3
$\begingroup$

Let $R$ be a discrete valuation ring with residue field $k$. Denote by $\mathbb G_m:= R[x,1/x]$ the multiplicative group over $R$ and $\mathbb G_{m,k}:= k[x,1/x]$. If $B$ is a flat local $R$-algebra, do we have $\mathbb{G}_m(B)=\mathbb{G}_{m,k}(B)$?

It is equivalent to prove that $$ \operatorname{hom}(R[x,1/x],B) = \operatorname{hom}(k[x,1/x],B)?$$

Denote by $\mathfrak{m}$ the maximal ideal. We have $$ 0 \to \mathfrak{m} \to R[x,1/x] \to k[x,1/x] \to 0$$

Taking $\operatorname{hom}(-,B)$ we have $$ 0 \to \operatorname{hom}(k[x,1/x],B) \to \operatorname{hom}(R[x,1/x],B) \to \operatorname{hom}(\mathfrak{m},B) $$

Is it true that $\operatorname{hom}(\mathfrak{m},B)=0$?

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

5
$\begingroup$

This is not true of any such $B$ unless $R=k$. Suppose the maximal ideal is generated by $y\in R$. For calculations if you think about the residue field as $k=R/y$, you see that for any scheme $X$ over $R$, the base change $X_k$ (rather, the fiber which is still based over $R$) has no $B$ points for any algebra $B$ which is not annihilated by $y$. In particular if $y\neq 0$, i.e. $R\neq k$, then taking $B=R$ is a counterexample for you, because $\mathbb{G}_m$ has nonempty $B$-points. But actually no flat algebra $B$ over $R$ is allowed to be annihilated by $y$ because that would imply $\mathrm{Tor_1^R(k, B)\neq 0}$.

$\endgroup$
5
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Can you explain more about the last fact $Tor_1^R(k,B) \neq 0$? Why is that? And why we should have $Tor_1^R(k,B) = 0$? Thanks a lot for your kind guidance. $\endgroup$
    – MAY
    Commented Aug 7 at 23:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I can elaborate without using derived functor if you like. What happens when you tensor the sequence $0\to\mathfrak{m} \to R\to k\to 0$ with an algebra $B$ which is annihilated by the element $y$ generating $\mathfrak{m}$? You get an isomorphism for the map on the right, but $B\otimes \mathfrak{m} $ you can show is nonzero when $y\neq 0$. So tensoring with $B$ isn't exact, by definition this makes it not flat. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 7 at 23:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Then $R \otimes B \cong k \otimes B$. But why $Tor \neq 0$? $\endgroup$
    – MAY
    Commented Aug 7 at 23:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, so this can be used to argue that the sequence is not exact. See my edit (finger slipped before I was done with my comment) $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 7 at 23:28
  • $\begingroup$ clear now, thanks a lot! $\endgroup$
    – MAY
    Commented Aug 7 at 23:29

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.