Galois Action on Scheme
Let $X$ be a $K$-scheme and $L vert K$ be a Galois extension with Galois group $G= Gal(L,K)$.
Let consider the base change $X_L := X otimes_K L:= X times_{Spec(K)} Spec(L)$. Since $X_L$ is a $L$-scheme $G$ can act on it.
My problems are following: I see some ways $G$ acting on $X_L$ and on it's structure sheaf but I'm not sure if they all coinside/corelate to each other and why?
- Let $g in G$ then it induce an automorphism $g: Spec(L) to Spec(L)$ and one can define the action of $g$ on $X_L$ via commutative diagram
$$
require{AMScd}
begin{CD}
X_L @>{bar{g}} >> X_L \
@VVprV @VVprV \
Spec(L) @>{g}>> Spec(L);
end{CD}
$$
or sugestively $bar{g}: id_X times g$
- Let $mathcal{F}$ be a $mathcal{O}_{X}$-module.
I heard that $G$ can induce canonically an "$mathcal{O}_{X_L}$-linear-action" on tnduced sheaf $mathscr{F}otimes mathcal{O}_L$ acting on local sections $mathcal{F}(U)$ for open $U$.
How concretely this action is described? Comes it from the same action as in case 1.?
In the sense of local action $(mathcal{F}(U) otimes_K L) ^g = mathcal{F}(U) otimes_K L^g$ ? So only on second summand? Or are these two actions different?
Espesially I don't see how could $G$ act on local sections of an arbitrary $mathcal{O}_{X}$-module $mathcal{F}$.
Futhermore this concept allows to define the so called sub-$mathcal{O}_{X_L}$-module $mathcal{F}^G subset mathcal{F}$ of invariants. But with respect to which action of $G$?
So the main point of my question is if 1. and 2. "generate" the same action and how this action extends to $mathcal{O}_{X_L}$-modules.
Is this exactly THE canonical Galois action on a scheme which in the literature often mentioned but nowhere explicitely described?
algebraic-geometry group-actions schemes
asked Dec 27 '18 at 1:17
KarlPeter
5951315
|
show 5 more comments
Let $X$ be a $K$-scheme and $L vert K$ be a Galois extension with Galois group $G= Gal(L,K)$.
Let consider the base change $X_L := X otimes_K L:= X times_{Spec(K)} Spec(L)$. Since $X_L$ is a $L$-scheme $G$ can act on it.
My problems are following: I see some ways $G$ acting on $X_L$ and on it's structure sheaf but I'm not sure if they all coinside/corelate to each other and why?
- Let $g in G$ then it induce an automorphism $g: Spec(L) to Spec(L)$ and one can define the action of $g$ on $X_L$ via commutative diagram
$$
require{AMScd}
begin{CD}
X_L @>{bar{g}} >> X_L \
@VVprV @VVprV \
Spec(L) @>{g}>> Spec(L);
end{CD}
$$
or sugestively $bar{g}: id_X times g$
- Let $mathcal{F}$ be a $mathcal{O}_{X}$-module.
I heard that $G$ can induce canonically an "$mathcal{O}_{X_L}$-linear-action" on tnduced sheaf $mathscr{F}otimes mathcal{O}_L$ acting on local sections $mathcal{F}(U)$ for open $U$.
How concretely this action is described? Comes it from the same action as in case 1.?
In the sense of local action $(mathcal{F}(U) otimes_K L) ^g = mathcal{F}(U) otimes_K L^g$ ? So only on second summand? Or are these two actions different?
Espesially I don't see how could $G$ act on local sections of an arbitrary $mathcal{O}_{X}$-module $mathcal{F}$.
Futhermore this concept allows to define the so called sub-$mathcal{O}_{X_L}$-module $mathcal{F}^G subset mathcal{F}$ of invariants. But with respect to which action of $G$?
So the main point of my question is if 1. and 2. "generate" the same action and how this action extends to $mathcal{O}_{X_L}$-modules.
