3
$\begingroup$

Let $k$ be a number field and denote by $\Omega _k$ the set of places of $k$, by $\Omega _\infty$ the set of archimedean places of $k$, and by $S$ a nonempty finite subset of $\Omega _k$ such that $\Omega _\infty \subset S$.

Let $X$ be a variety over $k$. We define an integral model $\mathcal{X}$ of $X$ to be a faithfully flat of finite type scheme that is separated over the ring of $S$-integers $\mathcal{O}_S$ such that we have an isomorphism $\mathcal{X} \times _{\mathcal{O}_S} \mathrm{Spec}\,k \cong X$ over $k$. An integral point is defined to be an element of $\mathcal{X}(\mathcal{O}_S)$.

Question 1. Let $(x_v)$ be an adelic point of $X$, i.e., $(x_v) \in X(\mathbb{A}_k)$. By definition, we know that for all but finitely many places $v \in \Omega _k$, we have $x_v \in \mathcal{O}_v$, i.e., $v(x_v) \geq 0$. How do we prove that we can find a finite subset $S$ containing $\Omega _\infty$ and an integral model $\mathcal{X}$ over $\mathcal{O}_S$ such that $$(x_v) \in (\prod_{v \in S} X(k_v) \times \prod _{v \notin S} \mathcal{X}(\mathcal{O}_v))?$$ Intuitively, I believe this set $S$ has to be the set of finite places $v$ such that $x_v$ is not contained in $\mathcal{O}_v$. It follows that a point $x_v$ in $X(\mathcal{O}_v)$ would also be in $\mathcal{X}(\mathcal{O}_v)$ but I have no idea how to show this concretely.

Now we consider the map $$\mathcal{X}(\mathcal{O}_S) \rightarrow (\prod _{v \in S} X(k_v) \times \prod _{v \notin S} \mathcal{X}(\mathcal{O}_v)).$$

For $v \notin S$ and an integral point $x \in \mathcal{X}(\mathcal{O}_S)$, we have $v(x) \geq 0$ and so $x$ is contained in the valuation ring $\mathcal{O}_v$. Hence the map $$\mathcal{X}(\mathcal{O}_S) \rightarrow \prod _{v \notin S} \mathcal{X}(\mathcal{O}_v)$$ is simply the diagonal map.

Question 2. For $v \in S$, how do we define the map $$\mathcal{X}(\mathcal{O}_S) \rightarrow X(k_v)?$$

Lastly, let $\Gamma_k$ denote the absolute Galois group $\mathrm{Gal}(\bar{k}/k)$.

Question 3. Is it true that $$\mathcal{X}(\bar{k})^{\Gamma_k} = \mathcal{X}(\mathcal{O}_S)?$$ In other words, under the action of $\Gamma_k$, are the fixed $\bar{k}$-points of $\mathcal{X}$ simply its integral points?

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It will help you to answer your questions yourself if you assume that your variety $X$ is affine and is embedded into an affine space ${\Bbb A}^n$. Then your adelic point $(x_v)$ has $n$ coordinates $(x_v)_i$, $i=1,\dots,n$, and $S$ in Question 1 is the union of $\Omega_\infty$ and of the set of those $v\in\Omega_f$ for which at least one of the coordinates $(x_v)_i$ is not $v$-integral. $\endgroup$ – Mikhail Borovoi Apr 4 at 8:46
1
$\begingroup$

for your first question, the idea is basically what MikhailBorovoi said but of course you have to be careful to get a model outside $S$: add all the prime divisors of dominators of the equations defining $X$ to $S$ to obtain a (faithfully flat)model for $X$ outside $S$. In general you want to glue several affine varieties so you have to also add all the dominators of equations and gluing data to $S$.(if I want to be more precise you have to be more careful for example you have to choose monic equations a more abstract way to say this is to use generic flatness which ensures that outside finitely many prime there is a flat model for $X$.)

for your second question you have obvious maps $O_S\to k\to k_v$ and by definition $\mathcal{X}(k_v)=X(k_v)$.

for the third why do you think $\mathcal{X}(\bar{k})^{\Gamma_k} = \mathcal{X}(\mathcal{O}_S)$ instead of $\mathcal{X}(\bar{k})^{\Gamma_k} = \mathcal{X}(k)$? Galios invariance does not imply integrality!

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ About the third question, if $X$ (and therefore $\mathcal{X}$) is an affine group scheme, I am trying to apply the $\Gamma(k,-)$-functor on the Kummer sequence $0 \rightarrow \mathcal{X}[n] \rightarrow \mathcal{X} \xrightarrow{n} \mathcal{X} \rightarrow 0$. From the resulting long cohomology sequence, there should be $\mathcal{X}(\mathcal{O}_S) \rightarrow H^1(k,\mathcal{X}[n]) \rightarrow H^1(k,\mathcal{X})$, hence my question. Here $H^i(k,\mathcal{X})$ is short for $H^i(\mathrm{Gal}(\bar{k}/k),\mathcal{X}(\bar{k}))$. $\endgroup$ – Kelvin Lian Apr 5 at 5:54
  • $\begingroup$ Ok I think I got it, the Kummer sequence is supposed to be $0 \rightarrow \mathcal{X}[n](\bar{\mathcal{O}}_S) \rightarrow \mathcal{X}(\bar{\mathcal{O}}_S) \rightarrow \mathcal{X}(\bar{\mathcal{O}}_S) \rightarrow 0$. Applying the functor will give us $H^0(k,\mathcal{X}(\bar{\mathcal{O}}_S)) = \mathcal{X}(\mathcal{O}_S)$ as desired. $\endgroup$ – Kelvin Lian Apr 5 at 11:57

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.