My questions here are from my attempt at trying to understand the definition on pg 15 in [FG2]-"Local Geometric Langlands Correspondence & Affine Kac-Moody Algebras" (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math/pdf/0508/0508382v3.pdf ). It is also discussed on pg 122 in http://math.berkeley.edu/~frenkel/loop.pdf (and in some other places such as Beilinson-Drinfeldt's "Quantization of Hitchin's integrable system & Hecke eigensheaves").

Question 1: In this context, what precisely is a connection $\nabla$ on a principal $G$-bundle $\mathfrak{F}_G$ on $X$? (Here $X$ is a smooth curve, or the formal disc, or the punctured disc.) Here, a principal $G$-bundle $\mathfrak{F}_G$ is presumably defined as a scheme with a map $\mathfrak{F}_G \rightarrow X$, a $G$-action $G \times \mathfrak{F}_G \rightarrow \mathfrak{F}_G$, satisfying certain compatibilities.

Question 2: In the same paragraph: given a reduction $\mathfrak{F}_B$ of $\mathfrak{F}_G$ to the Borel $B$, what does it mean for $\nabla$ to preserve $\mathfrak{F}_B$?

What does the notation $\mathfrak{g}_{F_G}$ mean, and why is $ \nabla - \nabla' \in \mathfrak{g}_{F_G}$? Finally, how to project $\nabla - \nabla'$ to $(\mathfrak{g}/\mathfrak{b})_{F_B} \times \omega_X$?

Question 3: In the paragraph on pg 15 after the Lemma, is the $B$-bundle $\mathfrak{F}_B$ a trivial bundle? (I am confused by this, because not all bundles on a smooth curve are trivial). After picking a trivialization, how do we get a tautological connection $\nabla^{0}$?

Question 4: On pg 16, Section 1.2, when $R$ is a $D_X$ algebra, how is an $R$-family of $\mathfrak{g}$-opers defined?

  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Please do not write citations like [BD1]. Instead, please expand them as references, e.g., Beilinson and Drinfeld's book, Quantization of Hitchin's integrable system and Hecke eigensheaves $\endgroup$ – S. Carnahan May 24 '11 at 5:59
  • $\begingroup$ Ok sorry, I've edited it now. $\endgroup$ – Vinoth May 24 '11 at 6:04
  • $\begingroup$ Drinfeld or Drinfel'd but not Drinfeldt. $\endgroup$ – Zoran Skoda May 24 '11 at 9:25
  • $\begingroup$ Well, that's where my questions originate from - these are some of the details that Frenkel skipped on pg 122 $\endgroup$ – Vinoth May 24 '11 at 10:49
  • $\begingroup$ @Vinoth: Oops! My apologies! $\endgroup$ – SGP May 24 '11 at 23:33

Question 1: In the answers to a previous question of yours, I think it was explained that one way to view a connection is as infinitesimal descent data. It might be more useful, however, to look at some specific examples: when $G=GL_n$, then a $G$-bundle with flat connection is just a vector bundle of rank $n$ with a flat connection; when $G=SL_n$, it's a vector bundle $V$ of rank $n$ equipped with a flat connection $\nabla$ such that $\det(V)$ admits a $\nabla$-parallel generating section; when $G=SO_n$, it's just a $SL_n$-bundle with flat connection $\nabla$ equipped also with a $\nabla$-parallel non-degenerate quadratic form....

Question 2: In any of the above explicit settings, giving a reduction to a Borel $B$ simply amounts to giving an appropriate full flag of sub-bundles for $V$ (for example, if $G=SO_n$, you will require some isotropicity condition for the flag). A connection will preserve the reduction $\mathfrak{F}_B$ if it preserves the flag it corresponds to (in the sense that every derivation preserves the flag). If $\nabla$ and $\nabla'$ are two flat connections (of $G$-bundles), then their difference is an element of $End(V)\otimes\Omega^1$. Of course, their difference will kill any structures on $V$ that are parallel with respect to both $\nabla$ and $\nabla'$ : so, if $G=SL_n$, then it will be of trace $0$; if $G=SO_n$, then it will be of trace $0$ and preserve the quadratic form. This sub-space, which is a twist of $\mathfrak{g}=Lie(G)$ (viewed as a representation of $G$) by the $G$-torsor $\mathfrak{F}$, is what is being referred to as $\mathfrak{g}_{\mathfrak{F}_G}$.

