2
$\begingroup$

$\DeclareMathOperator\Hom{Hom}\DeclareMathOperator\Pic{Pic}\DeclareMathOperator\Spec{Spec}\DeclareMathOperator\pr{pr}$I have some problems to understand the proof of Proposition 1.5 from Mumford's Geometric Invariant Theory, p 34:

Corollary 1.5
Let $G$ be a connected linear algebraic group acting on an algebraic variety $X$, that is proper over $k$ (in the book a variety is a scheme $X/k$ such that $\overline{X}= X \times \Spec(\overline{k})$ is irreducible and reduced). Let $\mathcal{L}$ be an invertible sheaf on $X$, and let $[\mathcal{L}]$ the class regarded as the $k$-rational point of the Picard scheme $\Pic(X/k)$ associated to $\mathcal{L}$.
Then some power $\mathcal{L}^n$ is $G$-linearizable if and only if some multiple $[\mathcal{L}]^n$ of $[\mathcal{L}] $ is left fixed by induced $G$-action on $ \Hom_k(\Spec(k), \Pic (X/k))$.

(at this point one should remark that in the book this left action by $G$ on $\mathcal{Pic}_{X/k}(k)$ is not explained in explicit terms. In the substantively similar question Corollary 1.6 in Mumford's Geometric Invariant Theory I made a remark how I think this action might work in detail).

[Second important remark before we dip into the proof:
Recall that more less by definition of the Picard functor is given by

$$ \mathcal{Pic}_{X/k}(S) := H^0(G, R^1p_{1*} (\mathcal{O}_{S \times X}^*) = \\ \{ \mathcal{M} \text{ invertible sheaf on } X \times_k S \} / \{ \text{ inv. sheaves of the form } p^*_S(\mathcal{K}) \text{ for } \mathcal{K} \text{ invertible on } S \}. $$

The proof uses [cp Chap. 0, §5, (d)] the fact that the Picard functor is "almost" representable, that means precisely there exists a $k$-scheme $\Pic(X/k)$ representing the associated functor $\text{Hom}( \ , \Pic(X/k))$ which contains the Picard functor $\mathcal{Pic}_{X/k}$ in the sense that for any $k$-scheme $S$ there is a functorial inclusion

$$ \iota_S: \mathcal{Pic}_{X/k}(S) \hookrightarrow \Hom_k(S,\Pic(X/k)). $$

In general that's a proper inclusion. The equality only holds if $X \times_k S$ admits a section over $S$.

The Proof. The only if is clear. Conversely, suppose $[\mathcal{L}]^n$ is left fixed by $G$. Then the claim is first that for some $m$, the two pullback sheaves $\sigma^*(\mathcal{L}^{nm})$ and $p_2^*(\mathcal{L}^{nm})$ (induced by the action and projection maps $\sigma, p_2: G \times X \to X $ on $ G \times X $ are isomorphic. To see this, consider the see-saw exact sequence [Rem.: I never saw the term see-saw sequence. I think that is just the exact part of Leray–Serre spectral sequence for higher image sheaf]:

$$ 0 \to H^1(G, \mathcal{O}_G^*) \to H^1(G \times X, \mathcal{O}_{G \times X}^*) \to H^0(G, R^1p_{1*} (\mathcal{O}_{G \times X}^*).$$

Since $H^1(G, \mathcal{O}_G^*)$ is a finite group (Seminaire Chevalley, [9], 5-21), it is enough to show that the image of $\sigma^*(\mathcal{L}^n) \otimes p_2^*(\mathcal{L}^n)^{-1}$ in $H^0(G, R^1p_{1*} (\mathcal{O}_{G \times X}^*)$ is zero. But, by the functorial definition of $\Pic (X/k)$ (cf Chap. 0, §5, (d), page 23)

$$ \mathcal{Pic}_{X/k}(G) = H^0(G, R^1p_{1*} (\mathcal{O}_{G \times X}^*) \subset \Hom_k(G, \Pic (X/k)). $$