Is this exactly THE canonical Galois action on a scheme which in the literature often mentioned but nowhere explicitely described?
algebraic-geometry group-actions schemes
asked Dec 27 '18 at 1:17
KarlPeter
5951315
Well 1 and 2 act on different things. 1 acts on the scheme $X_L$ by morphisms of schemes, and 2 acts on $mathcal{O}_{X_L}$-modules by morphisms of the same. They certainly aren't the same action thus you may want to ask, instead of whether or not they are the same action, whether each gives rise to the other or something like that.
– jgon
Dec 27 '18 at 1:37
@jgon:Ah sorry, I guess I forgot to explain some detail. If the action from 1. acts on $X_L$ then obviously induce an action on $mathcal{O}_{X_L}$ since the structure sheaf belongs to the data on $X_L$. The question is if the action from 1. then extends from the action on $mathcal{O}_{X_L}$ to arbitrary $mathcal{O}_{X_L}$-module and if it coinside with 2. The thing is that a $mathcal{O}_X$-module $mathcal{F}$ induce locally a $mathcal{O}_{X_L}$-module structure via $mathcal{F}(U) otimes_K L$ and here 1. can induce naively action.
– KarlPeter
Dec 27 '18 at 1:53
The thing is that a $mathcal{O}_X$-module $mathcal{F}$ induce locally a $mathcal{O}_{X_L}$-module structure via $mathcal{F}(U) otimes_K L$ and here 1. can induce naively action.
– KarlPeter
Dec 27 '18 at 1:54
sorry, I guess I wasn't very clear either. My issue with that idea is that in 1 it doesn't preserve open sets (as in $U$ and $gU$ aren't always the same set) (at least I don't think it does) it certainly doesn't preserve points. Also it acts by ring morphisms not module morphisms, so I'm not sure how you'd get the action in 2 to have those properties, but if it is possible, it would still not be an action I'd call the same as in 1.
– jgon
Dec 27 '18 at 1:59
Also your comments now leave me confused as to whether $mathcal{F}$ should be a module on $X$ or $X_L$
– jgon
Dec 27 '18 at 2:00
|
show 5 more comments
Let $X$ be a $K$-scheme and $L vert K$ be a Galois extension with Galois group $G= Gal(L,K)$.
Let consider the base change $X_L := X otimes_K L:= X times_{Spec(K)} Spec(L)$. Since $X_L$ is a $L$-scheme $G$ can act on it.
My problems are following: I see some ways $G$ acting on $X_L$ and on it's structure sheaf but I'm not sure if they all coinside/corelate to each other and why?
- Let $g in G$ then it induce an automorphism $g: Spec(L) to Spec(L)$ and one can define the action of $g$ on $X_L$ via commutative diagram
$$
require{AMScd}
begin{CD}
X_L @>{bar{g}} >> X_L \
@VVprV @VVprV \
Spec(L) @>{g}>> Spec(L);
end{CD}
$$
or sugestively $bar{g}: id_X times g$
- Let $mathcal{F}$ be a $mathcal{O}_{X}$-module.
I heard that $G$ can induce canonically an "$mathcal{O}_{X_L}$-linear-action" on tnduced sheaf $mathscr{F}otimes mathcal{O}_L$ acting on local sections $mathcal{F}(U)$ for open $U$.
How concretely this action is described? Comes it from the same action as in case 1.?
In the sense of local action $(mathcal{F}(U) otimes_K L) ^g = mathcal{F}(U) otimes_K L^g$ ? So only on second summand? Or are these two actions different?
Espesially I don't see how could $G$ act on local sections of an arbitrary $mathcal{O}_{X}$-module $mathcal{F}$.
Futhermore this concept allows to define the so called sub-$mathcal{O}_{X_L}$-module $mathcal{F}^G subset mathcal{F}$ of invariants. But with respect to which action of $G$?
So the main point of my question is if 1. and 2. "generate" the same action and how this action extends to $mathcal{O}_{X_L}$-modules.
