9
$\begingroup$

Let $S$ be a scheme over a field $k$, and let $G$ be a reductive group scheme over $S$. Let us call it trivial, if it is a pull-back of a group scheme over $k$ via the structure morphism $S\to k$. Is it always true that $G$ becomes trivial after a certain etale base change $S'\to S$? I am willing to assume that $S$ is smooth if needed.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The question looks natural, but it would be interesting to know a little more about the background or the implications. $\endgroup$ – Jim Humphreys Apr 23 '11 at 14:56
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ If you look at SGA 3, Prop XIX.6.1, it is essentially shown that any reductive group over any base is split after a finite etale base change. So if you allow extensions of scalars of $k$ as well, then what you need follows. $\endgroup$ – Keerthi Madapusi Pera Apr 23 '11 at 15:11
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, it appears as if the Proposition does not guarantee you a finite etale base change, though I would be surprised if this weren't true. $\endgroup$ – Keerthi Madapusi Pera Apr 23 '11 at 15:13
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ I have been informed by the esteemed BCnrd that my previous comment was too optimistic. In fact, in his paper 'Groups over $\mathbb{Z}$', B. Gross has shown the existence of non-split simply-connected semi-simple groups over $\mathbb{Q}$ that have reductive models over $\mathbb{Z}$. In particular, these models can only split after a non-finite etale base-change over $\mathbb{Z}$. $\endgroup$ – Keerthi Madapusi Pera Apr 23 '11 at 21:54
  • $\begingroup$ Answering the question of Jim, if the statement is correct, then reductive group schemes over $S$ are classified by $H^1_{et}(S, Aut_G)$, right? $\endgroup$ – Roman Fedorov Apr 25 '11 at 17:26
6
$\begingroup$

Reductive groups schemes over $S$ are classified by $H^1_{fpqc}(S,Aut_G)$, see SGA 3 Exp. XXIV.

$\endgroup$
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ You can indeed replace $fpqc$ by $et$, see SGA 3 Exp. XXIV Cor. 1.18 $\endgroup$ – Victor Petrov Apr 29 '11 at 11:26
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Note that SGA3 has its own definition of reductive. The geometric fibers have to be connected. $\endgroup$ – Wilberd van der Kallen Apr 29 '11 at 15:55

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

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