufficient.

Here is an explicit example. We complete the additive group $\mathbb{G}_a = \operatorname{Spec} k[x]$ (for some nonzero commutative ring $k$) at the point $1$, so our ideals are $I_n = (x-1)^n$. Any $R$-point factors through some map $k[x]/(x-1)^n \to R$, but the product of such $R$-points comes from the composite $k[x] \to k[y,z] \to k[y,z]/((y-1)^m(z-1)^n) \to R$, where the first map takes $x$ to $y+z$, and hence $(x-2)^{m+n} \mapsto ((y-1)+(z-1))^{m+n}$. Then, this map necessarily factors through $k[x]/(x-2)^{m+n}$. Since $2 \neq 1$ in $k$, this map does not factor through $k[x]/(x-1)^r$ for any positive $r$.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks a lot. I am almost there. I see how it all makes sense in the example of Nil and the Hopf ideal (x). What I still dont see is how you induce the inclusion of \Delta(I_n) \subseteq \sum_{i+j=n} I_i \otimes I_j from the defining inclusion of the Hopf ideal. I guess its simple tensor calculations but I am having some difficulties here. $\endgroup$ – sagirot Feb 25 at 20:12
  • $\begingroup$ @sagirot $\Delta(I^n) = \Delta(I)^n$ in a Hopf algebra. $\endgroup$ – S. Carnahan Feb 28 at 13:54

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.