Is this exactly THE canonical Galois action on a scheme which in the literature often mentioned but nowhere explicitely described?
algebraic-geometry group-actions schemes
asked Dec 27 '18 at 1:17
KarlPeter
5951315
Let $X$ be a $K$-scheme and $L vert K$ be a Galois extension with Galois group $G= Gal(L,K)$.
Let consider the base change $X_L := X otimes_K L:= X times_{Spec(K)} Spec(L)$. Since $X_L$ is a $L$-scheme $G$ can act on it.
My problems are following: I see some ways $G$ acting on $X_L$ and on it's structure sheaf but I'm not sure if they all coinside/corelate to each other and why?
- Let $g in G$ then it induce an automorphism $g: Spec(L) to Spec(L)$ and one can define the action of $g$ on $X_L$ via commutative diagram
$$
require{AMScd}
begin{CD}
X_L @>{bar{g}} >> X_L \
@VVprV @VVprV \
Spec(L) @>{g}>> Spec(L);
end{CD}
$$
or sugestively $bar{g}: id_X times g$
- Let $mathcal{F}$ be a $mathcal{O}_{X}$-module.
I heard that $G$ can induce canonically an "$mathcal{O}_{X_L}$-linear-action" on tnduced sheaf $mathscr{F}otimes mathcal{O}_L$ acting on local sections $mathcal{F}(U)$ for open $U$.
How concretely this action is described? Comes it from the same action as in case 1.?
In the sense of local action $(mathcal{F}(U) otimes_K L) ^g = mathcal{F}(U) otimes_K L^g$ ? So only on second summand? Or are these two actions different?
Espesially I don't see how could $G$ act on local sections of an arbitrary $mathcal{O}_{X}$-module $mathcal{F}$.
Futhermore this concept allows to define the so called sub-$mathcal{O}_{X_L}$-module $mathcal{F}^G subset mathcal{F}$ of invariants. But with respect to which action of $G$?
So the main point of my question is if 1. and 2. "generate" the same action and how this action extends to $mathcal{O}_{X_L}$-modules.
Is this exactly THE canonical Galois action on a scheme which in the literature often mentioned but nowhere explicitely described?
algebraic-geometry group-actions schemes
algebraic-geometry group-actions schemes
asked Dec 27 '18 at 1:17
KarlPeter
5951315
asked Dec 27 '18 at 1:17
KarlPeter
5951315
edited Dec 27 '18 at 2:14
asked Dec 27 '18 at 1:17
KarlPeter
5951315
asked Dec 27 '18 at 1:17
KarlPeter
5951315
asked Dec 27 '18 at 1:17
KarlPeter
5951315
5951315
Well 1 and 2 act on different things. 1 acts on the scheme $X_L$ by morphisms of schemes, and 2 acts on $mathcal{O}_{X_L}$-modules by morphisms of the same. They certainly aren't the same action thus you may want to ask, instead of whether or not they are the same action, whether each gives rise to the other or something like that.
– jgon
Dec 27 '18 at 1:37
@jgon:Ah sorry, I guess I forgot to explain some detail. If the action from 1. acts on $X_L$ then obviously induce an action on $mathcal{O}_{X_L}$ since the structure sheaf belongs to the data on $X_L$. The question is if the action from 1. then extends from the action on $mathcal{O}_{X_L}$ to arbitrary $mathcal{O}_{X_L}$-module and if it coinside with 2. The thing is that a $mathcal{O}_X$-module $mathcal{F}$ induce locally a $mathcal{O}_{X_L}$-module structure via $mathcal{F}(U) otimes_K L$ and here 1. can induce naively action.
– KarlPeter
Dec 27 '18 at 1:53
The thing is that a $mathcal{O}_X$-module $mathcal{F}$ induce locally a $mathcal{O}_{X_L}$-module structure via $mathcal{F}(U) otimes_K L$ and here 1. can induce naively action.
– KarlPeter
Dec 27 '18 at 1:54
sorry, I guess I wasn't very clear either. My issue with that idea is that in 1 it doesn't preserve open sets (as in $U$ and $gU$ aren't always the same set) (at least I don't think it does) it certainly doesn't preserve points. Also it acts by ring morphisms not module morphisms, so I'm not sure how you'd get the action in 2 to have those properties, but if it is possible, it would still not be an action I'd call the same as in 1.