But, as in the proof of proposition 1.4, it holds $H^0(G \times X, \mathcal{O}_{G \times X}^*) \cong H^0(G, \mathcal{O}_G^*)$ and the latter is just $k* \times M$, where $M$ is the set of characters, i.e., $\Hom(G, \mathbb{G}_m)$.
Choose an isomorphism $\phi: \sigma^*(\mathcal{L}^{nm}) \to p_2^*(\mathcal{L}^{nm})$, which is the identity on $\{e\} \times X$. [The rest of the proof verifies the cocycle condition $p^*_{23} \phi \circ (1_G \times \sigma)^* = (m \times 1_x)^* \phi $, that's fine .]

The question is why the assumption that the class $[\mathcal{L}^n] \in \Hom_k(\Spec(k), \Pic (X/k))$ is fixed by $G$-action, implies that the pullback sheaves $\sigma^*(\mathcal{L}^{nm})$ and $p_2^*(\mathcal{L}^{nm})$ are isomorphic, or as remarked that's equivalent to to the question why the images of classes $[\sigma^*(\mathcal{L}^{n})]$ and $[p_2^*(\mathcal{L}^{n})]$ in $ H^0(G, R^1p_{1*} (\mathcal{O}_{G \times X}^*)) \subset \Hom_k(G, \Pic (X/k)) $ are identical?

To rephrase it in other terms, the maps $\sigma, p_2: G \times X \to X $, which are given on geometric points by $(g,x) \mapsto g \cdot x$, respectively $(g,x) \mapsto x$, map the classes $[\mathcal{M}] \in \mathcal{Pic}_{X/k}(k) $ to classes in $\mathcal{Pic}_{X/k}(G)$ via taking $[\mathcal{M}]$ to the pullback $[\sigma^*\mathcal{M}]$, respectively $[p_2^*\mathcal{M}]$.
How do these operations by $\sigma, p_2$ look like in explicit terms as maps between $ \Hom(\Spec(k), \Pic(X/k))$ and $\Hom(G, \Pic(X/k))$? Especially how to construct explicitly from the pullback of $[\mathcal{L}]^n$ by $\sigma$ and $p_2$ elements in $\Hom_k(G, \Pic (X/k)) $ representing the classes of the images of $\sigma^*(\mathcal{L}^{n})$ and $p_2^*(\mathcal{L}^{n})$?

Pictorally, the action and projection morphisms $\sigma, \pr_X$ should induce following diagram

$$ \require{AMScd} \begin{CD} \mathcal{Pic}_{X/k}(k) @>{\iota_k} >> \Hom(\Spec(k), \Pic(X/k)) \\ @VV\sigma^*, p_2^*V @VVf_{\sigma^*}, f_{\pr_X^*}V \\ \mathcal{Pic}_{X/k}(G) @>{\iota_G}>> \Hom(G, \Pic(X/k)) \end{CD} $$

and I'm interested in the explicit structure of the right vertical maps $f_{\sigma^*}, f_{\pr_X^*}: \Hom(\Spec(k), \Pic(X/k)) \to \Hom(G, \Pic(X/k))$ making the diagram commutative with respect $\sigma^*, \pr_X^*$ on the left and what they do with $[\mathcal{L}^n] \in \Hom_k(\Spec(k), \Pic (X/k))$.