So we find that $\nabla-\nabla'$ is an element of $\mathfrak{g}_{\mathfrak{F}_G}\otimes\Omega^1$.

EDIT: I was trying to give an idea of what preserving $\mathfrak{F}_B$ meant, but the notion of $\nabla$ preserving $\mathfrak{F}_B$ is simple in general: we have an identification of $G$-torsors: $$\mathfrak{F}_G=G\times^B\mathfrak{F}_B.$$ We now simply require the connection $\nabla$ to arise from a connection on $\mathfrak{F}_B$ via this identification.

Question 3: Here, I think they're only asking for a local trivialization of $\mathfrak{F}_B$. A trivialization of $\mathfrak{F}_B$ gives an isomorphism of $B$-torsors from $B\times X$ to $\mathfrak{F}_B$. The former has a tautological connection over $X$, since it's a constant $X$-scheme. EDIT: The local trivialization gives a local tautological connection!

Question 4: No idea.

EDIT: In general, if you have a $G$-torsor $P$ over $X$, and a representation $V$ of $G$, you can define the twist $V_P$ as a vector bundle over $X$: this is the contraction product $$V\times^G P=(V\times P)/G,$$ where $G$ is acting diagonally. If you look at 1.2.4 in Frenkel's book ('Langlands correspondence...'), then you'll find that giving a connection on $P$ is equivalent to giving compatible flat connections on the twists $V_P$ of all algebraic $G$-representations $V$. Essentially, if you have infinitesimal descent data for $P$, then you clearly have corresponding data for the twists $V_P$; the converse is trickier and uses some Tannakian theory. When $G$ has a faithful representation $V$ (like in our examples), it is enough to do this for the one twist $V_P$ (again, by the Tannakian machine).

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! A couple questions: So for #1, how do I relate the definition with infinitesmal descend data to the definition that's being used here? Specifically, how do I generalize the defn of vector bundle with flat connection to G-bundle with flat connection? For the 2nd question, how precisely do I construct the twist $\mathfrak{g}_{F_G}$ of $\mathfrak{g}$ by $\mathfrak{F}_G$? And if $G$ is not classical, and presumably no description using flags exists, how do I describe when $\nabla$ preserves $\mathfrak{F}_B$? Finally - does a local trivialization give a tautological connection also? $\endgroup$ – Vinoth May 24 '11 at 8:23

This is just a small remark about how to make sense of opers parametrized by a $\mathcal{D}_X$-algebra $R$. [And admittedly I'm not actually sure it's correct, but it seems to be the "obvious" way to do it.]

Let's just assume for the moment that $G=GL(n)$, since as in Keerthi's answer by Tannakian nonsense this suffices. Then $\mathcal{D}_X\otimes_{\mathcal{O}_X}R$ has a natural structure of a (noncommutative) sheaf of algebras, where one uses the $\mathcal{D}_X$-action on $R$ to define commutators between elements of $R$ and $\mathcal{D}_X$; and it comes equipped with a (noncentral) algebra homomorphism $R\rightarrow \mathcal{D}_X\otimes_{\mathcal{O}_X}R$ (analogous to the usual $\mathcal{O}_X\rightarrow \mathcal{D}_X$). A connection on a family $V$ of vector bundles parametrized by the $\mathcal{D}_X$-algebra $R$ (in other words, $V$ is a locally projective $R$-module) should be an extension of the $R$-action on $V$ to an $\mathcal{D}_X\otimes_{\mathcal{O}_X}R$-action on $V$. Compatibility of a filtration with the connection is just as Keerthi describes it.

This will be equivalent to the crystalline description: giving $R$ a $\mathcal{D}_X$-algebra structure is equivalent to descending it to a sheaf of algebras on the de Rham space of $X$ (i.e. descending $\operatorname{Spec}(R)$ to a space $\mathcal{R}$ affine over the de Rham space of $X$), and giving $V$ an action of $\mathcal{D}_X\otimes_{\mathcal{O}_X}R$ will be equivalent to giving descent data to a vector bundle on $\mathcal{R}$.


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.