– jgon
Dec 27 '18 at 1:59
Also your comments now leave me confused as to whether $mathcal{F}$ should be a module on $X$ or $X_L$
– jgon
Dec 27 '18 at 2:00
|
show 5 more comments
Well 1 and 2 act on different things. 1 acts on the scheme $X_L$ by morphisms of schemes, and 2 acts on $mathcal{O}_{X_L}$-modules by morphisms of the same. They certainly aren't the same action thus you may want to ask, instead of whether or not they are the same action, whether each gives rise to the other or something like that.
– jgon
Dec 27 '18 at 1:37
@jgon:Ah sorry, I guess I forgot to explain some detail. If the action from 1. acts on $X_L$ then obviously induce an action on $mathcal{O}_{X_L}$ since the structure sheaf belongs to the data on $X_L$. The question is if the action from 1. then extends from the action on $mathcal{O}_{X_L}$ to arbitrary $mathcal{O}_{X_L}$-module and if it coinside with 2. The thing is that a $mathcal{O}_X$-module $mathcal{F}$ induce locally a $mathcal{O}_{X_L}$-module structure via $mathcal{F}(U) otimes_K L$ and here 1. can induce naively action.
– KarlPeter
Dec 27 '18 at 1:53
The thing is that a $mathcal{O}_X$-module $mathcal{F}$ induce locally a $mathcal{O}_{X_L}$-module structure via $mathcal{F}(U) otimes_K L$ and here 1. can induce naively action.
– KarlPeter
Dec 27 '18 at 1:54
sorry, I guess I wasn't very clear either. My issue with that idea is that in 1 it doesn't preserve open sets (as in $U$ and $gU$ aren't always the same set) (at least I don't think it does) it certainly doesn't preserve points. Also it acts by ring morphisms not module morphisms, so I'm not sure how you'd get the action in 2 to have those properties, but if it is possible, it would still not be an action I'd call the same as in 1.
– jgon
Dec 27 '18 at 1:59
Also your comments now leave me confused as to whether $mathcal{F}$ should be a module on $X$ or $X_L$
– jgon
Dec 27 '18 at 2:00
Well 1 and 2 act on different things. 1 acts on the scheme $X_L$ by morphisms of schemes, and 2 acts on $mathcal{O}_{X_L}$-modules by morphisms of the same. They certainly aren't the same action thus you may want to ask, instead of whether or not they are the same action, whether each gives rise to the other or something like that.
– jgon
Dec 27 '18 at 1:37
Well 1 and 2 act on different things. 1 acts on the scheme $X_L$ by morphisms of schemes, and 2 acts on $mathcal{O}_{X_L}$-modules by morphisms of the same. They certainly aren't the same action thus you may want to ask, instead of whether or not they are the same action, whether each gives rise to the other or something like that.
– jgon
Dec 27 '18 at 1:37
@jgon:Ah sorry, I guess I forgot to explain some detail. If the action from 1. acts on $X_L$ then obviously induce an action on $mathcal{O}_{X_L}$ since the structure sheaf belongs to the data on $X_L$. The question is if the action from 1. then extends from the action on $mathcal{O}_{X_L}$ to arbitrary $mathcal{O}_{X_L}$-module and if it coinside with 2. The thing is that a $mathcal{O}_X$-module $mathcal{F}$ induce locally a $mathcal{O}_{X_L}$-module structure via $mathcal{F}(U) otimes_K L$ and here 1. can induce naively action.
– KarlPeter
Dec 27 '18 at 1:53
@jgon:Ah sorry, I guess I forgot to explain some detail. If the action from 1. acts on $X_L$ then obviously induce an action on $mathcal{O}_{X_L}$ since the structure sheaf belongs to the data on $X_L$. The question is if the action from 1. then extends from the action on $mathcal{O}_{X_L}$ to arbitrary $mathcal{O}_{X_L}$-module and if it coinside with 2. The thing is that a $mathcal{O}_X$-module $mathcal{F}$ induce locally a $mathcal{O}_{X_L}$-module structure via $mathcal{F}(U) otimes_K L$ and here 1. can induce naively action.
