4
$\begingroup$

The actual question is slightly more general than that in the title:

Let $p: U\to Y$ be a surjective étale morphism and $Y\to X$ be a finite morphism of schemes. Is there an étale cover $V\to X$ (surjective) such that the base change $p': V\times_X U\to V\times_X Y$ admits a section?

If necessary, one can also assume that $Y\to X$ is surjective.

I think this is implicitly used in Lecture Notes on Motivic Cohomology by Carlo Mazza, Vladimir Voevodsky, Charles Weibel, Lemma 6.16. I don't know how to go through. I can prove this when $p$ is also a finite morphism and $Y=X$ and $Y\to X$ is the identity but not in general.

It would be very helpful to me to have a reference or an answer to this question.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Consider the case $X=Y$. If $p:U\to Y$ is not surjective, then neither is $p'$, so it cannot have a section. Conversely, if $p$ is surjective, then you can take $V=U$ and then the diagonal morphism gives a section. $\endgroup$ – Piotr Achinger Apr 9 at 16:06
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Sorry, I forgot to say $p$ is surjective...edited just now. But $V=U$ may be not étale over $X$... $\endgroup$ – Lao-tzu Apr 9 at 16:07
5
$\begingroup$

We can work locally on $X$ and even (by standard limit arguments) assume that $X=\mathrm{Spec}(R)$ where $R$ is local and strictly henselian. Then $Y=\coprod_{i=1}^{n}Y_i$ where each $Y_i$ is local and finite over $X$, in particular strictly henselian too. So $U\times_Y Y_i\to Y_i$ has a section since it is étale and surjective.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I was meant to have an étale cover $V\to X$ (surjective) of $X$ such that the base change $p': V\times_X U\to V\times_X Y$ admits a section. I think your argument gives an étale cover of $Y$. $\endgroup$ – Lao-tzu Apr 9 at 16:53
  • $\begingroup$ @Lao-tzu No, the argument gives an etale cover of $X$, which by the limit argument is equivalent to assuming $X$ the spectrum of a strictly henselian local ring. $\endgroup$ – Will Sawin Apr 9 at 17:29
  • $\begingroup$ @Will Sawin Sorry I don't quite know how to use a limit argument, could any of you give more detail on how this works? $\endgroup$ – Lao-tzu Apr 9 at 17:34
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Lao-tzu It suffices to show that for each point there is an etale neighborhood of that point where the base change admits a section, as then the disjoint union of these over all points (or, if $X$ is quasicompact, a finite disjoint union) will be a cover with the desired properties. Now Laurent's argument gives a section over the inverse limit of all etale neighborhoods of that point. We want to show the section is defined over one of them. $\endgroup$ – Will Sawin Apr 9 at 18:51
  • $\begingroup$ @Lao-tzu This follows because $p$, being etale, is of finite presentation, so the finitely many generators of the ring of functions on $p$ must go to functions defined on one of these etale neighborhoods (because, by definition, all functions on the limit are on one of the neighborhoods). $\endgroup$ – Will Sawin Apr 9 at 18:52

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.