8
$\begingroup$

Assume $X$ is a smooth projective variety over $\overline{\mathbf{F}}_p$ and fix a prime $\ell\neq p$.

Let $F_i$ be the geometric Frobenius on $\ell$-adic cohomology

$$H^i_{\rm ét}(X,\overline{\mathbf{Q}}_{\ell})$$ for fixed $i\ge 0$.

  • What relation is expected to hold between the minimal polynomial $m_{F_i}(T)$ of $F_i$ and the characteristic polynomial $P_i(T)$ of $F_i$? (apart from $m_{F_i}\mid P_i$)
  • Are $m_{F_i}(T)$ and $P_i(T)$ conjectured to agree? If so, is this a known result?
  • Does $m_{F_i}(T)$ depend on the Weil cohomology theory chosen to compute $P_i(T)$?

We know from Deligne's work on the Weil conjectures, that we have $P_i(T)\in\mathbf{Z}[T]$, $P_i(T)$ does not depend on the chosen Weil cohomology, and its roots are of the form $q^{-i/2}\rho$ for $\rho$ an algebraic number whose complex absolute value, for any complex embedding $\overline{\mathbf{Q}}\subset\mathbf{C}$, is one.

I'm mostly interested to understand to what extent $m_{F_i}(T)$ is, or expected to be, intrinsic.

$\endgroup$
7
$\begingroup$

It's conjectured -- see e.g. this question -- that the Frobenius is always semisimple, so its minimal polynomial is the radical of its characteristic polynomial (the product of its distinct linear factors, each with multiplicity 1). So $m_{F_i}$ should be independent of $\ell$.

This also shows that $m_{F_i}$ is different from $P_i$ iff $P_i$ has a root of multiplicity $> 1$. This can certainly occur, e.g. consider a supersingular elliptic curve over $\mathbf{F}_{p^2}$.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you! In particular, the "semisimplicity conjecture" depends on $\ell$. Am I understanding this correctly? If one proves Frobenius is semisimple on $H^i(X,\overline{\mathbf{Q}}_{\ell})$, then $m_{F_i} = \text{rad}(P_i)$, the radical, so I guess for every $\ell\neq \ell',p$, this $m_{F_i}$ will divide the minimal polynomial of Frobenius on $H^i(X,\overline{\mathbf{Q}}_{\ell'})$, but nothing more can be said. Or is it somehow known by some nontrivial argument that the semisimplicity conjecture is "independent of $\ell$"? $\endgroup$
    – user178246
    Jul 10 at 11:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ When I wrote "should be", I meant that if semisimplicity holds for $\ell$-adic cohomology for all $\ell$ (as is conjectured), then it implies $m_{F_i}$ is independent of $\ell$. But I don't think this is known unconditionally; as far as I'm aware, semisimplicity for one $\ell$ doesn't imply it for other $\ell$. $\endgroup$ Jul 10 at 12:38
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. This is exactly what I was looking for $\endgroup$
    – user178246
    Jul 10 at 12:39
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @user178246 In the case of abelian varieties, this is a theorem of Tate, so, for example, the supersingular curve case is unconditional. $\endgroup$
    – Will Sawin
    Jul 10 at 12:46

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.