– KarlPeter
Dec 27 '18 at 1:53
The thing is that a $mathcal{O}_X$-module $mathcal{F}$ induce locally a $mathcal{O}_{X_L}$-module structure via $mathcal{F}(U) otimes_K L$ and here 1. can induce naively action.
– KarlPeter
Dec 27 '18 at 1:54
The thing is that a $mathcal{O}_X$-module $mathcal{F}$ induce locally a $mathcal{O}_{X_L}$-module structure via $mathcal{F}(U) otimes_K L$ and here 1. can induce naively action.
– KarlPeter
Dec 27 '18 at 1:54
sorry, I guess I wasn't very clear either. My issue with that idea is that in 1 it doesn't preserve open sets (as in $U$ and $gU$ aren't always the same set) (at least I don't think it does) it certainly doesn't preserve points. Also it acts by ring morphisms not module morphisms, so I'm not sure how you'd get the action in 2 to have those properties, but if it is possible, it would still not be an action I'd call the same as in 1.
– jgon
Dec 27 '18 at 1:59
sorry, I guess I wasn't very clear either. My issue with that idea is that in 1 it doesn't preserve open sets (as in $U$ and $gU$ aren't always the same set) (at least I don't think it does) it certainly doesn't preserve points. Also it acts by ring morphisms not module morphisms, so I'm not sure how you'd get the action in 2 to have those properties, but if it is possible, it would still not be an action I'd call the same as in 1.
– jgon
Dec 27 '18 at 1:59
Also your comments now leave me confused as to whether $mathcal{F}$ should be a module on $X$ or $X_L$
– jgon
Dec 27 '18 at 2:00
Also your comments now leave me confused as to whether $mathcal{F}$ should be a module on $X$ or $X_L$
– jgon
Dec 27 '18 at 2:00
|
show 5 more comments
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3053490%2fgalois-action-on-scheme%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3053490%2fgalois-action-on-scheme%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Well 1 and 2 act on different things. 1 acts on the scheme $X_L$ by morphisms of schemes, and 2 acts on $mathcal{O}_{X_L}$-modules by morphisms of the same. They certainly aren't the same action thus you may want to ask, instead of whether or not they are the same action, whether each gives rise to the other or something like that.
– jgon
Dec 27 '18 at 1:37
@jgon:Ah sorry, I guess I forgot to explain some detail. If the action from 1. acts on $X_L$ then obviously induce an action on $mathcal{O}_{X_L}$ since the structure sheaf belongs to the data on $X_L$. The question is if the action from 1. then extends from the action on $mathcal{O}_{X_L}$ to arbitrary $mathcal{O}_{X_L}$-module and if it coinside with 2. The thing is that a $mathcal{O}_X$-module $mathcal{F}$ induce locally a $mathcal{O}_{X_L}$-module structure via $mathcal{F}(U) otimes_K L$ and here 1. can induce naively action.
– KarlPeter
Dec 27 '18 at 1:53
The thing is that a $mathcal{O}_X$-module $mathcal{F}$ induce locally a $mathcal{O}_{X_L}$-module structure via $mathcal{F}(U) otimes_K L$ and here 1. can induce naively action.
– KarlPeter
Dec 27 '18 at 1:54
sorry, I guess I wasn't very clear either. My issue with that idea is that in 1 it doesn't preserve open sets (as in $U$ and $gU$ aren't always the same set) (at least I don't think it does) it certainly doesn't preserve points. Also it acts by ring morphisms not module morphisms, so I'm not sure how you'd get the action in 2 to have those properties, but if it is possible, it would still not be an action I'd call the same as in 1.
– jgon
Dec 27 '18 at 1:59
Also your comments now leave me confused as to whether $mathcal{F}$ should be a module on $X$ or $X_L$
– jgon
Dec 27 '18 at 2:00