I'm not sure how long this iterative questions can go on, but let me try again. Let's say $X$ is a Cohen-Macaulay scheme with an action of $\mathbb{G}_m$ (i.e. if $X$ is affine, a grading on the coordinate ring). Are the schematic fixed points $X^{\mathbb{G}_m}$ of $X$ Cohen-Macaulay?

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I am not sure what the usual business is, but it is not true that if $\mathbb G_{\rm m}$ acts on a variety $X$ with a fixed point $p$, then this induces an action of $\mathbb G_{\rm m}$ on $\mathop{\rm Spec}\mathcal O_{X,p}$. $\endgroup$ – Angelo Oct 25 '10 at 21:39
  • $\begingroup$ Is this an issue of not being able to find a $\mathbb{G}_m$-invariant affine open containing $p$? $\endgroup$ – Ben Webster Oct 25 '10 at 22:23
  • $\begingroup$ Those invariant affines are not cofinal in all neighborhoods. Algebraically, the localization of C[x] at the ideal (x) does not admit a grading...does it? $\endgroup$ – David Treumann Oct 25 '10 at 22:34
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, right. That was complete nonsense. Removed. I think you probably you can reduce to the graded local case, but let me not worry about that. $\endgroup$ – Ben Webster Oct 25 '10 at 23:03
  • $\begingroup$ Let $T^1$ act on ${\mathbb A}^3$ with weights $0,1,1$. Then on the ${\mathbb P}^2$, the fixed-point set is not equidimensional. So you can only hope to have a local statement. $\endgroup$ – Allen Knutson Oct 26 '10 at 0:39

Here is a counterexample. Consider the action of $\mathbb G_{\rm m}$ on $\mathbb A^4$ defined by $t \cdot(x,y,z,w) = (x, y, tz, t^{-1}w)$, and let $X$ be the invariant closed subscheme with ideal $(xy, y^2 + zw)$; this is a complete intersection, hence it is Cohen-Macaulay. The fixed point subscheme is obtained by intersecting with the fixed point subscheme in $\mathbb A^4$, which is given by $z = w = 0$; hence it is the subscheme of $\mathbb A^2$ given by $xy = y^2 = 0$, which is of course the canonical example of a non Cohen-Macaulay scheme.

Developing this idea a little, one can show that any kind of horrible singularity can appear in the fixed point subscheme of a $\mathbb G_{\rm m}$-action on a complete intersection variety.

  • $\begingroup$ Murphy's law strikes again! $\endgroup$ – Ben Webster Oct 27 '10 at 6:50

Edit: the following does not answer Ben's question. It gives an example of the subring fixed by $G_m$ being not CM, while the question asked about the subscheme of fixed points, see the comments for more details.

Let $R$ be the (homogenous) cone of a curve $C$ of genus $g>0$, for example $R=\mathbb C[x,y,z]/(x^3+y^3+z^3)$. Let $S=R[u,v]$, $X=\text{Spec}(S)$ and $G_m$ acts by

$a.(x,y,z,u,v) = (ax,ay,az,a^{-1}u, a^{-1}v)$.

Then $A= S^{G_m}$ would be a homogenous coordinate ring for $Y= C\times \mathbb P^1$, so it is not Cohen-Macaulay (if $A$ is CM, it would mean that $H^1(Y,\mathcal O_Y)=0$, impossible, see here for an explanation).

(I learned this idea from Hochster, let me try to find a reference)

  • $\begingroup$ Hailong- this is the categorical quotient, not schematic fixed points. The schematic fixed points here are a single point with reduced structure and thus Cohen-Macaulay. $\endgroup$ – Ben Webster Oct 25 '10 at 23:12
  • $\begingroup$ Hmm, sorry, I always thought of this notation as the invariants. What do you mean by schematic fixed pts? Are they just literally the pts of $X$ fixed by the group action? $\endgroup$ – Hailong Dao Oct 26 '10 at 0:10
  • $\begingroup$ @Hailong: you applied the fixed-point functor to the algebra rather than to the space. That is, the notation itself has a consistent meaning. (I'm not surely how to reasonable define schematic fixed points; in characteristic zero, with a connected group, one could look where the generating vector fields vanish.) $\endgroup$ – Allen Knutson Oct 26 '10 at 0:43
  • $\begingroup$ Dear Hailong: No ad hoc constructions/definitions are required. For any scheme $X$ over a ring $k$ and action on $X$ by a $k$-gp scheme $G$, define functor $X^G$ on $k$-algebras as follows: for $k$-algebra $R$, $X^G(R)$ is set of $x \in X(R)$ fixed by the $G_R$-action on $X_R$ (i.e., for any $R$-algebra $R'$, $x$ viewed in $X(R')$ is $G(R')$-invariant). Is this represented by a closed subscheme of $X$? Yes, provided $X$ is locally of finite type and separated over $k$ and $G$ is affine and fppf over $k$ with connected fibers. (See Prop. A.8.10(1)ff. in "Pseudo-reductive groups" for details.) $\endgroup$ – BCnrd Oct 26 '10 at 1:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @ Allen and BCnrd: thank you! I will leave my answer, so people might benefit from your explanations and avoid my mistakes! $\endgroup$ – Hailong Dao Oct 26 '10 at 2:07

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.