Let $K$ be a $p$-adic field, that is a complete discrete valuation ring of characteristic $0$ with a perfect residue field $k$ of characteristic $p > 0$ (to simplify one could also take $K$ to be a finite extension of $\mathbb{Q}_p$). Let $\mathbb{C}_K$ be the completion of a (fixed) algebraic closure $\overline{K}$ of $K$. Then one of Faltings' theorems in $p$-adic Hodge theory says for any smooth proper $K$-scheme $X$ there is a natural isomorphism of $\mathbb{C}_K$-semilinear $\mathrm{Gal}(\overline{K}/K) = \mathrm{Gal}(\mathbb{C}_K/K)$-representations

$\mathbb{C}_K \otimes_{\mathbb{Q}_p} H^n_{et}(X_{\overline{K}}, \mathbb{Q}_p) \cong \bigoplus_{q\in\mathbb{Z}} (\mathbb{C}_K(-q) \otimes_K H^{n - q}(X, \Omega_{X/K}^q)).$

Here $X_{\overline{K}}$ is the base change of $X$ to the algebraic closure, whereas $\mathbb{C}_K(s)$ stands for the usual $s$-th order Tate twist by the cyclotomic character describing the action of the absolute Galois group on the $p$-power roots of unity.

My question is: is there an integral version of the above isomorphism? Let me be more precise and explain what I mean by this: let $\mathcal{X}$ be a smooth proper scheme over the valuation ring $\mathcal{O}_K$ of $K$ and let $\mathcal{O}_{\overline{K}}$ be the valuation ring of the algebraic closure. Is there an isomorphism similar to the one above relating, say, $H^n_{et}(\mathcal{X}\times_{\mathcal{O}_K} \mathcal{O}_{\overline{K}}, \mathbb{Z}_p)$ and the $H^{n - q}(\mathcal{X}, \Omega^q_{\mathcal{X}/\mathcal{O}_K})$'s?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Dear Kestutis, See e.g. the articles of Fontaine--Messing, Faltings, and Caruso mentioned in the comments to the answers below. Regards, $\endgroup$ – Emerton May 30 '12 at 2:30

Dear Kestutis,

your question is integral in two ways: first of all, you would like to consider schemes over a whole DVR instead of the generic fiber only. Secondly, you would like to have a comparison theorem between two $\mathcal{O}_\overline{K}$-modules and not only between $K$-vector spaces. The two are tightly connected since $H_\text{dR}(\mathcal{X})\otimes K=H_\text{dR}(X)$, if $X$ denotes the generic fiber of $\mathcal{X}$.

As for the first question we have the so-called Crystalline Conjecture proven by Faltings and many others. It says that if $\mathcal{X}$ is proper and smooth over $\mathcal{O}_K$ (I keep your notations) with generic fiber $X$ and special fiber $\overline{\mathcal{X}}$, then $$ B_\text{cris}\otimes_{K_0}H_\text{cris}^m(\overline{\mathcal{X}})\cong B_\text{cris}\otimes_{\mathbb{Q}_p}H_\text{et}(X_\overline{K},\mathbb{Q}_p) $$ where $B_\text{cris}$ is Fontaine's ring of periods. If you extend scalars to $B_\text{dR}\supset B_\text{cris}$ you get back the comparison isomorphism that you quote because $B_\text{dR}$ admits a filtration whose associated graded ring is $\bigoplus_{q\in\mathbb{Z}}\mathbb{C}_K(q)$; and because of a basic result by Berthelot and Berthelot-Ogus saying that crystalline cohomology (which is the group $H_\text{cris}(\overline{\mathcal{X}})$ in my equation above and is a cohomology theory of the special fiber with coefficients in $W(k)$, the Witt vectors of the residue field $k$ of $\mathcal{O}_K$) is isomorphic to de Rham cohomology after you tensor both with $\text{Frac}(W(k))$. You could give a look at
1) J.-M. Fontaine, Représentations $p$-adiques semi-stables, in Périodes $p$-adiques, Astérisque 223, Section 6.1 for a discussion about the Crystalline Conjecture
2) P. Berthelot and A. Ogus, Notes on crystalline cohomology, Princeton University Press, Chapter 7 (the very last theorem) for the isomorphism $H_\text{cris}\cong H_\text{dR}$
Let me also remark that much of the above can be generalized assuming only that $\mathcal{X}$ be semistable instead of smooth (by Tsuji).

The second question is more subtle. As I mentioned, already the isomorphism $H_\text{cris}(\overline{\mathcal{X}})=H_\text{dR}(\mathcal{X})$ is false in general: it is true if $K/\mathbb{Q}_p$ (or $\mathcal{O}_K/\mathbb{Z}_p$, equivalently) has absolute ramification index $e\leq p-1$. In this case, at least, we dispose of an interpretation of the de Rham cohomology of $\mathcal{X}$ in terms of crystalline cohomology. We also have an "integral structure" $A_\text{cris}\subseteq B_\text{cris}$ and one can hope to have something like $$ A_\text{cris}\otimes_{W(k)}H_\text{cris}^m(\overline{\mathcal{X}})\stackrel{?}{\cong} A_\text{cris}\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}_p}Hˆm_\text{et}(\mathcal{X}_{\mathcal{O}_\overline{K}},\mathbb{Z}_p) $$ The problem is that $A_\text{cris}$ (and even $A_\text{cris}[1/p]$!) is much smaller than $B_\text{cris}$: roughly speaking, it cannot detect "negative Hodge-Tate weights".

[EDIT] As Keerthi Madapusi Pera and Matthew Emerton commented, in some special cases the above isomorphism holds true. They give precise references in the comments.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Such an isomorphism does exist if $e=1$ and $m<p$. See Fontaine-Messing, 'p-adic periods and p-adic etale cohomology'. In particular, if $X$ is an abelian variety over $W(k)$ and $p>2$, then it holds in all degrees. This is somewhat sharp. The result already fails for $p=2$ and $e=1$, and $X$ is an ordinary abelian variety. $\endgroup$ – Keerthi Madapusi Pera May 30 '12 at 2:19
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Dear Filippo, Faltings's Johns Hopkins article also gives an integral comparison theorem when $e = 1$ in degrees lying in the Fontaine--Laffaile range. More recently, Xavier Caruso has proved an integral semistable comparison theorem when $e$ times the cohomological degree $< p-1$. In general this question is part of the subject of "integral $p$-adic Hodge theory", which is a very active area of research. Regards, Matthew $\endgroup$ – Emerton May 30 '12 at 2:30
  • $\begingroup$ Dear Keerthi, Dear Matthew – thanks! As I said I am really not an expert, I apologize. $\endgroup$ – Filippo Alberto Edoardo May 30 '12 at 2:35
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Dear Filippo, I think I can speak for Keerthi as well as myself in saying that there's no need to apologize! Best wishes, Matthew $\endgroup$ – Emerton May 30 '12 at 3:57
  • $\begingroup$ Dear Keerthi, I gave a look at Fontaine-Messing but found no integral comparison theorem for deRham (or crystalline or syntomic) vs étale. Could you tell me where should I look? Thanks, Filippo $\endgroup$ – Filippo Alberto Edoardo Jun 2 '12 at 3:38

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.