Before me, the following was asked: etale fundamental group and etale cohomology of curves

However, that question dealt only with projective curves.


Let $X$ be any scheme (or if you prefer something more concrete, a variety over some field), and let $l$ be some prime different from the characteristics of the residue fields of $X$ (respectively, the characteristic of the field over which the variety is defined), then is there an isomorphism $Hom_{cont}(\pi_1^{et}(X),\mathbb{Q}_l)\cong H^1_c(X,\mathbb{Q}_l)$?

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Why $H^1_c$ instead of $H^1?$ $\endgroup$ – shenghao Oct 25 '11 at 3:39

In general, it's always true (for a connected scheme) that $H^1_{et}(X, \mathbb{Z}/l \mathbb{Z}) = \hom(\pi_1^{et}(X), \mathbb{Z}/l\mathbb{Z})$ (not compactly supported). Taking inverse limits over $l$ then gives the claim.

The reason this is true is that $H^1_{et}(X, \mathbb{Z}/l\mathbb{Z}$) can be computed by Cech cocycles, and from this it follows that elements of this group classify torsors over $\mathbb{Z}/l\mathbb{Z}$ (i.e. sheaves with a $\mathbb{Z}/l\mathbb{Z}$-action which are locally the constant $\mathbb{Z}/l \mathbb{Z}$ (in the etale topology)). But these, by descent theory, are the same as Galois covers of $X$ with Galois group $\mathbb{Z}/l\mathbb{Z}$, and (by Galois theory) classified by maps from the etale fundamental group into $\mathbb{Z}/l\mathbb{Z}$.

  • $\begingroup$ So this is true for any scheme? We don't need any connectedness assumptions as was suggested by Jared Weinstein's answer quoted by Makhalan? $\endgroup$ – Ariyan Javanpeykar Oct 24 '11 at 19:28
  • $\begingroup$ I'm sure we're assuming connected, otherwise this isn't even true in the usual algebraic topological sense. $\endgroup$ – Makhalan Duff Oct 24 '11 at 19:29
  • $\begingroup$ Ok. I think we only use this when applying "Galois theory". I'm pretty sure the first statement Akhil makes is true without the connectedness assumption. Or am I wrong? $\endgroup$ – Ariyan Javanpeykar Oct 24 '11 at 19:35
  • $\begingroup$ What do you mean by the first statement? That $H^1_{et}(X,\mathbb{Z}/l\mathbb{Z})=hom(\pi_1^{et}(X),\mathbb{Z}/l\mathbb{Z})$? This would be false in algebraic topology. Think of $hom(\pi_1^{et}(X),\mathbb{Z}/l\mathbb{Z})$ as really being $(\pi_1^{et}(X))^{ab}\otimes \mathbb{Z}/l\mathbb{Z}$... $\endgroup$ – Makhalan Duff Oct 24 '11 at 19:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Ariyan: The statement about $H^1$ should always be true (on sites in general). @Matt: Thanks, and whoops! $\endgroup$ – Akhil Mathew Oct 24 '11 at 23:57

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.