8
$\begingroup$

Fix $n$ and a field $k$ of characteristic zero. Let $G$ be the pro-algebraic group of automorphims of $k[[x_1,...x_n]]$. Let $G_0$ be the subgroup of automorphisms preserving the closed point (note that for general $T$, $G_0(T)$ can be a proper subgroup of $G(T)$). Let $X$ be a regular variety over $k$ and let $P$ be the principal $G$ bundle of formal coordinate systems, naturally a $G$ torsor over $X$. I hear that there is a connection between $P$ and $D_X$-modules. what is this connection?

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Sergiy: you removed a pair of brackets, turning $k[[x_1.\dots.x_n]]$ into $k[x_1, \dots, x_n]$, which is a rather differet thing! You should undo that change. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 10, 2013 at 16:31

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

Assume X is n-dimensional and regular. Then there is a functor from G-modules V to DX-modules, given by an associated bundle construction. Take the trivial (ind-)bundle on P with fiber V, and quotient by the action of G on P and V. If you replace G with G0 and P with the canonical G0-torsor, the same construction yields an OX-module. The extra structure of a G-action lets you identify infinitesimally nearby fibers.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ I'm confused. Shouldn't you need the the action of a Harish-Chandra pair (roughly since k[[x_1,...,x_n]] has derivations that don't integrate)? Group actions shouldn't be able to glue infinitesimally close points. Or is this some subtle thing where thinking about the algebraic group encapsulates the Lie algebra bit? $\endgroup$
    – Ben Webster
    Commented Oct 14, 2009 at 22:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You can formally exponentiate a Harish-Chandra pair. G_0 is a proalgebraic group, but G is a formal group with a big proalgebraic subgroup. You can think of it as a group ind-scheme. $\endgroup$
    – S. Carnahan
    Commented Oct 14, 2009 at 23:01
  • $\begingroup$ So.... that would be a yes. $\endgroup$
    – Ben Webster
    Commented Oct 15, 2009 at 12:55
  • $\begingroup$ It's sort of a yes for both questions, but you change "algebraic" to "formal" in the second. You can think of G as G_0 with extra fuzz. $\endgroup$
    – S. Carnahan
    Commented Oct 15, 2009 at 15:31

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.