My conjecture is that the image of $p_2^*(\mathcal{L}^{n})$ in $\Hom_k(G, \Pic (X/k)) $ should represent a constant map with image be the $k$-point $[\mathcal{L}^n]$, while $\sigma^*(\mathcal{L}^{n})$ the orbit map of $[\mathcal{L}^n]$ induced by the action of $G$ on $k$-valued points of $ \Pic (X/k)$. This would suggest that $f_{\sigma^*}$ and $f_{\pr_X^*}$ should be explicitly given by

$$ [x] \mapsto f_{\sigma^*}([x]) := (g \mapsto g \cdot [x]) $$

and respectively

$$ [x] \mapsto f_{\pr_X^*}([x]) := (g \mapsto [x]) $$

i.e. the constant map, where $[x]: \Spec(k) \to \Pic(X/k)$ is any geometric $k$-point of $\Pic(X/k)$ and $ g \cdot [x]:= [g^*x]$ the induced action on Picard group via pullback. Having this, we assumed $G$ to fix $[\mathcal{L}^n]$, therefore these the images of $[\mathcal{L}^n]$ by these maps would coinside as elements in $\Hom_k(G, \Pic (X/k)) $ and should give isomorphic line bundles over $G \times X$.

Therefore if the $f_{\sigma^*}$, $f_{\pr_X^*}$ would be given like I conjecture, this would be consistent with the tacitly used claim in the proof that $[\sigma^*(\mathcal{L}^{n})]$ and $ [p_2^*(\mathcal{L}^{n})]$ are identical as elements in $\mathcal{Pic}_{X/k}(G) \subset \Hom_k(G, \Pic (X/k))$. But I not see how to verify that $f_{\sigma^*}$, $f_{\pr_X^*}$ have this form.

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

1
+50
$\begingroup$

I think the fist part of the proof of 1.5 may be rephrased as follows. The hypothesis that $[\mathcal{L}^n]$ is fixed by the $G$-action exactly means that for all $g \in G$, there is an isomorphism: $$ \sigma^* \mathcal{L}^n \big|_{\{g\} \times X} \simeq p_2^* \mathcal{L}^n|_{\{g\} \times X}.$$ Put differently, for all $g \in G$, there is an isomorphism:

$$\sigma^* \mathcal{L}^n \otimes \left(p_2^* \mathcal{L}^n \right)^{-1} \big|_{\{g\} \times X} \simeq \mathcal{O}_X.$$ By the Seesaw Theorem, this means that $\sigma^* \mathcal{L}^n \otimes \left(p_2^* \mathcal{L}^n\right)^{-1}$ is the pull-back of a line bundle on $G$. But a Theorem of Chevalley implies $H^{1}(G, \mathcal{O}_{G}^*)$ is finite, hence $\sigma^* \mathcal{L}^n \otimes \left(p_2^* \mathcal{L}^n \right)^{-1}$ is torsion and we are done.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ this argument I understand. but do you maybe know if it's also possible to find out the explicit form of the morphisms $G \to \text{Pic}(X/k)$ on the right side which corresponds to the classes $ [ \sigma^*(\mathcal{L}^{n})]$ and $ [ p_2^*(\mathcal{L}^{n})]$ in $ \mathcal{Pic}_{X/k}(G) $? $\endgroup$
    – user267839
    Nov 20, 2022 at 23:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JustusC : your conjecture about the morphisms $f_{\sigma}$ and $f_{pr^*_X}$ should be correct. I think you just have to use the fact that the morphism $i_G$ sends a line bundle $L$ on $X \times G$ to the map $g \longrightarrow L|_{\{g\} \times X}$ and the fact that the diagram is commutative. $\endgroup$
    – Libli
    Nov 21, 2022 at 6:45
  • $\begingroup$ could you give a sketch (if that's not too long) or a reference where I can look up a proof of that $i_G$ is given that way? It looks of course heuristically plausible, but I nowhere found literature cointaining the formal proof which affirms this. $\endgroup$
    – user267839
    Nov 21, 2022 at 9:44
  • $\begingroup$ @JustusC : I think i may be able to do that. But I would need to write commutative diagrams, which I can not do in a comment. It will be easier if you ask a separate question. $\endgroup$
    – Libli
    Nov 21, 2022 at 13:18
  • $\begingroup$ thank you a lot. I will post it next day $\endgroup$
    – user267839
    Nov 21, 2022 at 14:09

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.