5
$\begingroup$

Let $p: \mathcal{X} \rightarrow \text{Spec } \mathcal{O}_K$ be a normal proper Artin stack with finite diagonal. A $K$-rational point is by definition a section $x: \text{Spec}(K) \rightarrow \mathcal{X}$ of $p$ over the generic point of $\text{Spec } \mathcal{O}_K$, and an integral point is a section $\bar{x}: \text{Spec } \mathcal{O}_K \rightarrow \mathcal{X}$ of $p$.

Now if $\mathcal{X}$ were to be a proper scheme, then every rational point extends uniquely to an integral point. Indeed, the valuative criterion gives morphisms from every division ring that we can patch up to a morphism from $\text{Spec } \mathcal{O}_K$.

I am currently reading the work "Heights on stacks and a generalized Batyrev–Manin–Malle conjecture" and there it is claimed that the above statement is no longer true for stacks, but it is still true after a (possibly) ramified extension of $\text{Spec } \mathcal{O}_K$. This leads to my two questions:

  1. Why is this not true for stacks? Although a specific counterexample would be great, I am also happy with some intuition why this ought to fail for stacks.
  2. Why is it still true after a (possibly) ramified extension of $\text{Spec } \mathcal{O}_K$? In this case I am mostly interested in a precise argument.
$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The "standard" (but not the easiest) example of a proper stack for which you see that such a field extension is necessary is probably $\overline{\mathcal{M}_g}$ (the stack of stable curves of genus $g$, $g>1$). This is a proper Artin stack with finite (even unramified) diagonal. Given a Dedekind scheme $B$ with function field $K$, a $K$-point (which lands in $\mathcal{M}_g$, say, for simplicity) doesn't necessarily extend to a $B$-point of $\overline{\mathcal{M}_g}$, because there are smooth curves of genus $g$ over $K$ which do not have stable reduction over $B$. $\endgroup$ Oct 8, 2021 at 16:57
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ For "easier" (zero-dimensional) examples, think about the stack $B(\mathcal{G})$ for a finite \'etale group scheme $\mathcal{G}$ over $S$, where $S$ is a Dedekind scheme. (I realized $B$ is not such a good choice to denote the base scheme.) It seems like an important exercise to write down examples of $\mathcal{G}_K$-torsors over $K$ which do not extend to $\mathcal{G}$-torsors over $S$. But, it is clear that after a finite extension of $K$ such an extension does exist (pull-back Spec $K\to B\mathcal{G}_K$ along ${pt}\to B(\mathcal{G}_K$) to get an $L$-point, etc.) $\endgroup$ Oct 8, 2021 at 17:02

1 Answer 1

7
$\begingroup$

$\DeclareMathOperator{Spec}{Spec}$ For 1. take $\mathcal{X} = B \mu_2$ to be the classifying stack of $\mu_2$ over $\mathbb{Z}$. For any $\mathbb{Z}$-scheme $S$ we have $\mathcal{X}(S) = \mathrm{H}^1(S, \mu_2)$. Thus we have $\mathcal{X}(K) = K^\times/K^{\times 2}$, but this doesn't equal $\mathcal{X}(\mathcal{O}_K)$. For example, if $\mathcal{O}_K$ is a PID then $\mathcal{X}(\mathcal{O}_K) = \mathcal{O}_K^\times/\mathcal{O}_K^{\times2}$.

For 2., this is the valuative criterion for properness of a morphism of stacks (see https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/0CLY, https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/0CQL, and https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/0CL9). Namely, for stacks one only stipulates the existence of an extension of a map from valuation ring after a possible base change of the ring, unlike for the case of schemes where existence of an extension is stipulated for the actual ring.

You can check this property yourself in the above example of $B \mu_2$.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Needless to say, if in the case of schemes we somehow had the existence of an extension of a map from a dvr after a possible enlargement of the dvr, this would imply the existence of an extension (without enlarging $R$). $\endgroup$ Oct 8, 2021 at 17:07

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.